House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
The provision of quality accommodation is at the heart of the armed forces covenant. Around 94% of UK service family accommodation is at decent homes standard or above. Only service family accommodation at those standards will be allocated to new occupants. Since April 2016, around 14,500 kitchens, bathrooms, roofs, doors and windows, and some 10,000 new boilers, have been installed.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Minister for that response, but the armed forces continuous attitude survey in 2016 showed a significant drop in satisfaction among those living in service family accommodation—there was a decrease of seven percentage points, to just 50%. Can he assure the House that a further drop in satisfaction will lead to urgent action by the Department?
Mark Lancaster
I can, but equally I am confident that, after the Secretary of State’s intervention last year with CarillionAmey and the introduction of the get well plan, we have seen a significant improvement in satisfaction. That might not yet have filtered down into the survey, but recent stats show that the satisfaction rate on the service from CarillionAmey has risen from 40% to 61%. We take this matter very seriously, which is why I am keeping a close eye on it and am determined that the services standard should continue to improve.
Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress that has been made on the CarillionAmey contract. However, does he agree that continuing to have service family accommodation—the patch, as it is affectionately called—is critical in providing a supportive arrangement for families when their loved ones are away on operations or indeed extended exercises?
Mark Lancaster
What our families really want is choice and support, but I can say to my hon. Friend that only recently I visited Salisbury plain and saw in Tidworth, Larkhill and elsewhere some 1,000 brand- new service family accommodation homes being built, so we take the matter very seriously. I am confident that SFA, as it is referred to, will continue to be provided, and some of those homes really are of an absolute first-rate standard. However, this is about trying to support the modern lifestyle of our service families and the way in which they work.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Mark Lancaster
As I say, it is all about choice. If the hon. Gentleman looks at that survey, he will see that the overwhelming number of young soldiers, sailors and airmen who are yet to be married support the model that we are proposing. We are yet to make any firm decisions. We have reduced the number of options to about seven, on which we are running a business case, but I will keep the House fully informed as we progress.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s comments, but 40,000 members of the armed forces have still not been consulted on the future accommodation model. Among those who have, anxieties remain about whether SFA is still a real option for their families.
Mark Lancaster
I refer back to my earlier comments. Only recently I visited Salisbury plain, where we are building 1,000 new SFA units of an excellent standard. SFA will remain an option, but it is clear that one size does not fit all and that, depending on where one is serving in the United Kingdom, various options will have to be available.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Last November, the National Audit Office reported:
“Poor accommodation for service families is also affecting the morale as well as the recruitment and retention of service personnel.”
In other words, the situation is deplorable. My concern is that only lip service is paid to those real worries. Surely to goodness, warm words and tinkering are not enough. Real action is needed. Why will not the Minister acknowledge that and introduce real improvements quickly?
Mark Lancaster
I am really disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Only last year, some £64 million was invested in service family accommodation. Next year, we will invest some £80 million in service family accommodation. Perhaps, rather than sitting on the green Benches in the Chamber, he would like to take up my offer to come to see some of the new build we are providing for our families on Salisbury plain.
Mark Lancaster
Then here it is—so come rather than sitting on the green Benches and constantly carping.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
When service personnel are on active service abroad, the last thing they need is problems with their domestic arrangements and accommodation at home, so will the Minister ensure that, when service personnel are on active deployment, the accommodation helpline works absolutely perfectly for their partners at home?
Mark Lancaster
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The point at which spouses are overseas on deployment is absolutely the time when we must focus on offering support to their families. I will look very carefully at what he says.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that quality accommodation is central to satisfaction and retention rates, and does he therefore also agree that, having invested a large amount in service accommodation at Dale barracks in Chester, it would be a false economy to now close those barracks?
Mark Lancaster
The driver, of course, for the better defence estate strategy is military capability, but it is important that we have good-quality accommodation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, units will be relocated in his part of the world, and we will look carefully at that.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
I regularly discuss the need to reform NATO with my counterparts, including the new US Secretary of Defence, James Mattis, whom I met at the NATO defence ministerial meeting last month. We want NATO to become a genuinely adaptable alliance that is less bureaucratic, faster and better at making decisions, and able to respond more effectively to a wide range of threats, including cyber, hybrid, and international terrorism.
Caroline Ansell
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. With NATO’s operation in Afghanistan still its most significant, will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to all those who have served? Does he agree that this underlines that NATO has the capability to combat terror and that it will need to do that more?
Sir Michael Fallon
We remember the service and sacrifice of those who fought terrorism in Afghanistan. Our long-term commitment as part of NATO’s Resolute Support mission remains crucial in helping to build the capacity of the Afghan security forces to defend their country. As my hon. Friend implies, it is NATO that has the mandate, the operational experience and the tools to help the fight against international terrorism, and we will continue to push NATO to do more in the middle east and north Africa.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
When the Secretary of State had discussions with his US counterparts, did he talk about NATO’s capability to deal with any threat from Russia in the Baltics and elsewhere?
Sir Michael Fallon
This is the year in which NATO is deploying its enhanced forward presence. I am proud that Britain is leading that deployment in Estonia. The first wave of our troops will leave for Estonia this week, and we will also be deploying in Poland and Romania. The best way to reassure our NATO allies and to deter any Russian aggression is for NATO to stand up.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
It was made clear to us in a recent meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that NATO still has a lot of allies on the hill—on both sides of Congress. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to help them to continue to make their case by Europe stepping up to its commitment to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence?
Sir Michael Fallon
Absolutely. We all made that commitment—the United States, ourselves and the rest of NATO—back at the Wales summit two and a half years ago. We meet the NATO spending target, and we continue to press our other allies to step up to the plate and do so, too.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I push the Secretary of State to tell the House what the Americans are saying about what size NATO should be? That is about not just the percentage of GDP, but how big NATO should be, how that compares with the strength of the Russians, and what we would do if the Russians invaded across some of the countries of Europe.
Mr Speaker
There were three questions, to be responded to with the legendary pithiness of the Secretary of State.
Sir Michael Fallon
The purpose of the alliance is defensive. Of course, the Americans want all its members to make a fairer contribution to its overall standing. The collective nature of our defence has been underlined by the fact that article 5 has been invoked only once before, in favour of the United States.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
The 2016 covenant annual report clearly demonstrates the progress that has been made since the covenant was enshrined in law. Today, I am pleased to announce a new initiative by the main broadband providers: personnel posted to a location not covered by their current provider can now cancel their broadband without incurring any additional fees. I thank BT, EE, Plusnet, TalkTalk, Sky and Virgin Media for their support.
Simon Danczuk
Councillor McCarthy and Rochdale Council go above and beyond when it comes to delivering the armed forces covenant. This includes having a dedicated council officer—Caen Matthews, a former veteran himself—to ensure that those who fought for our country are properly looked after in our town. Will the Minister congratulate Rochdale Council on its success, and will he encourage other councils to follow suit?
Mark Lancaster
I heartily congratulate all those at Rochdale Borough Council—and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman—and thank them for their efforts. They have introduced measures that make a real difference to the armed forces community, ranging from providing practical support to members of our ex-services community seeking social housing to the naming of streets in recognition of local armed forces heroes. I commend the council’s good example to colleagues across the country and wish it well with its continuing work in support of the covenant.
Holly Lynch
Some amazing work is undertaken by the British Legion and other charities in my constituency and across the UK, but the head of SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity, has recently warned that the
“Armed Forces Covenant lacks bite”.
Many local authorities seem to feel that complying with the covenant is an option rather than an obligation. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to reinforce the message of just how essential the covenant is?
Mark Lancaster
I think that there is an acceptance across the House of just how important the covenant is, and I am delighted that every local authority in Great Britain and four in Northern Ireland—has now signed it. Last year, we sent out a survey to try to establish best practice, and we are now moving on to the next stage, in which we will look carefully at those local authorities and other organisations that are not doing what they said they would do, and encourage them to remedy that. Ultimately we could revoke the agreement with them, but I would like to think that we would never get to that stage.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Will the Minister say a bit more about the corporate covenant—the business element of the covenant through which many companies make contributions to help service families and personnel? There has been quite a lot of success in that area.
Mark Lancaster
There has. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have now combined the community covenant and the corporate covenant into the armed forces covenant. I hope that some 1,500 businesses will have signed the covenant by later this week, and that is a testament to British business. It also illustrates the fact that this is a two-way deal, in that the skill sets that we give to our armed forces personnel will ultimately help our businesses as well.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Will the Minister please tell the House how the Department will spend the savings made through the cancellation of the e-bluey contract to improve communications for serving personnel?
Mark Lancaster
Since its peak, the use of e-blueys has reduced by some 98%, meaning that an e-bluey can sometimes cost £17. The service will cease from 1 April, but all the money saved will be reinvested, and there is now nowhere overseas that does not have access to the internet. However, we are looking carefully at this to ensure that nobody will be disadvantaged when the new service is introduced.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
During a recent sitting of the Defence Committee, I shared with the Minister correspondence from the then Health Minister for Northern Ireland, now the leader of Sinn Féin, who pointedly said:
“the Armed Forces Covenant is not in place here”.
What advice and guidance can the Minister give in the face of such intransigence?
Mark Lancaster
We all understand that the armed forces covenant applies throughout the United Kingdom. I appreciate that there are specific challenges in Northern Ireland, and I have already said that I intend to make that a priority for this year. To that end, I shall be visiting Northern Ireland shortly.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
In this year of the Royal Navy, the service is deployed at home and around the globe 365 days a year, protecting national interests and promoting our prosperity. Whether maintaining our continuous at-sea deterrent, providing reassurance to British overseas territories or conducting counter-piracy and counter-narcotics patrols, we will be there when we are needed.
Oliver Colvile
Given that the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that Plymouth will be the centre for the Royal Marines, has my right hon. Friend considered base-porting all the Type 23s in Devonport?
Mike Penning
We will look carefully at this as the new ships come on stream and as we spend £63 billion on the Royal Navy in the next few years. We will ensure that Devonport gets a very good look-in.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am not sure whether the Minister mentioned this, but one of the Royal Navy’s key roles is to meet NATO commitments to protect not just this country but our allies. In that context, will he say whether the new Type 31 frigate will actually be able to meet those NATO commitments?
Mike Penning
I am sure that, when the Type 23 frigate comes in, it certainly will—[Interruption.] Type 31; I apologise. We have extensive NATO commitments around the world: HMS Ocean is just returning from six months in the Gulf and will be in Gibraltar soon; and HMS Daring is down off the strait of Hormuz. As for HMS Dragon, I was woken in the early hours because one of our civilian yachts was in distress with a crew of 14, some of whom were injured, and that Type 45 sailed 500 miles to rescue them. That is exactly what our Navy is for.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mike Penning
We will have new frigates, new submarines, new aircraft carriers, new patrol vessels, and new aircraft to support them—£63 billion of expenditure in the year of the Navy and going forward.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Royal Navy is at the forefront of tackling the migration crisis in the Mediterranean by training the Libyan coastguard. Is it now allowed to enter Libyan waters, as opposed to remaining in international waters, because that is the way to stop the people traffickers sending boats in the first place?
Mike Penning
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly what we have been pressing for along with our coalition colleagues for some time. We have been training the coastguard, and we want to do more, but we cannot enter that area at the moment.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
For some two decades, NATO’s focus has been largely land-based, particularly in Afghanistan, Iraq and other such hot and dusty places. However, we now acknowledge that the threat will increasingly come in the north Atlantic and Arctic, particularly with the reinvention of the Russian “Bastion” concept, and the Royal Navy and NATO will increasingly have to turn their attention back to that area of threat.
Mike Penning
We would all agree that the Royal Navy is capable of doing exactly what we ask it to do. As we are now turning back to eastern Europe, which we thought we had turned away from, with our land and air defences, that is exactly what the Royal Navy will be doing elsewhere.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
We have Royal Navy Astute-class submarines that are too slow to keep up with US carriers. We have no maritime patrol aircraft and await a contract to be signed. We are waiting for the Type 26 contract to be signed and there is also still no sign of the shipbuilding strategy. At a time when Russian incursions into our waters are at cold war levels, does the Minister agree that it is time for the Scottish people to take decisions on how to defend their country?
Mike Penning
If the Scottish people want their armed forces to be run down and demoralised, they should listen to what the hon. Gentleman just said.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Royal Navy has run EUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta successfully for many years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should continue to usefully co-operate with our European neighbours on such things after we leave the European Union?
Mike Penning
We are leaving the European Union; we are not leaving Europe. We will continue to consider all the work that we can do with our European friends.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Last week, there were reports of increased activity in the number of ships moving unchecked through UK waters having deliberately deactivated their tracking system. On one occasion, a Cypriot ship called in at Algeria and then moored off the coast of Islay in my constituency. With that increased level of suspicious activity and Scotland’s proximity to the high north and Arctic, does the Minister believe that a sufficient number of large surface ships are based in Scotland to meet that threat?
Mike Penning
The ships do not have to be based in Scotland—even though an extensive number of ships are based in Scotland—to protect Scotland and the United Kingdom. They are at sea, where they are doing exactly what they should be doing.
Brendan O’Hara
How can the Minister say that ships do not need to be based in Scotland to protect Scotland when the world’s hotspot is the high north and Arctic? Let me ask this again: does the Minister think that having no large Royal Navy surface ships based in Scotland is the best way to protect Scotland, and to meet our obligations to our Nordic neighbours and allies in the high north?
Mike Penning
All our submarines, including those with the nuclear deterrent, which the Scottish National party wants to get rid of, are based in Scotland. Ships at sea is what we need, not ships hiding in ports.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
The Department’s career transition partnership provides a robust and effective system to support service personnel entering the civilian workforce. The CTP provides one-to-one advice and guidance, and training and employment opportunities to about 15,000 service personnel each year.
Chi Onwurah
It is entirely unacceptable that the unemployment rate for veterans should be a third higher than that for non-veterans. Service personnel have told me that they might find it difficult to translate their important experience on the battlefield into the softer skills that industry requires today, such as teamwork, management and communication skills. What is the Minister specifically doing to address that point?
Mark Lancaster
I have no idea where the hon. Lady gets her facts from and I am slightly worried that we seem to be talking veterans down again. As a result of the CTP, some 85% of our service personnel find employment within six months—some 10% higher than the figure for the UK population as a whole.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Service leavers have been highly trained and possess highly transferable skills which add value to any company in the civilian world. What more can be done to ensure that civilian employers understand the value of former service personnel?
Mark Lancaster
This is exactly where the armed forces covenant comes in and it shows why we must be so careful in this House when we seem determined sometimes to talk our veterans down. The sorts of skill sets that they can bring to civilian companies are very valuable, and this is something we absolutely enforce now that some 95% of our recruits join an apprenticeship scheme.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Our veterans are some of the most hard-working, dedicated and experienced men and women any employer could ask for, yet many of us have heard troubling stories of discrimination against former servicemen and women in the jobs market. Does the Minister agree with the Labour party that we should act to make discrimination against the forces community illegal, in order to protect our veterans and service personnel from any prejudice they may face?
Mark Lancaster
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, and could not agree more with his opening comments—perhaps he needs to educate some of his colleagues about that. This is precisely why we have the armed forces covenant. At this early stage, we are trying through that mechanism to ensure that the value of our veterans is fully understood by wider society.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
Ministers have regular discussions with international counterparts on NATO’s 2% of GDP spending target. It is important that all NATO allies meet the 2% commitment they made at the Wales summit in 2014.
Nigel Huddleston
Will the Minister name which NATO allies do not currently spend 2% of GDP on defence? What reasons or excuses have they given for that?
Harriett Baldwin
Listing the 23 that do not spend 2% would take too long, but I reassure my hon. Friend that the five that do meet the target are the United States, the UK, Poland, Greece and Estonia. I am sure he can deduce from that the absentees.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Harriett Baldwin
With the greatest respect, we think it is incredibly important that all NATO members, who share joint responsibility for the defence of the alliance, committed at the NATO conference in Wales in 2014 to spend 2% of GDP. We welcome the fact that eight further countries are now on a clear trajectory to meet that target, and Ministers from across all Departments continue to have discussions to encourage them to reach it.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Harriett Baldwin
I reassure my hon. Friend that there has been progress. Five countries now meet the 2% target, up from three in 2014; 10 countries now meet the 20% pledge on major equipment and research; and the cuts to defence spending overall have been halted. I am sure, though, that everyone would agree with the sentiment he expressed: we cannot reiterate too often that we hope everyone will reach the 2% pledge soon.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Last month, the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded that the Government have in fact missed the 2% NATO defence spending target, and that they would have missed it by even more had they not included budgetary headings such as pensions, which do not contribute to our defence capabilities and were not included when Labour was in government. Is it not time that we went back to the criteria used for defence spending when the Labour party was in power so that we may give our armed forces the resources they need?
Harriett Baldwin
Well, honestly, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Defence Committee’s report, which
“commends the UK Government’s commitment to UK defence and finds that its accounting criteria fall firmly within existing NATO guidelines”—
as does NATO itself. It would be worrying if we were to follow his party leader, who wants to see cuts to defence spending, the abandonment of our NATO allies and the scrapping of the nuclear deterrent.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I helpfully suggest to the Minister that one way she could avoid these arguments about whether we have or have not scraped over the 2% line is to recognise that the last time we faced threats like those we face today was the 1980s, when we used to spend between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence? Let us settle for 3% so that we can avoid this sort of argument.
Harriett Baldwin
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s campaign. We are proud of the fact that we are spending substantially more than the 2% target; that we have a growing defence budget for the first time in many years; and that we are on track to have a £178 billion equipment plan over the next decade.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
Iraqi forces continue to make good progress against Daesh. East Mosul was freed in January; west Mosul operations are on track. Yesterday, RAF Typhoons supported the Iraqi forces in Mosul by demolishing a Daesh base. Syrian Democratic Forces are less than 10 km from Daesh’s stronghold in Raqqa, backed by RAF strikes, including one yesterday on a large Daesh headquarters.
Wendy Morton
Given the growing success in Iraq, will my right hon. Friend confirm that British forces and the coalition will continue to maintain pressure on Daesh in Syria and develop plans to liberate its other HQ in Raqqa?
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes, we need to keep up the pressure on both. With coalition help, Syrian Democratic Forces are making good progress in operations to isolate Raqqa. Senior coalition officers, including some from the UK, are now working on how the coalition might best support the liberation of Raqqa. They are visiting coalition sites in northern Syria as needed to co-ordinate coalition support and to engage partner forces.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
There have been recent reports from Iraq of mass graves being uncovered in territory formerly held by Daesh, including the discovery of 4,000 bodies at al-Khasfa, near Mosul. What support is the Ministry of Defence offering the Iraqi Government to ensure that the foul perpetrators are brought to justice swiftly?
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes, in the counter-Daesh coalition we are working to see how we can accumulate the evidence so that those from Daesh who may have committed the most heinous of crimes can properly be brought to justice, either in Iraq or, indeed, elsewhere.
David Mackintosh
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on how the coalition is monitoring the dispersal of Daesh fighters from Iraq who may be moving to other theatres?
Sir Michael Fallon
We work with other countries in the region to co-ordinate efforts to manage the threat posed by the dispersal of foreign fighters from Iraq and Syria. Around 30,000 to 40,000 extremists from around the world have travelled to Syria and Iraq since 2011. Many will be killed in combat or will relocate to other Daesh-held areas. Our current assessment is that a large-scale dispersal is unlikely.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Sir Michael Fallon
Let me make it very clear that the Royal Air Force, in its precision air strikes, makes every effort to minimise the risk of civilian casualties. We work very closely with organisations such as Airwars. Where there are allegations that civilians have died as a result of coalition air strikes, we want those allegations fully investigated.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that we are doing everything possible to help local indigenous forces on the ground with the liberation of Mosul and the defeat of Daesh, not only in relation to equipment and ammunition, but with regard to access to medical care, protective equipment such as helmets and body armour, and getting the right supplies and expertise for their wounded?
Sir Michael Fallon
Let me give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am proud that British forces have trained nearly 40,000 Iraqi and Kurdish troops over the past couple of years. Much of that training has been devoted to reducing the number of casualties that those troops are likely to have to face in operations in the Euphrates river valley and operations to liberate Mosul, and is exactly along the lines that he suggests.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
We have obviously seen significant success in Mosul in recent months, and I am sure that the whole House joins me in sending our prayers and gratitude to those serving in our forces, but can you tell us what lessons we are learning from our success in Mosul, so that we can apply them effectively to the battle in Raqqa?
Sir Michael Fallon
I shall do my best, Mr Speaker. The campaign in Mosul is particularly complicated. West Mosul, in particular, is a very densely urban area—it is twice the density of east Mosul—so precision strikes in support of ground forces are all the more difficult for coalition aircraft, but as the campaign goes on, the use of precision air power and the training that the Iraqi forces have received make it more and more likely that they will, in the end, be successful, both in Iraq and, later on, in Syria.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What can be done to ensure that liberated Sunni communities can be embraced by the political economy of Iraq?
Sir Michael Fallon
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to stabilise these areas as quickly as possible—again, not simply by giving them access to essential services, but by encouraging a process of political reconciliation that ensures that in the Sunni areas, particularly in the Nineveh and Anbar provinces, the Sunnis feel that they have a sufficient stake in the future development of Iraq. I have made that point to the Prime Minister of Iraq and its President, and to the coalition commanders.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Have the UK Government received any requests from their allies in the fight against Daesh to deploy ground troops in and around Raqqa? Can the Secretary of State confirm that, if that request came in, Parliament would have an opportunity to vote on the matter?
Sir Michael Fallon
I have been clear with the House that we are not committing combat troops to Syria. I referred to the presence there of some coalition commanders, who have been assessing the situation on the ground, but we are not committing combat troops to the fight in Syria, and if we were to do so, of course we would come back to Parliament.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm the importance that we place on our defence co-operation with the Egyptian Government, and pledge further support to Egypt as it seeks to contain the Daesh threat in north Africa and Sinai?
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes, I can confirm that. I met General Hegazy, the chief of the defence staff of Egypt, on his recent visit to this country. Of course, Egypt has a big part to play in ensuring that the different factions and loyalties in Libya can be brought together for a political settlement in that country.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
On my recent visit to Cyprus, I was privileged to meet the dedicated RAF crews who work night and day to keep up the fight against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. I am concerned that there is currently no specific medal to recognise the dedication and bravery of the servicemen and women on Operation Shader. In doing their duty, these men and women are protecting UK citizens from the threat posed by Daesh as well as defending civilians in the region. Will the Secretary of State now commit to recognising their service with a specific Operation Shader medal?
Sir Michael Fallon
I am glad that the hon. Lady had a successful visit to our forces in Cyprus. I am sure that the whole House will join her in recognising and thanking our brave servicemen and women, who have contributed tirelessly to this campaign for more than two and a half years. The operational recognition board at our permanent joint headquarters is keeping the issue of the medal under review. As soon as a decision is made on the appropriate medallic recognition for Operation Shader, an announcement will be made to this House.
Nia Griffith
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. It is heartening to see the real progress that is being made to liberate Mosul and the role that our forces are playing in that, and yet we know that it is only part of a wider campaign to eradicate Daesh in the region. As the focus will soon turn to Syria, where there are considerably greater challenges, will he tell us in greater detail what role he expects the RAF to play in the battle for Raqqa and other Daesh strongholds?
Sir Michael Fallon
It is important to recognise that Daesh has lost a considerable amount of territory in Syria as well as in Iraq, not least due to the efforts of the coalition air operation in which the RAF is playing a major part in gathering intelligence and carrying out precision strikes, as recently as yesterday in the area immediately surrounding Raqqa. We will continue to play that part, providing precision air strikes, gathering intelligence from the air and doing what we can to ensure that Daesh is driven out of Syria, as I hope it will shortly be driven out of Iraq.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
The 2015 national security strategy strengthens the historic role of the Royal Navy in promoting our national prosperity. Royal Navy ships are deployed today around the globe, from the Falklands to the Gulf and the Caribbean, supporting the UK’s economic interests.
Michael Fabricant
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. I believe that she was waving the flag for Britain and our exports with HMS Penzance in Abu Dhabi recently. Does she agree that it is about not just protecting our seaways, but waving the flag and promoting Britain and our exports, particularly those from the west midlands?
Harriett Baldwin
Indeed, I was delighted to be welcomed on board HMS Penzance in Abu Dhabi and to thank the crew for the valuable contribution they are making in mine counter-measures. The Royal Navy will deploy ships to various ports throughout 2017. Only last week, HMS Ocean visited Beirut where the ship acted as a showcase for British industry—indeed midlands industry—including Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
When the United Kingdom leaves the EU in two years’ time, our military commitments are likely to increase. Will my hon. Friend assure me that we will have enough Royal Navy ships to ensure that our commitments on our shores, on our trade routes, to our dependants and to NATO are met?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the Royal Navy. Of course, 2017 is the year of the Royal Navy as it prepares to welcome the new aircraft carriers, submarines, frigates, offshore patrol vessels and the aircrafts from which to fly.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
The Ministry of Defence is conducting a series of detailed assessments at affected sites, which is expected to take 12 to 18 months to complete. The assessments will more precisely define the exact moves, but good progress is being made.
Mark Lancaster
The disposal of land has to follow Treasury guidelines, but I am delighted that Angus Council has expressed an interest in purchasing the land at RM Condor in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I am equally delighted that progress will continue on Thursday, when Defence Infrastructure Organisation officials will meet council officials.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
What consideration has been given to the use of the Ballykinler site in Northern Ireland for social housing or housing for veterans?
Mark Lancaster
There have recently been discussions about the potential use of the accommodation at that site, and those discussions will continue.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is, of course, also a doctor. That fact was erroneously not reflected on the Order Paper. I hope that will not happen again. I call Dr Caroline Johnson.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
In 2015, the Government committed £50 million to increase the number of cadet units in the UK state school sector under the cadet expansion programme. This joint Ministry of Defence and Department for Education project targets areas of social and economic deprivation, and is on target to hit 500 cadet units in schools by 2020.
Dr Johnson
The Lincolnshire Army Cadet Force does valuable work with young people, particularly the Two Squadron detachment based in Sleaford. I am delighted that so many people in the county have the chance to become a cadet, but that is not the case everywhere. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will prioritise the approval of new units in areas where young people do not have the opportunity to become a cadet?
Mike Penning
I declare an interest in that I was an air cadet and an Army cadet before I joined the armed forces many, many years ago. St George’s Academy—a comprehensive school—in my hon. Friend’s constituency has expressed an interest, and we hope to give the school an indication of whether that has been approved in the autumn.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
“A Better Defence Estate” is a military-led review. This estate optimisation strategy was developed in consultation with senior military officers to optimise defence infrastructure to better support military capability. The MOD has engaged with, and will continue to engage with, local authorities in order to maximise and enhance local economic development as well as value for money for defence.
Rachael Maskell
“A Better Defence Estate” will result in more than 500 civilian and contractor jobs lost in York, where the local economy is already struggling with low wages and job losses. Why is the Minister not following joint service publication 507, which determines that an economic and social impact assessment has to take place first? Will he work across Government to ensure that we can secure jobs in York?
Mark Lancaster
Let us be clear that the site the hon. Lady mentions is due for disposal in some 14 years’ time in 2031. We will be following all due process. The economic impact assessment is as much a useful document for the local authority to see what gaps there may be as a result of the estate being closed, so that we can work closely with the local authority to see how we can move forward.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Further to my meeting with the Minister last week regarding housing at Ballykinler Army camp, and further to the question of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), will the Minister detail the nature of the further discussions he mentioned? What detail will be provided to ensure that those houses are released to meet unmet housing need?
Mark Lancaster
With respect to the hon. Lady, we discussed this in detail last week, so I will simply do as I said I would in that meeting and write to her in due course.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
I have regular discussions with the Chancellor. The 2015 spending review set out spending plans for the remainder of this Parliament. The Chancellor confirmed last Wednesday that the Government are committed to growing the defence budget at 0.5% above inflation each year until 2020-21. We also have access to the joint security fund. With these commitments, the defence budget will rise from £35 billion this year to almost £40 billion by the end of this Parliament.
Nick Smith
Why does the Government’s defence spending return to NATO include more than £1 billion of war and civilian pensions? These do not contribute to our defence and were not included under a Labour Government. Concern over these accounting tricks undermines confidence in our defence spending targets.
Sir Michael Fallon
The return we make to NATO captures all the spending that falls to the defence budget, and it is for NATO to decide whether that return is properly completed. Indeed, a Committee of this House found that the
“accounting criteria fall firmly within existing NATO guidelines.”
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
As part of an ongoing programme, all land that is surplus to defence requirements is sold in accordance with the guidelines set by the Treasury. This release of sites supports the Department’s contribution to the Government’s public sector land release target to reduce the housing deficit or contribute to economic development.
Rebecca Harris
I appreciate that some people will be concerned about the release of some MOD land, but does my hon. Friend agree that, for anyone who is anxious to have a home of their own or who needs new business premises, it often cannot come quickly enough?
Mark Lancaster
Indeed. I would point the House to the recent sale of the Hullavington site, which I was delighted was bought by Sir James Dyson. While it may not be going directly to housing, it will become the Dyson global research and development hub, which will bring much-needed economic development to the area.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Sir Michael Fallon)
My priorities remain operations against Daesh and implementing our strategic defence review.
Last Thursday, Her Majesty the Queen unveiled a monument to the service and sacrifice of our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. For too long, those troops faced false allegations made by Mr Phil Shiner, and my Department supplied evidence that finally saw him struck off last month. I am therefore now pleased to confirm that the Iraq Historic Allegations Team will close by the summer.
Neil Carmichael
Does Sweden’s announcing that it plans on reintroducing conscription signal an awareness in countries such as Sweden that there is an increasing problem from Russia and elsewhere, and should that be translated into an argument for spending 2% of GDP on defence?
Sir Michael Fallon
Well, yes. Europe faces a wide range of threats, including those from Russian aggression and international terrorism. European nations need the capabilities to respond and the funding to provide those capabilities. I reminded a meeting of EU Foreign and Defence Ministers last week of the importance of all of us who are members of NATO meeting that NATO spending target.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The outsourcing of public services frequently results in lower levels of staffing, less continuity, less training and less vetting. Given that the MOD Guard Service was set up in the wake of the 1989 bombing of the Royal Marines building at Deal, when 11 marines died, and that failures by a private security firm were identified, will the Government recognise the sensitivity of the work done by the MOD guards and abandon plans to privatise the service?
Sir Michael Fallon
Let me make it clear to the hon. Lady that we are currently considering the options for the future provision of an effective unarmed guarding service throughout the United Kingdom, which, at the moment, is being provided by a multiplicity of different services. The aim is to achieve maximum value for money to ensure that we can focus resources on military capability, but security remains a priority, and no decisions will be made that would compromise the security of our personnel, our information or our physical assets.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Sir Michael Fallon
This House has a long history of supporting our armed forces as they serve and protect our country and our allies. I am obviously disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has described this week’s defensive deployments to Estonia and Poland as escalatory, and I hope the shadow Defence Secretary will take this opportunity to condemn those remarks today.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)
The best message we can send to that unit—I know the hon. Gentleman will do this with me—is that it is one of the best units in the British Army. I have visited it on operations literally around the world. We will support it all the way through. At the same time, we must get the best estates for the best parts of the Army.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Mike Penning
Thirty-five years on, we not only continue but will enhance the protection of the Falkland Islands. I know that many colleagues from the House have visited the Falklands recently and seen the excellent work that our armed forces do far away from home. We will continue to support that with the Typhoons, the Rapier, and the other battalions that are there now.[Official Report, 14 March 2017, Vol. 623, c. 4MC.]
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
Of course we want UK steel to be used wherever possible. That is why last year we published the full pipeline of steel that we will need across the whole of Government. We work with our suppliers to encourage them to use British steel producers, where available, in that pipeline.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
At Defence questions on 30 January, I asked the Minister how many people were currently working in defence procurement and what plans the Government have to reduce that number. She subsequently wrote to me to say that 11,500 people are currently working in procurement. Given that this equates to 149 people per ship in the Royal Navy, 14 people per aircraft in the Royal Air Force and one person per seven soldiers, will she now say what steps the Government are going to take to reduce this extremely large number?
Harriett Baldwin
I would like to emphasise to my hon. Friend that a lot of those people will in fact be uniformed. What often happens is that they rotate through the teams that are involved in procurement because there is no one better than our uniformed personnel to decide on the requirements that are needed. However, he is absolutely right that they are not immune to the need, across the whole of defence, to continue to find ways to spend more efficiently.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Mike Penning
Yet again Scottish National party Members want to run down the Royal Navy and the fantastic work it is doing. What is important is whether the Navy is there and whether our submarines are there. They are, and this is exactly what the Navy will be expected to do.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, the two largest warships ever procured for the Royal Navy, are currently being built and fitted out in Scotland. As Scotland is much in the news today, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to remind the House of the great defence benefits there are in Scotland remaining part of our United Kingdom?
Sir Michael Fallon
Yes. I visited both carriers last week. This will be a huge asset for the Royal Navy and for this country. Let us be very clear: Scotland is getting all the Royal Navy’s submarines, a major Army base is growing at Leuchars, and there is huge investment at Lossiemouth with an additional Typhoon squadron and the deployment of our new maritime patrol aircraft. Scotland plays a huge part in the defence of the United Kingdom.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
I am pleased to say that we remain ahead of target in recruiting our reserves. The key to retention—I declare my hand as a serving reservist—is to make sure that we continue to offer interesting and exciting opportunities and training in the reserves, and we aim to do that.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The Saudi-led Islamic military alliance to defeat Daesh has grown from 34 to 40 members. The role of Islamic countries in defeating Daesh, especially its poisonous ideology, is absolutely key. What update does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have from the Saudis on the progress made by the Saudi coalition?
Sir Michael Fallon
We welcome the role that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has taken in leading the effort to discredit the so-called ideology of Daesh. We, too, are leading work on strategic communications, and we recently hosted the very latest coalition conference, which brings together all our international efforts. I am particularly pleased that this campaign is being strengthened by the commitment of Saudi Arabia to rid this religion of its appalling extremism.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Harriett Baldwin
We are committed to building Type 26 frigates, and that forms part of the pipeline of defence procurement where we are going to need steel. Our main supplier is running a competition in which I believe five UK firms are participating.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Did Ministers see the evidence given to the Select Committee on Defence last Tuesday by four eminent professors of law, indicating that there is no legal reason why a statute of limitations cannot be brought forward to prevent the hounding of our service personnel for pre-Belfast-agreement-related matters? Will Ministers work with the Committee by giving evidence to us that might enable such a statute to be brought forward?
Sir Michael Fallon
We have indeed been following the proceedings of my right hon. Friend’s Committee with close interest. We want any legacy investigations in Northern Ireland to be fair, balanced and proportionate, given that 90% of the deaths there were caused by terrorists, not by members of the security forces. We would also not want to see cases reopened unless there is new and credible evidence to do so.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Mark Lancaster
No, which is precisely why we invested £60 million last year and will invest £84 million this year to ensure that our service personnel’s accommodation is very good. It is also why service personnel are not allowed to go into any new service family accommodation home that does not meet the decent homes standard.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Carterton in my constituency has a large amount of Royal Air Force housing and land that will be available for much-needed housing. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss ways in which the land can be released for that urgently needed housing?
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
What discussions has the Defence Secretary had with the US Government about the announcement over the weekend of the deployment of hundreds of US marines to northern Syria, what their purpose is and what co-operation will take place between us and the Americans with respect to that deployment?
Sir Michael Fallon
I reviewed the campaign in Syria with the United States Defence Secretary at our meeting in Brussels a couple of weeks ago. We are not deploying combat troops to this particular campaign in Syria, but the United States is committing more support forces and working as part of the international coalition to ensure that the Syrian Democratic Forces have all the assistance and advice they need.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the deep maintenance and repair of the engines of all British F-35 fighters will be done in Turkey, and what, if any, security issues arise from this rather strange decision?
Harriett Baldwin
I will follow this up with the hon. Gentleman, but I can confirm—I am sure he shares my delight—that north Wales has been selected for the global hub outside the US for all the maintenance and repair of the avionics.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will have seen reports of armed drones operated from RAF Waddington with a kill list targeting UK citizens. If those reports are right, what happened to the commitment to come to the House at the earliest opportunity if lethal force was used in self-defence, and does the kill list extend beyond geographical areas where military action has been authorised by this House?
Sir Michael Fallon
Let me just make it clear to the hon. Lady and to the House that those involved in supporting Daesh in Iraq and in Syria are certainly liable to be killed by coalition forces, and those who pose a very direct threat to this country are also likely, if there is no other way of forestalling that threat, to be targeted.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
According to the National Audit Office, even if the defence estate strategy was implemented in full, we would still have an £8.5 billion budget shortfall caused by the deterioration of the estate. Is the strategy fit for purpose?
Mark Lancaster
The strategy is absolutely fit for purpose, and it is based on delivering military capability. Reducing the estate by some 30% means that we have less estate to look after, and that we can reinvest some £4 billion over the next 20 years.[Official Report, 16 March 2017, Vol. 623, c. 8MC.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We must move on.
Before I take points of order, I am pleased to inform the House that we are being visited today by the Catholic Archbishop of Yangon in Burma, a country with which, as colleagues will know, we have a programme of parliamentary capacity building. It is a delight to see Cardinal Charles Bo viewing our proceedings today. It is the second time he has come in recent months—he clearly cannot get enough of us—and I am sure colleagues will want to impress the great man with the decency of their behaviour.
Points of Order
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance about the convention that Members should notify each other when they visit their constituencies. On the way to my surgery on Saturday morning, I came out of Hillhead subway station and met a bunch of very drookit-looking Labour supporters, and when I asked them whether they were waiting for someone special, they said no. However, at the end of my surgery, I read on social media that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, had in fact visited that street and undertaken a walkabout. I had received absolutely no notification of that. I understand that an email was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), but he was not in Glasgow Central.
Mr Speaker
I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The details of the particular tribulations that afflicted him in the course of an obviously very busy and hectic weekend are of grave concern to the hon. Gentleman, but possibly not to every Member of the House in equal measure. There is a convention that Members should notify each other of their intention to visit their constituencies, and he is perfectly justified in drawing attention to it, although I am not entirely sure that his timing in doing so at this point was perfect.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 11 March, the UN declared that the world faces the largest humanitarian crisis since 1945. More than 20 million people in South Sudan, north-east Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen face famine and starvation. Without a collective global effort, people will simply starve to death. My question to you is: have you received notice from the Secretary of State for International Development of when a written or oral statement will be made in the House so that we can discuss this urgent matter?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is no. I have received no indication of any intention on the part of the Secretary of State for International Development or one of her Ministers that they wish to come to the House to communicate on this subject. However, I am sure the hon. Lady’s point will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench on what, as she says, is an extremely important and very pressing matter. No doubt she will use her ingenuity in the coming days and weeks to find ways in which to ventilate the subject.
Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations)
Monday 13th March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill 2016-17 View all Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
15:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 172 / Noes: 142 - Question accordingly agreed to.
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the termination of pregnancies by medical practitioners and to repeal certain criminal offences relating to such terminations; and for connected purposes.
In England and Wales, women have a legal route to an abortion through the Abortion Act 1967, introduced by David Steel as a private Member’s Bill, but 50 years on it is right that the House has the chance to address one fundamental issue that the Act did not address. Abortion remains a criminal offence in this country, even if it is carried out early in the term, for the woman who has the abortion and anyone who assists her. Under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 and other legislation, termination of a pregnancy carries the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. That is the harshest criminal penalty of any country in Europe, underpinned by a Victorian criminal law passed before women even had the right to vote, let alone sit in this place.
The Abortion Act 1967 did not change the fundamental fact: it merely set out circumstances under which abortion could be legal—for example, the need for two doctors’ signatures that specified conditions have been met, including a time limit now set at 24 weeks and, in exceptional circumstances, the conditions for abortions post-24 weeks. Unlike in other countries, that means that abortion remains illegal except in the limited circumstances in the Act. No other medical procedure is governed by legislation that old or that out of step with clinical developments and changing attitudes.
I want the House to reflect on the following comments from women who have sought help from online organisations to buy abortion tablets—something that no one would have imagined in 1967, let alone 1861—as, in so doing, they are committing criminal offences under the 1861 Act. The first woman says:
“I live in rural England and have no friends and the relatives I have I am not close to. I was hoping to have a termination in the comfort of my own home without judgmental eyes and without worrying about my husband knowing. I fear what would happen if he did. I have 3 children and my 3rd is 11 months old. I considered an abortion when he was conceived and had a terrible pregnancy and am still suffering from post natal depression. I will try to seek help, anonymously if possible. I’m in great need of help.”
Another woman says:
“I have visited my GP last week and he referred me to my local NHS service. They can only offer me a medical abortion with three visits to the hospital on separate days. On the second visit I am expected to stay there all day. I work full time and have two young sons so getting all that time off and childcare is going to be very difficult, probably impossible.”
Dr Rebecca Gomperts, the director of Women on Web, said about English women seeking help online:
“Yes, we get them all the time. We had an Islamic girl forbidden from leaving the house without a chaperone. How is she going to get to an abortion clinic? She can’t. For her, her only option might be that she could get the medicine sent to her by post.”
Due to the accessibility of medication now available online, women are more than ever before at risk of breaking the law, and a few prosecutions have already happened. I wonder if any of us truly believe that those women, in such difficult circumstances, really should be seen as criminals. Let me be clear that decriminalisation will not mean deregulation. Parliament can decide to retain existing safeguards within a decriminalised environment, including the existing time limit of 24 weeks. Abortion would remain subject to the same complex mass of general, criminal, civil, administrative and other legal provisions that govern all medical procedures.
I ask that hon. Members also consider the fact that Poland, a traditionally Catholic country, does not criminalise women for having an abortion, and even the United States has not criminalised women for having an abortion since the Supreme Court judgment in 1973. When the current US President suggested last year that women should be punished for having abortions, he was forced to backtrack after the public outcry.
In proposing the Bill, I want to thank the many individuals and organisations that have helped me along the way, including the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Abortion Rights and, particularly, Professor Sally Sheldon at the University of Kent law school.
I want to address specifically the concerns about decriminalisation. I want to be clear about what this Bill will and will not do. First, decriminalisation will not make it easier to access abortions post-24 weeks. Under the 1967 Act, abortions beyond 24 weeks are allowed only in exceptional circumstances—if, for example, the mother’s life is at risk. The decriminalisation can apply these exact same conditions, and we know from countries that have already decriminalised, such as Canada and parts of Australia, that there is no evidence of an increase in late-term abortions.
Secondly, decriminalisation will not lead to a free-for-all with unlicensed practitioners providing abortions; as now, there will be strict regulation and licensing of health professionals. For example, both of the pills most commonly used in medical abortions are prescription only. That means they are covered under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which make it illegal to supply such drugs without a prescription. So with decriminalisation, Parliament would need to have an evidence-based debate about what kind of abortion provision up to 24 weeks would be in the best interests of women and agree appropriate safeguards.
Finally, decriminalisation will not permit gender-selective or non-consensual abortions. Some opponents of decriminalisation argue that the only way we can restrict these practices is to apply criminal law to everyone. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that it is well within the capacity of this House to find a better way forward that does not criminalise all women and all practitioners. Let me be clear that under current law, women cannot obtain an abortion on grounds of the gender of the child. With decriminalisation, professional bodies that are best placed to take action can continue to prohibit this as a ground for abortion. It is worth pointing out that the current law does nothing about those who try to coerce women in those circumstances. On the issue of non-consensual abortions, such as when a man assaults a pregnant woman, these would continue to be criminalised under other laws such as grievous bodily harm.
Now that all these potential objections are addressed, hon. Members can be left to ask themselves the fundamental question that gets to the heart of what my Bill is about: should abortion be an inherently criminal act, punishable by up to life imprisonment? In asking themselves this question, I hope hon. Members will bear in mind the vulnerable women who are ill served by our current laws and whether their care is now being compromised. There is also evidence that doctors are thinking twice about practising in this area of women’s healthcare because of the threat of criminalisation. We do not use these laws for any other medical practices, so why do we do it for abortion? This is one of the many reasons why a range of expert groups, including the Royal College of Midwives and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, support decriminalisation.
I hope that hon. Members will, like me, conclude that the criminalisation of abortion suits nobody. Women are poorly served by laws that state that even early-term abortions are inherently criminal, and doctors are poorly served by a criminal framework that does not apply to other areas of healthcare. We should create an environment in which the stigma of the criminal law is removed and in which women can come forward for advice and high-quality, woman-centred healthcare as early as possible in a pregnancy. I hope that hon. Members will join me in saying that in England and Wales in the 21st century, abortion should no longer be considered a criminal offence, and that the 1861 Act is now obsolete and no longer fit for purpose in this century.
In closing, I would like to repeat an observation on decriminalisation, which has, as I stated earlier, taken place in some Australian states. The quotation is this: the decriminalisation has resulted in
“a profound shift in the relationship between the state and its female citizens. It changes both nothing and everything. Nothing, because the number, rate and incidence of abortion will not change. And everything, because for the first time women will be recognised as the authors of our own lives. With that comes our full citizenship.”
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Ten minutes is too short a time to cover the many and serious issues surrounding the premise, content and implications of this Bill. In the time available, I will outline some of the central problems with it. Far from being progressive, the Bill would be a charter for unsafe abortion practices, not dissimilar to the back-street abortions that the Abortion Act 1967 was supposedly meant to end.
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for giving the House an opportunity to debate, briefly, an important area of policy. Too often today, debates about abortion—about the risks involved and the rights of the unborn child—are shut down; but I, and many colleagues who share my views, will not be silenced as we seek to be a voice for the voiceless, and as we argue for more modern and humane abortion law that upholds not only the dignity and rights of women but the dignity and rights of the unborn child.
I am against the Bill first because it is based on the false premise that women who seek ordinary abortions are living under the constant shadow of arrest. That is clearly not the case. The rhetoric surrounding the Bill may alarm Members, but let us look at the actual facts. Abortion is widely available under the terms of the Abortion Act. Prosecutions are exceptionally rare—in many years there have been none at all—and in the past two years there were just two convictions, both of them in extreme and disturbing scenarios. One involved a man who had attacked a pregnant woman and caused her to miscarry. That prosecution is an example of the current law seeking to stand up for a woman and punish someone who has committed a terrible crime against her and her unborn child. The Bill may make it harder to prosecute that man in the future. What an unjust and regressive change—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) was heard with courtesy. The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) must also be heard, and with equal courtesy.
Maria Caulfield
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The hon. Lady cited the possibility of the growing availability of abortion pills as a reason to seek to liberalise the law, but if availability is increasing, that should motivate greater concern for women’s safety and health, and make us more wary of further liberalisation of the law. Abortion is still a major and often risky procedure for the woman involved. If abortion pills can be so easily bought over the internet—perhaps by an abusive boyfriend or husband—that should lead us to take steps to protect young and vulnerable women from those potentially dangerous products.
Take the young teenager, terrified to discover that she is pregnant, who googles “abortion pills” online. What she needs are not fewer legal safeguards but support and information, which the Bill would take away. By repealing sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, on the basis of which the Abortion Act was constructed, it would make the Abortion Act, with its safeguards, obsolete and unenforceable. It would leave that young teenage girl less safe.
Take, for example, the requirement that two doctors must certify an abortion, which the Bill would remove. For a woman deciding what to do following an unplanned pregnancy, those conversations with a doctor can be important and safe opportunities to discuss the situation, and to make more informed decisions about the medical options and risks of a major and invasive procedure. What is more, they can give a woman in an abusive relationship what may be her only chance to speak to someone about the pressure that she has been put under to abort a child whom she may want to keep. Why should we take that opportunity away from women?
The campaign behind the Bill claims “We Trust Women”, but polling in 2014 showed that 92% of women believed that a pregnant woman should always be seen in person by a qualified doctor. Far from trusting women, the campaign seeks to change a central aspect of abortion provision in the United Kingdom, in direct opposition to the vast majority of British women’s views. Proponents of the Bill claim to be pro-choice, but, as has been the case again and again in recent years, they seem to be firmly against helping women to make informed choices. Regardless of the issue and regardless of the facts, the only answer that they have is to liberalise the law.
This Bill would not protect women. Instead, it would embolden those men who pressurise women into abortions that they do not wish to have. Whether it is a controlling relationship or wider communal discrimination and pressure that tell a woman that she must abort a child because it is a girl, because it has Down’s syndrome or because it has a disability, the Bill would make such women more vulnerable. One professor of medical law and ethics wrote to MPs last week saying that
“if section 58 were to be repealed, it is far from obvious that even the surreptitious administration of abortion pills to women would necessarily continue to constitute an offence.”
Indeed, by undermining all the safeguards and regulations on abortion up to 24 weeks, the Bill would become a charter for extreme abortion practices such as sex-selective abortions. Polling among women shows that 88% favour an explicit ban on sex-selective abortion, yet many of the organisations behind the Bill oppose that ban and the hon. Lady herself voted against a ban in 2015. So much for trusting women. One of the models mentioned today points to a Canadian law that has, according to the Canadian Medical Association Journal, turned Canada into
“a haven for parents who would terminate female fetuses in favour of having sons”.
Another model was mentioned—the law in Victoria, Australia, which has led to a reported 600% increase in late-term abortions in one hospital in just a two-year period. Is that something to celebrate or copy? Many UK midwives have spoken out against the Bill, with thousands joining the Not In Our Name campaign to stop it becoming law.
That brings me to the current state of the abortion industry in the UK. I am amazed that the Bill’s backers, including private abortion providers, have the gall to propose these changes, which would remove regulations at a time when the UK abortion industry is knee-deep in revelations of unethical, unsafe and unprofessional practices. In recent years, we have seen doctors pre-signing bulk abortion forms and offering sex-selective abortions. We have seen live babies being left to die following abortions that have gone wrong. We have seen children aborted just for possessing minor disabilities such as a cleft palate or a club foot. Last year, the Care Quality Commission had to step in to protect women from potential harm at Marie Stopes abortion facilities. The CQC’s subsequent report showed that women were left at risk of infection, staff were not trained in how to respond to deteriorating patients and post-surgery checks were completed before surgery had even started. Only last week, another exposé of Marie Stopes International revealed that abortions were being approved on the basis of telephone calls as short as 22 seconds with medically untrained call centre workers. No wonder these abortion providers are calling for a Bill that would get rid of the regulations and safeguards in the Abortion Act.
The Bill is a response to a non-existent threat. It would exacerbate the dangers posed by increased availability of abortion pills and it would remove some of the few protections and regulations in abortion law, fuelling unethical and unsafe practices in many UK abortion clinics and leaving women less safe and less informed.
A 21st-century approach to this area must be based on a fuller and richer understanding of human dignity and equality which does not treat a woman as a victim of her own body, which does not treat children as commodities and which does not treat marginalised people such as young girls or children with Down’s syndrome as burdens or inconveniences. On that count, the Bill fails. It is not a serious or positive proposal. It helps neither women nor unborn children, and this House should firmly reject it.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
16:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 102 - Question accordingly agreed to.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 13th March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 View all European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reaons (PDF, 72KB) - (13 Mar 2017)
18:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 287 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Mr Davis
We introduced the most straightforward possible Bill necessary to enact the referendum result and respect the Supreme Court’s judgment. This Bill has a simple purpose: to allow the Prime Minister to notify under article 50 and start the two-year negotiation process. The House of Commons has already accepted that, voting overwhelmingly to pass this Bill, unamended, last month. The House accepted that the majority of people, no matter which way they voted in June, want the Prime Minister to get on with the job at hand, and to do so without any strings attached. Despite the simple purpose of this Bill, it has generated many hours of debate in both Houses—quite properly, I say to those who debate whether it should have.
Over the past five weeks, we have seen Parliament at its best. Hon. and right hon. Members and peers have spoken on this subject with passion, sincerity and conviction. However, I was disappointed that the House of Lords voted to amend the Bill. The Bill is just the next step in the long, democratic process surrounding our exit from the European Union. That process will continue with future legislation, ranging from the great repeal Bill, which will convert EU law into UK law at the time we leave, to a range of specific Bills that we expect to introduce, such as on immigration or customs arrangements. Parliament will be closely involved in all those important discussions and decisions.
As we embark on the forthcoming negotiations, our guiding approach is simple: we will not do anything that will undermine the national interest, including the interest of British citizens living in the European Union, and we will not enter negotiations with our hands tied. That is not to say that I do not appreciate the concerns that lie behind these amendments. It is not the ends that we disagree on, but the means, and I will attempt to address these individually—
Alex Salmond
The Secretary of State will have heard that many Members in this House, and a huge majority in the House of Lords, want a meaningful vote on the Government’s terms of negotiation, which he defined yesterday as meaning accepting either the Government’s terms or World Trade Organisation terms. When does he expect that vote to come to this place, and indeed to all the other Parliaments that it will come to? When roughly, within the two-year period, does he expect the House to get a vote, even on his terms?
Mr Davis
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will come to the detail of the answer to that later, but in broad terms, although it is impossible to predict the month, the form of words that I crafted earlier was this: we intend and expect it to be before the European Parliament votes on the same matter. It will fit in at the beginning of the ratification process, as soon as the negotiation is complete. It is too soon to know when that will be.
Lords amendment 1 seeks to require the Government to act unilaterally to bring forward plans within three months to secure the status of European Union and European economic area citizens and their family members living in the United Kingdom. On this matter, the Government have been consistently clear: we want to secure the status of EU citizens already living in Britain, and the status of British nationals living in other member states, as early as we can.
David T. C. Davies
As somebody who is married to an EU citizen without a British passport, may I say that I wholeheartedly support the Government’s approach to this matter? [Interruption.] It is absolutely right that we get reciprocity before we go ahead with any agreement with the rest of the EU.
Mr Davis
I thank my hon. Friend both for his intervention and for warming up the House.
European citizens already resident in the United Kingdom make a vital contribution to our economy and our society, including working in crucial public services such as the national health service. Without them we would be poorer and our public services weaker.
Mr Davis
I will give way in a moment.
However, the European Union has been clear that we cannot open these discussions until the Prime Minister has given formal notification that the UK wishes to withdraw from the EU. That is why we must pass this straightforward Bill without further delay, so that the Prime Minister can get to work on the negotiations, and we can secure a quick deal that secures the status both of EU citizens in the UK and of UK nationals living in the EU, of whom there are around 1 million.
We take very seriously—I take very seriously—our moral responsibility to all 4 million UK and EU citizens. The Prime Minister has been clear that this issue will be one of the top priorities for the immediate negotiations. I also welcome the encouraging words from across the channel, particularly from Poland and Sweden, which fill me with confidence that we will reach a swift agreement with our European partners. Indeed, as Beata Szydlo, the Polish Prime Minister, has said:
“Of course, these guarantees would need to be reciprocal. It’s also important what guarantees the British citizens living and working in other member states of the European Union will have.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Geraint Davies
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the survey by the General Medical Council that shows that two thirds of EU doctors are thinking of leaving the UK? In general, EU citizens tend to be younger and working compared with their counterparts abroad who are older and retired. Does he not accept that there is an immediate need unilaterally to act in good faith to set the agenda to get reciprocation, rather than holding out until the final moment?
Mr Davis
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. As I have said before, these issues are serious and important, and people hold their views passionately and with good reason, but the simple truth is that the Government have been very plain about what they intend. They intend to guarantee the rights of both British and European citizens and they will do so as quickly as possible.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend has had to say about prioritising the negotiations as far as EU and British citizens are concerned. He has said that the negotiations could take up to two years, but there is no reason at all why an agreement on those citizens should not come a lot earlier. Will he give a guarantee that, once an agreement is reached, it will be made public to put out of their misery all the people who are going through this trauma at this moment in time?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It may well be that we need treaty change to put in law the guarantees that we want in place, but I aim to get all the member states, the Commission and the Council to commit—even if it is in an exchange of letters—so that everyone knows what their rights are and what their rights will be, which, therefore, deals with the issue that has quite properly been raised: people being afraid of things they should not be afraid of.
Mr Davis
Please forgive me for a moment.
That is very dependent of course on the commitment not just of ourselves, but of other member states. As I said, Beata Szydlo, the Polish Prime Minister, has made that point publicly here. Every single Minister of every member state that I have spoken to, either on the continent in their own countries or here on a visit, have reinforced the point that they want this matter to be at the top of the agenda. They want this to be dealt with first, and that is what we intend to do to help to achieve what my hon. Friend wants.
Mr Davis
Forgive me, but I do have to make some progress.
The proposed amendment may well force the UK to set out unilateral plans in any case. Such an approach would only serve to undermine the very attempts that I have just been talking about, and hamper a quick resolution for all those concerned.
Mr Davis
In a second.
I want to reassure people that Parliament will have a clear opportunity to debate and vote on this issue in the future, before anything else happens. The great repeal Bill will not change our immigration system. That will be done through a separate immigration Bill and subsequent secondary legislation. Nothing will change for any EU citizen in the UK without Parliament’s explicit approval beforehand.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. This Government’s track record on contingency planning is as bad as their handling of the Brexit process, so if it is the case that they are not going to protect the position of EU nationals and it therefore becomes the case that the position of EU nationals is not protected, has the Secretary of State given any consideration to a deportation process then?
Mr Davis
That is the point. It is, frankly, incredible to me that anybody would imagine that I, of all people, would sign up to a deportation process. The answer here is simple, and I make the point again: I take as a moral responsibility the future guarantees of all 4 million citizens —European Union and UK together.
If I may move on, I will now address the issues created by Lords amendment 2. Let me be clear from the outset that this amendment does not seek to simply put what we have already promised on the face of the Bill, as was suggested by some. In fact, it seeks to go much further. But let me begin with proposed subsections (1) to (3), which do simply seek to put our commitment to a vote on the face of the Bill. I will repeat here our commitment: 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 issue. This commitment could not be clearer, so proposed subsections (1) to (3) are wholly unnecessary. Our clear intention—an intention stated more than once at this Dispatch Box—and by far the most likely outcome, by the way, is that we will bring a deal back to the Houses of Parliament for them to approve.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. If he is so confident about this, why can he not allow the rest of us to be confident by agreeing to Lords amendment 2?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Davis
No, I will not give way.
On the more general point about votes—I say this with some personal interest—we should not underestimate the mechanisms at Parliament’s disposal to ensure that its voice is heard. To paraphrase the wise words of Lord Howard of Lympne during the debate on the amendment in the other place, this place “will have its say” and “will have its way.” We do not need to put this into legislation, and making legislation when none is required only benefits lawyers.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is a Member of long standing in this House, and he recognises—as, I think, other hon. Members do—that Parliament will find a way to have a say, whether a deal is reached or whether no deal is reached. If he recognises that, does he agree that it would be better for the Government officially to recognise that position from the Dispatch Box?
Mr Davis
I reiterate the point: of course, Parliament can, if it wishes, have a vote and debate on any issue. That is a matter for Parliament. It is not for a Minister to try to constrain that, least of all this Minister, who has used those opportunities before this day. But let me get to the point behind this. I agree with my right hon. Friend, but what we cannot have—I am coming to the second aspect of this amendment—is any suggestion that the votes in either House will overturn the result of the referendum. That is the key point.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is that not exactly the point? It would completely cripple the Government in trying to get a really good deal for the UK. This is the time for Parliament to get behind the country, which made a decision, and to get the best deal. We cannot do that if the EU thinks it can undermine us.
Mr Davis
That point brings me to subsection (4), so let me deal with that in a little more detail. This new clause, effectively, seeks to prohibit the Prime Minister from walking away from negotiations, even if she thinks the European Union is offering her a bad or very bad deal. As I will get on to, the impact of this is unclear, but even the intent goes far beyond what we have offered or could accept. The Government will be undertaking these negotiations and must have the freedom to walk away from a deal that sets out to punish the UK for a decision to leave the EU, as some in Europe have suggested.
Of course, we are seeking a mutually beneficial new relationship, which we believe can and will work for everyone, but tying the Government’s hands in this way could be the worst way of trying to achieve that deal. And let us not forget: in December, this House passed a motion that nothing should be done to undermine the negotiating position of the Government.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Minister is asking us to take him at his word—on trust. Given the record of the Conservative party recently on manifesto commitments, does the same principle of trust apply?
Mr Davis
I said before, and I will say it again: I take statements at this Dispatch Box as binding.
The important point here is that the idea that Parliament could force the Government to accept a bad deal will only incentivise those on the other side of the negotiating table to deliver just such a deal. As the Lords European Union Select Committee—hardly a Tory front organisation —said:
“The Government will conduct the negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom, and, like any negotiator, it will need room to manoeuvre if it is to secure a good outcome.”
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
No one in this House, as far as I am aware, wishes to fetter the Government’s hands in negotiations, or indeed the Government’s right to walk away from the negotiations; the issue in subsection (4) is whether the Government come back to this House to explain their plan and policy in the event of that happening. I would expect that to be inevitable, and yet, curiously, when we have sought an assurance from the Government—no more than that; not this amendment—that they would do that, which seems to me to be blindingly obvious, we keep being told that they will not give that assurance. I do find that, I have to say to my right hon. Friend, a bit odd, and I wonder whether he could clarify that.
Mr Davis
My right hon. and learned—and old—Friend makes a good point. The simple truth here, however, as I have said before, is that nothing can constrain this House’s right to debate and vote on anything it sees fit, and that meets this.
What I am dealing with here is subsection (4), and there are even bigger problems with it. During the debate on this issue in the other House, the author of the amendment, Lord Pannick, himself admitted he did not know what would happen if Parliament voted against leaving the EU without a deal. This uncertainty is itself a strong argument against putting this amendment into statute.
However, a significant number of Lords supported this amendment—that may not be true in this House—such as Lord Wigley and Baroness Kennedy, and they made their intentions clear: if Parliament were to vote against leaving without a deal, the UK should seek to remain in the EU and reverse the result of the referendum. I should say to my hon. and right hon. Friends that the European Union member states and the European Union institutions read the proceedings of this House very closely; they will have read that, and it will have raised their interest, because that is precisely what they would like to happen. So while this has been badged as a meaningful vote, the reality is that there are some who would seek to use it to overturn the result of the referendum. [Interruption.] “Good idea” comes from across the Floor. That is exactly, I am afraid, what concerns us.
The Government and the Prime Minister have been crystal clear. The people of the United Kingdom have decided to leave the European Union. The Government will seek to implement this decision in the way that is most beneficial to both the United Kingdom and the European Union. What we will not do, however, is accept anything that will put the intention to leave the European Union in doubt.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Davis
Will hon. Members forgive me if I do not give way, because I am coming to the end of my comments?
Any prospect that we might actually decide to remain in the European Union would only serve to encourage those on the other side to give us the worst possible deal in the hope that we will do exactly that. This amendment would not only restrain the negotiating power of the Government but would create uncertainty and complications throughout the negotiating process while lessening the chances of the mutually beneficial deal we are seeking.
I reiterate the three key points. First, the Bill was brought forward to implement the referendum result, respect the Supreme Court judgment, and nothing else. Secondly, these amendments are unnecessary as the Government have already made firm commitments with regard to both of the two issues, and we will deliver on those commitments. Thirdly, these amendments would undermine the Government’s position in negotiations to get the best deal for Britain, and that cannot be in the national interest. Therefore, it is clear to the Government that we should send back to the House of Lords a clean Bill. This House has already expressed its support of this view in Committee, and I ask us all to repeat that support once more.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I rise to support both of the amendments that have been passed in the other place. They started life as Labour amendments at the Committee stage in this House, Labour peers led on them and voted for them in the other place, and they will be supported by Labour MPs here today.
The question is this: are Conservative Members willing to listen to the arguments in favour of the amendments, to which I know many are sympathetic and have concerns about, or will they go along with the Prime Minister’s increasing obsession to pass a clean Bill, unamended, even if that means ignoring amendments that would improve the Bill and provide much better protection?
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Keir Starmer
I will make some progress because lots of Members want to speak, and the more I give way now, the more irritating it is for those who want to make their own contribution.
The Government are about to embark on the most complex and challenging undertaking of any British Government since the second world war. The decision the Government make and the deals they strike will have profound consequences for almost every aspect of British life. It is therefore essential that the Government do not fail or take the country down the wrong path. Starting negotiations by guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals and ending negotiations with a meaningful vote will help to guard against that fate.
Let me turn to the amendment on EU nationals. My question for the Secretary of State and for the Government is this: what is the problem? This is not about delay. The way to prevent delay is to accept the amendment and get on with it. The purpose of the amendment is to bring forward proposals
“Within three months of exercising the power”
to trigger article 50. The Secretary of State says that we want an early deal—well, if it is within three months, there is no problem with the amendment. The amendment only affects the Government’s approach if they do not get an early deal. That is why it is so important. To portray this as a delaying tactic is not to read the amendment and not to appreciate what it says: that the purpose is to bring forward proposals “Within three months”.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I have listened carefully to the argument the hon. and learned Gentleman is making. Four million people are affected by this. I put it to him that all 4 million should be dealt with fairly and on a level playing field, that we can only get that from reciprocity, and that this amendment would not achieve that.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention: let me deal with it straight on. Of course there is a shared concern about UK citizens living in the EU, but this is a matter of principle. Are we prepared—
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I have not even set out the principle yet. Are we prepared to use one set of people—those who are living here—as a bargaining chip to get the right settlement for people in the UK? [Interruption.] That is exactly what it is. The whole argument about reciprocal rights is about bargaining and saying, “We will not do what we should do by this group of people until we get something in return for it.” That is a bargaining chip.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State seeks to persuade us that, simply because he has stated from the Dispatch Box that this will all be fine and dandy, that is the end of the matter. He said several times, quite inaccurately, that a ministerial statement from the Dispatch Box is legally binding. Surely the truth is that saying that something said from the Dispatch Box is legally binding does not make it so.
Keir Starmer
The Secretary of State said that it was binding so far as he was concerned. That is not the same as a legal commitment, and Secretaries of State and Governments can change. That is why we need a commitment on the face of the Bill.
Let me fast forward to the second amendment. If there is really no problem with proposed subsections (1), (2) and (3), why not accept them along with proposed subsection (4) and put them on the face of the Bill? This is becoming an obsession with having a clean Bill: “Our Bill must not be amended, even when it is proper, right and decent to do so.”
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
How does my hon. and learned Friend answer the Brexit Secretary’s point that if and when we pass the Bill and it is given Royal Assent, the Government’s first priority will be to negotiate the rights both of people here who are from Europe and of our citizens abroad? Does my hon. and learned Friend not accept that if we pass this amendment and give those rights to European citizens here, there will be no incentive whatsoever for other European countries to concede those rights to our citizens?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention, but it is important to focus on the words of the amendment, which asks Ministers to bring forward proposals within three months. That does not tie anybody’s hands or make anybody’s task more difficult. If the issue is resolved within three months—I hope that it is, for the sake of EU citizens living here and of UK citizens living abroad—the amendment represents no problem. It represents a problem only if the Government do not succeed in an early settlement of the issue.
The Labour party has been pushing the Government for many months to guarantee EU rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) first tabled a Labour motion on the issue back in July 2016, just weeks after the referendum, but the Government have refused to take unilateral action. I remind the House that the International Trade Secretary, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench, said last year that to guarantee those rights to EU citizens
“would be to hand over one of our main cards in the negotiations”.
Keir Starmer
I am going to make progress. I have taken interventions on the issue and it would not be fair to take more.
We do not believe that EU nationals are bargaining chips, and I think many other hon. Members agree. There are 3.2 million EU nationals who have made their homes and careers in the United Kingdom. Thousands do vital jobs in the NHS and in our universities and public services. They are our friends, colleagues and neighbours—they are valued members of our communities. It is often said that they make a contribution to our society; they do. They are also our society. This is a matter of principle and decency.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am going to make some progress. We should not bring unnecessary uncertainty and distress into those people’s lives, but that is exactly what is happening as a result of the Government’s approach.
The Brexit Select Committee’s report states that it has heard
“a wide range of concerns of EU nationals since the referendum, including stress, and anxiety and feelings of depression to practical concerns about pensions and healthcare, children being abused in the school playground and worries over the ability to work in the UK in the future.”
What have we come to, if we cannot deal with those levels of anxiety and stress? Many Members will have seen that in their own constituency surgeries. I certainly have: families have come to me in tears about the situation in which they find themselves. It is time for the Government to act; increasingly, it is only the Prime Minister and the Government who think otherwise. Trade unions and campaigns such as the3million and New Europeans have made a very powerful and compelling case for this issue to be dealt with, as of course has the Brexit Committee in its report’s conclusions.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I am going to make some progress.
Labour supports Lords amendment 1 not only because it is right in principle, but because it would help the negotiations by setting the right tone. We have to make it clear to our European partners that although we are leaving the EU, we are not severing our ties. We want a collaborative and co-operative future with our European partners. We want our closest and nearest allies to be strong, and for the European Union to succeed and prosper. We know that citizens will be richer and happier in the future if we work together with our EU partners to meet common challenges. That message is vital in securing our nation’s future.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that given our Foreign Secretary’s mixed record—both in committing to the £350 million a week for the NHS, and in failing to deliver on that—and the Government’s poor relations with EU partners, it is right that we should show leadership and commitment by standing up for EU migrants and supporting this amendment?
Keir Starmer
I agree. I have said in the House on a number of occasions that the tone that the Government set is very important as we come up to the beginning of the negotiations. From my direct discussions with representatives of other countries in Brussels, I can tell the House that some of the jokes that have been made about the reasons why our EU partners feel so strongly about the EU have not been well received. Agreeing to the amendment would help to set the right tone.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am going to move on to the question of the meaningful vote in Lords amendment 2. I remind the House that as recently as December the Prime Minister was refusing to guarantee that Parliament would be able to vote on whatever agreement the Government reach with the European Commission. Under pressure, that position changed early this year, but it was only when Labour tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee that the Government made a set of commitments on the Floor of the House.
Those commitments, which were set out by the Minister of State and have now been repeated by the Secretary of State, are: first, that Parliament would be able to vote on the final draft agreement; secondly, that Parliament would get a vote not just on the so-called divorce settlement—the article 50 agreement—but also on the agreement on the future relationship with the European Union; and, thirdly, that the votes in this Parliament would take place before any votes in the European Parliament. Lords amendment 2 will simply put those commitments into the Bill, which is why it is so wrong for the Government not to accept it in principle.
Stephen Doughty
Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the ICM poll for Avaaz, published in just the past two hours, showing that a clear majority of the British public supports a meaningful vote, with 52% supporting such a vote and only 27% saying the opposite?
Keir Starmer
I have seen that poll, which is of course important, but this is a matter of principle. This is a question of whether this House should be able to vote on the deal reached in two years’ time before the European Parliament votes and should be able to have a meaningful say, and that is what it has been, in principle, from start to finish.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The amendment does not simply give this House the right to vote on these matters; it also gives the other place the right to vote on these matters. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what would happen if this House voted to accept what the Government want to do, but the other place dug in and rejected it? What would happen then?
Keir Starmer
There is a reason why the amendment spells that out in detail: it is precisely what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box should be the position last time this was debated. Lords amendment 2 carefully reflects what the Government say is their assurance, so such a question about the amendment should be put to the Secretary of State.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, given the high level of uncertainty, the only sage and proper thing to do is to give us one more chance before the European Parliament has an opportunity to—[Interruption.]
Keir Starmer
I would not put it as “one last chance”. The negotiations will lead first—I hope—to an article 50 agreement; secondly, to transitional arrangements; and thirdly to a final agreement between ourselves and the EU. That will define the future of the UK for generations in Europe and beyond Europe, and it is imperative that this House has a vote on that at the end of the two-year exercise.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. The discussion so far has been about a parliamentary vote in the event of the Government reaching a deal. Is it his interpretation of the Secretary of State’s speech today that, in the event of no deal, the Government seek the authority to default to WTO rules—which are not used by any major economy alone to trade with the EU—without this House having a say?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. That is my interpretation and it causes me great concern. We need to be clear: reaching no deal is the worst of all possible outcomes for Britain. The president of the CBI has described it as the “worst case scenario” for which many firms cannot even prepare because
“the cost of change is simply too high to even consider it”.
Just yesterday, the director-general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, emphasised that no deal should not be “plan B”, but “plan Z”. I could not agree more.
Research published today by Open Britain warns that leaving the EU without a deal would leave Britain facing greater barriers to trade with the EU than any other G20 country. The cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee warned on Sunday that
“a complete breakdown in negotiations represents a very destructive outcome leading to mutually assured damage for the EU and the UK. Both sides would suffer economic losses and harm to their international reputations.”
That is why having a vote not only on a deal if there is one, but on no deal, is so important. It represents a check on the Prime Minister deciding to take the country down the most dangerous path. That is why I urge Members, including those on the Conservative Benches, to vote for the amendment.
Keir Starmer
There was one question on the ballot paper, and that was whether we should stay in the EU or leave the EU. There was no second question about the terms of leaving. It is impossible to extrapolate, but I would be staggered if most people thought that this House should not have a proper grip of the available options in two years’ time and hopefully beyond. I expect that they would have said, “Of course we want Parliament to be fully involved. We would expect accountability and scrutiny, and we would expect votes.”
I shall conclude, because we only have two hours and other people wish to speak. These are simple amendments that would improve the article 50 process. They have obtained cross-party support and large majorities in the Lords, they are the right amendments on vitally important issues, and the obsession with the idea of a clean, unamended Bill should not triumph over decency and principle.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about amendment 1, but I wish to speak about amendment 2. The operative provision is subsection (4) which states—I want to remind the House as it is material to what I am about to say:
“The prior approval of…Parliament shall…be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement”.
I have already argued in past debates exactly what my right hon. Friend argued today—namely, that if that subsection were to have its intended effect, it would be inimical to the interests of this country, because it would have the undoubted effect of providing a massive incentive for our EU counterparts to give us the worst possible agreement. I agree with him about that. However, I think that the situation is worse—far worse—than he described, because the operative subsection is deeply deficient as a matter of law. The reason for that is not just the one that Lord Pannick admitted, or half-admitted, in the House of Lords, but because under very plausible circumstances this subsection will not have anything like its intended effect. Let me briefly illustrate why that is the case.
Article 50 of the treaty on European Union is, for once in treaties, entirely clear. Paragraph 3 of the article states:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question…two years after the notification…unless the European Council… unanimously decides to extend this period.”
Let us imagine that what the Secretary of State, the Government, all my hon. Friends and, I suspect, all Opposition Members hope will not be the case—namely, that the negotiations for a proper comprehensive free trade agreement break down—actually happens. We all hope that will not happen, but we cannot preclude the possibility that it will happen. If it does happen, I think all Members on both sides of the House must have the emotional intelligence to recognise that in all probability that would be under circumstances of some acrimony.
How likely is it that under such circumstances, with agreement having broken down in some acrimony, the European Council would be able to achieve a unanimous agreement to allow the UK to remain a member beyond the two-year period? I speculate that it is very unlikely. If we assume that that were to occur, we need to ask ourselves what would actually happen under those circumstances. One thing can be predicted with certainty: there would be litigation. The litigation would ask, ultimately, the Supreme Court to decide the question, “What has happened here? Has the Prime Minister made a decision, or has the Prime Minister not made a decision?” That could be decided in one of two ways. I rather think that Members on both sides of the House would agree with me that the Supreme Court must decide either that the Prime Minister has made the decision or that the Prime Minister has not made the decision.
Let us suppose for a moment that the Supreme Court decides that the Prime Minister has not made a decision, because it has been made instead by the European Council—a perfectly plausible outcome of the Court’s proceedings. In that case, subsection (4) is totally inoperable. It has no effect whatsoever, because what it does, purportedly, is to prevent the Prime Minister from making a decision without a vote. If the Prime Minister has, in the ruling of the Court, made no decision, it is impossible for her to have made a decision without a vote; therefore, the law has been conformed with, and Parliament is not given any ability to vote on the matter.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, and there is a further point. When it comes to the competing legislation at that point, it would be for the courts to consider whether or not the provisions in the Lisbon treaty that dealt with the question of article 50 had somehow been qualified, amended or repealed by a subsequent enactment.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but it seems to me that for this purpose we do not even need to raise that question, because there is only one other possibility in this Court action—that the Court decides that the Prime Minister has implicitly made the decision. I do not quite know how the Court would get to that answer, but we could speculate that if the Prime Minister had acted differently in the course of the negotiations, the European Council would have acted differently, so implicitly the Prime Minister has made the decision.
Under those circumstances, subsection (4) would, purportedly, come into effect. That is, I suppose, what its authors intended. However, if the European Council has not by the end of the two-year period made a unanimous decision and if the courts decided that the Prime Minister had thereby implicitly decided, the courts would be requiring Parliament to do something that it is impossible to do—namely, to get the Prime Minister to reverse a decision that, as a matter of ordinary language, the Prime Minister would not have made at a time when the Prime Minister could not undo a decision that, as a matter of ordinary language, the European Council had made.
I am perfectly aware that it is of the greatest importance for Members of this House to show due deference to the other place, and I also genuinely admire the skills of the authors of the amendment, but I put it to them that even the House of Lords in all its majesty cannot compel the Prime Minister to do something that is impossible. That is beyond the scope of any human agency.
John Redwood
Is that not evidenced by Lord Pannick himself arguing seriously in court that the letter is irreversible?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree with my right hon. Friend, although the Supreme Court went to great pains not to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice, for very good reasons, so we can leave even that argument aside.
My point is very simple. Either subsection (4) would have its intended effect or it would not. If it did, it would be inimical to the interests of this country, because it would induce the worst possible agreement to be offered—as a matter of fact, it will not have that effect in plausible circumstances—and if it did not, it would be bad law. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that this House should not be passing legislation that either is inimical to the interests of this country or constitutes bad law, and that we should therefore reject the amendment.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
This is a very timely debate about amendments that go to the heart of the situation in which we find ourselves. The Scottish National party has made it very clear that we want much more detailed reassurance—perhaps the odd detail or two from the Government—and that is where parliamentary scrutiny should have been involved. We should also be having a debate about the kind of country in which we want to live, and the kind of country that Scotland becomes and the United Kingdom becomes. That is where the amendment on EU nationals comes in.
The Secretary of State may have caught the First Minister’s statement earlier today, in which she made it very plain that this was not the situation in which we wanted to find ourselves. In fact, the Scottish Parliament voted by 92 votes to zero, across political parties, that we should look at ways of securing our relationship with Europe. It is a critical relationship that we have with our European partners, one that has an impact on, and benefits, each and every one of us; but, nearly nine months after the EU referendum, we still do not have that much in the way of detail from an increasingly clueless Government.
The most detailed response to the referendum so far came in the form of a compromise proposed by the Scottish Government just before Christmas. That compromise—let us not forget this—would have meant Scotland leaving the EU against its will to protect our place in the single market. It was a big compromise, and it took a lot from the Scottish National party to put it forward, especially given that Scotland had voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the European Union. We did it in order to protect jobs, the economy, and opportunities for young people and their environment in the face of a hard Tory Brexit.
The Fraser of Allander Institute has suggested that we could lose up to 80,000 jobs in Scotland alone as a result of the Government’s plans. We have a responsibility to protect those jobs, we have a responsibility to think about opportunities for young people, and we have a responsibility to think about the rights that we receive from our membership of the European Union. We have a responsibility not to just roll over in the face of a disastrous Tory plan.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Last Friday I met representatives of a major bus company in Scotland, who said that 17% of the company’s bus drivers were EU immigrants. They said that the only reason they were not experiencing the haemorrhaging of talent that their counterparts down south were experiencing was the First Minister’s reasonable, sensible and inclusive message that EU nationals were welcome. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government could benefit by conveying such a message?
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I want to come on to the point about EU nationals shortly. It is not just in Scotland that jobs are threatened.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us, on the same analytical basis, how many jobs would be lost in Scotland if it left the UK?
Stephen Gethins
That is the extraordinary basis on which this is debated. My honourable colleague from the Foreign Affairs Committee forgets that it is his own Government who have already told the people of Ireland that they need not choose between the European Union and the UK, just as Scotland need not choose between trading with the UK and the rest of the EU.
Stephen Gethins
No, I will make progress.
If we pass the Bill today, we will be passing this Government a blank cheque on one of the most crucial issues that this Parliament has ever discussed, an issue that will have an impact on each and every one of us and each and every one of our constituents. Let us not forget that we will be handing a blank cheque to a Government who are forced to deny their own tweets, who corrected a White Paper that had already been published and who are trying to defend yet another shambolic Budget. That is the Government this place would be handing over a blank cheque to. Frankly, I am not sure we could trust them to run a bath, or a bidet for that matter, never mind a complex set of negotiations.
The Secretary of State said that he has seen the best of parliamentary debate in this place over the course of the Bill. It is nice to hear him say that because he spent millions of pounds trying to prevent us from having that debate in the first place. The basis of a parliamentary democracy is that we can scrutinise and do not roll over and acquiesce in the face of damaging plans. That is exactly what we would be doing by handing over a blank cheque.
Stephen Gethins
Not at the moment.
It is the House of Lords, of all places, that has given us another opportunity today to save the House of Commons’ blushes. We will be voting for a meaningful vote today, although of course we would also have wanted a greater role for the devolved Administrations.
Stephen Gethins
Not at the moment.
The lack of respect for the devolved Administrations, and the promises that were made and subsequently broken during the independence and EU referendums have led us to the situation we are in today. During the independence referendum, we were told that the only way Scotland could guarantee remaining part of the EU was to vote against independence. We were told that the only way to bring in powers over immigration was to vote to leave the EU—more costly and broken promises. That is why the First Minister is right to be looking at the electoral mandate that the SNP was given last year to hold another independence referendum.
The Government may not be big on manifesto commitments, but the SNP is. The SNP was returned to power with the largest number of votes since devolution was established, with 47% of the constituency vote, compared with a Tory Government who have brought us to this situation with 36% of the vote in the UK and less than 15% of the vote in Scotland.
Let me move on to EU nationals. This is critical. We must not forget the human element of this.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is talking about the human element for EU nationals. On Friday afternoon, my constituent, Diemanta McDuff, a Lithuanian, attended my surgery in hysterical tears, saying that the uncertainty caused by this Government and this Parliament is making her feel worse about her personal situation in Britain than she did in Lithuania under the Soviets. [Interruption.] Those are the words of a constituent. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Parliament should be ashamed to be causing such uncertainty?
Stephen Gethins
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for raising that point, which is important. Many of us have listened to EU nationals, who contribute so much financially and culturally and who would be a loss to this country—to the whole of the UK. Therefore, I am not sure why the Government cannot give us what we seek.
Mr Nigel Evans
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I feel very passionate about the fact that EU citizens living in the United Kingdom should be allowed to continue doing so; they add so much to our economy and culture, and it would be a human tragedy if they were forced to leave. However, I suspect that hundreds of thousands of Scottish people are living in other EU countries. Does he not believe that they too ought to be given the same guarantee at exactly the same time?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me: the Scottish Government are looking to protect Scotland’s relationship with Europe, and, what is more, if EU nationals are as important to Conservative Members as they are to us, they will vote with us tonight, to give them the certainty they need and deserve. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining me in the Lobby.
EU nationals who have made Scotland and the rest of the UK their home contribute much: they make this a better place in which to live and work, and they make our communities better. These are people with families and jobs. If the Conservatives care so much about them —and to give these people certainty—there is something very simple they can do: they can join us in the Lobby tonight, for a change. The House of Lords has given them another opportunity.
This goes to the heart of the question of the kind of country—[Interruption.] Conservative Members would do well to listen to the point being made this time. This goes to the heart of the question of the kind of country in which we would like to live. Do we want to live in a country that is open and inclusive, working in co-operation and collaboration with our European partners, or in a UK that is increasingly isolated in Europe and abroad? It now seems like this is a choice that people in Scotland are going to get.
Today, we are sitting on the edge of the abyss with this vote; the question is whether or not Scotland is going to be taken into the abyss with this Tory Government. I am glad that SNP Members have an alternative, and the alternative is clear. It is one that respects the will of the people of Scotland, that seeks to work with our partners on these islands and across Europe, and that will allow us to prosper as an equal and normal partner in the international community of nations. Therefore, we will be opposing the Government tonight.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I am going to keep my comments as brief as possible so that as many Members as possible can speak. I spoke when we last considered, effectively, Lords amendment 2 in its new form, and I just say this: it is surely perverse that we are in a situation whereby if there is a deal it comes back to this place and we debate it and vote on it, but if there is the worst scenario—which is no deal—we are not entitled to that say that or vote. That simply cannot be right.
This is not a debate about Brexit. We have had that vote; I voted against my conscience in accordance with the promise I made to the people of Broxtowe that I would honour the referendum result, and I voted for us to leave the EU. So we have had that one; we are moving on.
This debate is actually all about parliamentary sovereignty, and there are some uncomfortable truths that need to be said. It took a few brave souls—and they were brave—to go to the High Court and then the Supreme Court to establish parliamentary sovereignty. That is why we now have this Bill—not because we did it in this place, and history will record all these things, but because of what they did. But to the credit of the Government, they accepted that.
I understand that there is a good argument to be made that this is a short and simple Bill, but the difficulty, and the reason why I found myself for the first time voting against my Government, is this intransigence—this inability to accept that in the worst-case scenario this place is not going to be allowed a say. And for this Secretary of State, of all Members of this place, with his fine track record of establishing, and fighting at every opportunity for the sovereignty of Parliament, to be standing up and denying us that on this particular issue is deeply ironic.
Mr Baron
But does my right hon. Friend not accept the simple point that this place made a contract with the British people at that referendum—[Interruption.] The Scottish National party might not like it, but it is true. Therefore, if there is a good deal, we will take it, and if there is not, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will not accept a bad deal, so we move on, and we move out of the EU.
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend forgets that there was just one question on the ballot paper—did we want to remain in or leave the EU—and 52% of the people who voted chose to leave. That is what we are doing. We—some of us—on this side have honoured that result and voted for us to leave. Now, however, we are talking about the sovereignty of this Parliament and about what would happen in the event that our Prime Minister does not strike a good deal. I trust our Prime Minister to do everything that she can, and I will support her in her efforts to get that good deal, but let us be under no illusion that if she does not do so, there will be no alternative but WTO tariffs, regulations and rules, and the people in my constituency certainly did not vote for that—
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend says “So?” I can assure him that it is not only me but our Prime Minister who takes the view that falling off a cliff edge would be the worst possible outcome for the people of this country. That is the one thing that we must ensure does not happen. In the light of that, we in this place must assist the Government with what happens next.
There is going to be a remarkable set of negotiations to achieve three bespoke deals—on trade, customs and security—in what will actually be an 18-month timeframe. But let us say that that worst-case scenario happens and that there is no deal at the end of that. If I may, I should like to say to Opposition Members, especially those in the north of Ireland—
Anna Soubry
Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman needs no lessons on my support for the efforts and work of Northern Ireland Members. The real danger that we face is the cliff edge and, as a result, the hard border in Ireland that none of us wants.
In two years’ time, things might well have changed remarkably in this country, not just politically but economically. Economically, having had the buoyancy of a devalued pound and people actually spending on the basis of their savings, inflation might then have kicked in and we could find that our economy was no longer in the fine fettle that it appears to be now. Politically, we could be facing great harm in every way possible through the break-up of the Union, with the Scots going their own way following a referendum and, tragically for Northern Ireland, with talk of a united Ireland or a breakdown of the peace that has lasted for some years. In the light of that, all the options must remain open for us to debate and decide upon. We could, for example, decide to restore the free movement of labour and consider the benefits of the single market, which would solve the problem for Northern Ireland and for Scotland.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that this is not only an issue of principle, in regard to parliamentary sovereignty and having a meaningful say, but an issue of good practice? We should not swallow the argument of an incentive to offer the worst possible deal. Lords amendment 2 would instil discipline and accountability in the Government as well as among our negotiating partners, because at any stage the Prime Minister would be able to say, “I can’t agree to that, because I have to sell it to Parliament.”
Anna Soubry
I want to close by saying this, Mr Speaker. The idea that, by doing the right thing and allowing us to have a vote and a say in the event of no deal, we would somehow be weakening the Prime Minister’s negotiating hand is absolutely perverse. It is as though all these deliberations and all the divisions that still exist in our country are not being reported throughout the whole of Europe. It is as though all this is taking place in some kind of silence. Everyone in Europe knows how divided our nation is. They know about the deliberations in this place and in the other place. They also know that, of those who voted, only 52% voted for us to leave the European Union. I urge the Government, for the sake of bringing unity not only to our party but to the country at large, to allow Parliament’s sovereignty to reign and, in the event of no deal, to allow us to have a vote and a say.
Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)
I must declare an interest, because the political is personal for me on the issue of EU citizens in the United Kingdom, as I suspect it is for many other Members in this House. The two most important women in my life—my mother, who is Dutch, and my wife, who is Spanish—are directly affected by this. While they are of course special to me, I none the less think that their fate, and the uncertainty that they have endured, is typical of the constituents of many across the House. My mother has lived here for more than 50 years. She has raised four children. She has worked as a teacher. She has paid her taxes. My wife loves this country—most of the time. She does not love the weather, but she loves this country. She is raising children, paying taxes, and working as a lawyer. It simply beggars belief that people like them and millions of others have had a question mark placed over their status, their piece of mind, and their wellbeing in our great country because of the action, or rather the shameful inaction, of this Government.
John Redwood
The question mark has been placed there by the EU, not by this Government. If the EU said today that our citizens abroad are safe, all EU citizens here would be safe.
Mr Clegg
The right hon. Gentleman would start blaming bad traffic on the EU if he could. It is absurd. We picked the fight, not the EU. His party picked the fight; the EU did not.
I have one observation that I want to press the Secretary of State on. Even if he gets the deal on the issue of EU citizens here and UK citizens there, which I sincerely believe he wishes to seek, and even if that goes as smoothly and quickly as he has suggested today, there is no earthly way that this Government can separate the 3 million EU citizens who are already here from the millions who may, after a certain cut-off date, want to live, study, and work here without creating a mountainous volume of red tape.
Mr Clegg
Remind me, was freeing ourselves from red tape not one of the principal reasons why the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and so many others told us that we should leave the European Union? Yet this Government are going to create a tsunami of red tape, which EU citizens, including my mum and my wife, will rightly resent just as much as this Government have always resented red tape in Brussels. The particular irony is that the Secretary of State and I worked closely together in this Chamber as Opposition party spokespeople 12 years against the then Government’s attempts to impose ID cards, yet I predict that he and his Government will have to introduce something not identical but strikingly similar to the paper trail behind ID cards.
Mr Clegg
I must make progress; there is very little time.
Turning to the other, perhaps more meaningful amendment, the double standards that we have just heard about red tape are duplicated several times over by the double standards of Brexiteers saying, “We should free ourselves”—at any cost—“from the lack of democratic accountability in Brussels,” when the first thing they do is undermine and weaken the principle of democratic accountability in this House. I have listened closely to the Government’s case for rejecting that amendment, including today, and there is no first principle argument against it, because they concede to the principle of a vote; they just do not like us having the freedom to decide what that vote should be on.
The Government have come up with laughable arguments, which we have heard repeated here today, including that if we have just the bog-standard, plain vanilla accountability exerted by the House of Commons and the other place on any announcement made by the Prime Minister in two years, that will serve as an incentive for the EU to give us a bad deal. By that logic, the only Governments who can successfully negotiate good international agreements are dictatorships. They are not; they are democracies. Democracy can co-exist with good international agreements.
I have come to the conclusion that the reason the Government are digging their heels in as stubbornly as they are is that they somehow think that they will strut their stuff and impress our soon-to-be EU negotiating partners by indulging in parliamentary and procedural machismo here. Who do they think they are kidding? Do they think that Angela Merkel has put everything aside to look at this debate this afternoon? Do they think that she has said, “Oh, look at the way that No. 10 unceremoniously evicted Lord Heseltine and other venerable parliamentarians from their jobs. We had better give them a good deal”?
Does the Secretary of State think that Michel Barnier, whom I know well and know the Secretary of State knows well—a hardened EU negotiator if ever there was one—is saying, “Oh well, we’d better lower the price tag because they are being so tough with their own people”? It is a ludicrous assertion. So I simply say to Government Members, at this last, 59th second of the eleventh hour of this debate on these amendments: stubbornness can be a sign of suspicion and weakness, not strength; rejecting the rightful, conventional role of the House of Commons and the other place to apply democratic accountability to the actions and decisions of the Executive can be a sign of weakness, not strength; and this specious argument that condemns the lack of democratic accountability in Brussels while undermining it here, in the mother of all Parliaments, is a sleight of hand that should not be lightly forgotten.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), as he and I spent a number of years working together in coalition government. I know that was not enormously fruitful for all those on my side, but I thank him for his remarks.
Let me deal with one opening point and then refer to the amendments, rather than making a general speech. One observation to make, which comes back to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about process, is that we sent to the House of Lords a short, well drafted and tightly focused Bill. Usually, the House of Lords argument and its criticism of this House is that we send it long, badly drafted and ill thought through legislation, which the House of Lords then has to improve. In this case, we sent the other place a short, tightly focused, well drafted Bill that does one very specific thing; it then made the Bill longer and reduced the quality of the drafting. We should help their lordships out this afternoon by getting rid of their poorly drafted amendments and sending the Bill back to them in the same expertly drafted form in which it started.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The simple truth is this: deal or no deal, vote or no vote, positive vote or negative vote, this process is irreversible; we are leaving the EU and that is what the people want.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.
Let me now deal with the two Lords amendments that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is inviting the House to disagree with. The first one relates to EU nationals, and I have listened carefully to the debate we have just had on it. I believe I heard the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) suggest to the Secretary of State during it, from a sedentary position, that he could put people’s minds at rest by accepting the amendment. I fundamentally disagree with that.
If we read what the amendment actually says, as opposed to what people have asserted it says, we find that all it says is that the Government should bring forward proposals within three months to deal with people who are legally resident in Britain. I think this is faulty for three reasons. First, the inclusion of “three months” puts in place an arbitrary time limit, which will be decided by judges if people challenge it. This may happen in the middle of the negotiation process that the Secretary of State is going to carry out to secure the rights of British citizens and it could well disrupt that process.
The second and more important point is about the fact that the amendment refers to those who are “legally resident” in the country today. Two groups are involved here, and I would like to be more generous to one and less generous to the other. The first group comprises those whom we have discovered perhaps did not understand EU legislation, which says, “You are legally resident here if you are a student or you are self-sufficient only if you have comprehensive health insurance.” Many people fail that test; I think it would be sensible for us to take a generous approach when legislating for people to be able to stay here, but the amendment, as drafted, does not suggest we do that. I think the Government could be more generous to EU nationals who are making their lives here than the amendment proposes—I think that would be welcome.
John Redwood
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we get to the point where all our proceedings, debates and votes have to be put into legislation and are subject to court action, we cannot proceed—we will cease to be sovereign?
Mr Harper
That point is very well made and it leads me on to my next point. There is another group of EU nationals, who are unlike those we have already been talking about, whom we all want to protect and are here working and contributing. A significant number—although they are only a small percentage—of EU nationals in Britain have broken the criminal law. There are 4,500 EU nationals in prison. They are legally resident in this country. Lords amendment 1 would mean that when they were released from prison after they had served their sentence, it would be very difficult for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is sitting on the Front Bench, to remove their right to stay in this country and deport them to their home country, which is what I want us to do. I would like us, as a country, to be more generous to those who come here to work, contribute and study, but to be less generous to those who come here to break our laws and violate the welcome we give them and the trust we place in them. I do not want to fetter the hands of Ministers in doing that. The amendment is poorly drafted and does not provide that reassurance, so I ask the House to reject it.
The final thing I shall say about EU nationals relates to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I listened carefully to what she said about her Lithuanian constituent—I hope her constituent will forgive me, but I did not catch her name. I hope that when she was talking to her constituent, the hon. and learned Lady was able to reassure her by explaining the clear assurances that the Prime Minister of her country has placed on the record about wanting to make sure that people like that constituent are able to stay.
Joanna Cherry
I am very happy to confirm exactly what my constituent said, as the right hon. Gentleman has brought it up. She cannot apply for permanent residency because she does not have comprehensive sickness insurance. I advised her that the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I serve, has asked the Government to rectify that matter and that, as yet, they have not done so.
Mr Harper
I am pleased that the hon. and learned Lady made that point. Had she listened to my remarks, she would have heard me say that there are constituents who thought they were here legally, but who, because they do not have comprehensive health insurance, are not actually legally resident. As drafted, Lords amendment 1 would not provide such people with reassurance. I said that, as a former Immigration Minister, I would be minded to be generous to constituents like the hon. and learned Lady’s, which is why I want a deal and for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to introduce immigration legislation to sort out the situation. The amendment would do no such thing, and people should not mislead anyone by telling them that it would. My hon. Friends should reject it.
Mr Harper
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall move on to Lords amendment 2, because I am conscious that other Members wish to speak.
Lords amendment 2 is about a meaningful vote. Essentially, the issue falls into two parts. The Government have already said that they will bring decisions before the House if the Prime Minister strikes a good deal both on our article 50 divorce negotiations and on our future trade relationships. There is, though, a good reason for not putting this in statute: as soon as we do, we enable people to challenge the process—to go to court and frustrate the ability of this House and the Government to conclude the negotiations.
On the final part of Lords amendment 2, which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) set out very carefully, there are two parts to my objection. First, I do not agree with the Labour party. If we say that either the House of Commons or the House of Lords is able to frustrate our leaving the EU in the event of getting a deal that we do not think is a good one, I think they will absolutely do so. I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, and I could not help but think that the conclusion to her remarks was that she wanted us to stay in the EU if we got a bad deal. That seemed to be the conclusion of what she said.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful for the opportunity to make myself clear. I said that if we do not get a deal, the matter should come back to Parliament and we should consider all options, given the circumstances that we would find ourselves in. It may well—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I am so sorry; I thought we lived in a democracy, but I have obviously got that completely wrong. It is hard to see how we would go back on our decision to leave the EU.
Mr Harper
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend. As I have said before in the House, the referendum asked an unconditional question: whether we should remain or leave. We did not say to the public—though some people think that we should have done—“If we get a really fabulous deal, we should leave.” I was on the remain side of the argument, but I accept that the people of the United Kingdom made a different decision. It behoves us all to support the Prime Minister in getting the best possible deal, given that we are leaving. Even if there is a bad deal that we cannot accept, we are still leaving the European Union. That is why I urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to disagree with both Lords amendments.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Only 40 minutes remain. I am keen to call as many hon. and right hon. Members as possible, but I need Members to help each other.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) argued that we should not support the two amendments because they are justiciable; on that basis, we might as well pack up and go home, because everything that we put in legislation is justiciable.
I rise to support the two amendments, and I draw the House’s attention to the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, which I have the privilege of chairing: the Government should now make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals in the United Kingdom. I say to the Secretary of State that the only argument against doing that, and against the Lords amendment, is that someone might be prepared to put the status of those 3 million EU citizens into play in the negotiations. That raises the question of how exactly that would be done, and to what purpose. It is precisely because the Secretary of State, and indeed the Prime Minister, have been so clear in saying to the House “We intend to ensure those people’s status and rights” that no one in the Chamber believes that the Government would be prepared to put those people’s status into play in the negotiations. If the Government are not prepared to do that, why not do the right thing now, and tell those people that they can stay?
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Is the Government’s position on EU citizens not based on a fiction? If they did not grant EU citizens the right to stay, presumably they would remove those who could not stay from the United Kingdom, but the Minister for Immigration has said that the Government do not know where EU citizens are in order to remove them from the United Kingdom. It is an empty threat, so why cause all this stress?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. The whole House knows that that course of action cannot be contemplated, so the Government should follow the advice of the Select Committee.
On Lords amendment 2, I listened carefully to the arguments that the Secretary of State advanced, but I say to him gently that I do not think they would have persuaded him in his previous incarnation, before he became Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Let us just pause for a moment on the point that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) raised about the incentive to offer a bad deal. If that argument holds any sway, it held sway when Ministers said at the Dispatch Box, “Yes, we will give you a vote on a draft deal.” It cannot be the case that if the Government offer a vote on a draft deal, it does not raise the possibility of a bad deal being offered, whereas if we in this House vote to put that vote on a deal on the statute book, it does raise the possibility of a bad deal being offered. The two arguments are wholly inconsistent, and the House is not persuaded.
I also listened carefully to the language used by the Secretary of State, who I see is engaged in earnest conversation. He talked about our being able to act without our hands being tied, and to pass the Bill “without any strings attached”. We in this House are not strings; we are part of our democracy, and we are very attached to that democracy. Lords amendment 2 is not about seeking to reverse the decision of the referendum. Like the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), I and many others voted for this legislation because we respect the outcome of the referendum, but it is about Parliament deciding, in either eventuality, on how we leave the European Union. There is a terrible irony here. We are hearing the voices of those who, in the course of the referendum, used the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty as one of their principal arguments for voting to leave the EU, but whose enthusiasm for that sovereignty disappears in a puff of smoke when the House is asked to put that sovereignty on the statute book.
Finally, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is now time to put behind us the matter of who voted leave or remain in the referendum. We should come together and put aside division, including the division that is being urged on us by others in this Chamber. I say to him that having Parliament behind him in these negotiations and knowing that, in the end, the Government must account to Parliament for what they are able to achieve in those negotiations is not a weakness for this country, but a strength, and the sooner the Government recognise that, the better.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
I campaigned for remain in last year’s referendum, believing that it was in the best medium-term economic interests of my constituents. I did so having stood on a manifesto that promised the British people a vote on our membership of the EU and that promised to honour the result of the referendum whatever the outcome.
We must remember in this place that a record number of people—a massive 72% of electors—turned out to vote on 23 June, bucking recent electoral trends. Many of my constituents, already in their 40s, had never ever voted before because they thought that, until then, their voices and their votes did not count. They voted in June for the first time. Contrary to what commentators on both the left and the right say, these people are not simpletons, and they are not children; they are adults with as much right to vote as any of us. They knew the risks of voting to leave and they did so anyway. We must respect that decision and not seek to undermine it.
Seema Kennedy
No, I will not give way, because there are so many Members who wish to speak.
The Bill before us is the legal mechanism by which the Prime Minister can begin withdrawal negotiations. All Members, on whichever side of the House they sit and whichever nation they represent, must wish that these negotiations are successful. There is no doubt that those negotiations will be protracted and difficult, but it is in the best interests of our constituents that we give our Prime Minister and her team of Ministers the strongest hand possible. Lords amendment 2 hampers that ability.
Seema Kennedy
If the hon. Lady listens, I will elucidate.
The preconditions required would mean that whatever the British negotiating team were to say, our EU counterparts would think that they could frustrate, delay or even veto any deal. Certainty was the No. 1 priority in the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech. How can there be any certainty for our businesses, our constituents or even our European partners if there is a prospect of endless review by this place?
Seema Kennedy
I have already said that I will not give way.
Lord Hill, who is a man of great experience in EU negotiations, said this of our European counterparts:
“They need to know that what our negotiators say our negotiators can deliver.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 2017; Vol. 779, c. 32.]
I therefore urge all right hon. and hon. Members to reject the Lords amendments and give the Prime Minister the strongest possible hand in her negotiations.
Alex Salmond
I have only three points to make in the time that I have available.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) asked the Secretary of State whether he would be prepared to deport these European nationals in our midst, he said, rather significantly, “No, of course not, not somebody with my liberal credentials stretching over so many years.” That is the case, and it would be the case for every Member here—with perhaps one or two exceptions whom we shall not name. The vast majority of this House would not countenance ever doing that, which is why, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has just said, those European nationals cease to be any sort of bargaining chip. Even if we thought that the International Trade Secretary was right to say that they were an important card to play—even if we thought that that was acceptable language—they are not a card that we can play. It is like a nuclear deterrent: if we are not going to press the button, it is not a deterrent. If we are not prepared to follow through on deportation or to use people in that way, it cannot be a bargaining chip or a card to play. Therefore, the correct course of action for the Government is, unilaterally, to accept and secure the position of our fellow citizens working and contributing among us. There is no possibility of their being effective as a bargaining chip in negotiations. I call on the Government to do the right thing and accept Lords amendment 1.
Yesterday, the nation was transfixed as we tried to interpret the latest Government policy on Brexit. Should we follow the advice of the Foreign Secretary, who was on one channel, when he said that it would be no problem if we had to resort to World Trade Organisation terms? Or should we follow the advice of the International Trade Secretary, who on another channel was saying, yes indeed, it would be a problem? In fact, we were all watching the wrong people. We should have been watching the Brexit Secretary on the “Andrew Marr Show”, because he was actually getting to the guts and the nub of the problem. Andrew Marr asked, “So what happens if they don’t accept it?”—referring to our voting down the deal that the Government bring to us in a meaningful vote. The Brexit Secretary answered, “That is what’s called the most favoured nation status deal with the World Trade Organisation.”
When this Bill was in Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and others were trying to tempt a commitment out of the Minister of State when he appeared at the Dispatch Box with a flourish—with as much of a flourish as the Minister’s parliamentary style allows—and told us that the Government intend us to have a meaningful vote. Member after Member asked him what would happen in this meaningful vote if we decided to reject the Government’s terms. We had the answer yesterday from the Brexit Secretary: WTO terms. It is absolutely clear: our deal or no deal; our way or the highway. No vote can be described as meaningful if the alternative is the damage of WTO terms.
Given your injunction to be brief, Mr Speaker, I will come to my final point. We are asked why we do not just accept the word of the Brexit Secretary and these other chaps and chapesses in the Government when they tell us that we do not need to put things into legislation. Can I quote a little bit of history here and show Members what assurances we have been given in Scotland on this legislation? On 15 July last year, The Daily Telegraph said:
“Theresa May has indicated that…she said she will not trigger the formal process for leaving the EU until there is an agreed ‘UK approach’ backed by Scotland.”
I admit that that does not come from Hansard, but surely The Daily Telegraph is the nearest the Tories can have to an Official Report. That promise has been swept away. That commitment has been broken, as indeed was the reaction to the Scottish Government’s argument to keep us all within the single market. It was not regarded seriously, and we were not even consulted before the Prime Minister dismissed that as an alternative.
Then there was the compromise: let Scotland stay within the single marketplace, even if this Government are determined to drag the rest of the UK out of it. That was not even given serious consideration. We have had no substantive reply in the past three months, because, in their arrogance, this Government believe that the views of the 48% across the UK, of the Members of the House of Lords, of the Tory Back Benchers who have their doubts, and of the nations in this country, two of which voted for remain in the referendum, do not matter. They can be swept aside as we proceed headlong to the hard Brexit cliff edge. Today, in Scotland, perhaps the Government were disabused of that notion, because there might not be a meaningful vote in this Chamber, but there shall be a meaningful vote in Scotland about protecting our millennium-long history as a European nation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. With extreme brevity now from both sides of the House, I call Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash
First, this is a very simple Bill that is merely about notification and triggering. It is as simple as that. Secondly, the plain fact is that judicial review, which my right hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) dealt with so well, would be a gift to the courts and the lawyers. It really is completely inappropriate. My third point is on the question of parliamentary sovereignty. The fact is that the issue today is not about parliamentary sovereignty. In fact, it is about undermining a decision that has been made by a referendum of the British people that was itself conferred by a sovereign Act of Parliament. That is the distinction and that is what we need to concentrate on.
My last point is simply this: we cannot tie the Prime Minister’s hands. It is inconceivable that we would legislate, make that judicially reviewable and, at the same time, pass amendments the effect of which would be to introduce a Committee of Parliament that would decide on questions that have to be decided on by the Government. Our constitution operates by parliamentary government, not by Committee of Parliament, otherwise we would go back to the 17th century; and I invite people to look at the Barebones Parliament.
Emma Reynolds
I rise to make two brief points. First, if we do not deal, now or in the next three months, with the issue of EU nationals here or UK nationals in the EU 27, those people will get caught up in the negotiations, because the Council is due to respond to the triggering of article 50 in May or June, after the French elections on 7 May. We expect the Council to give Michel Barnier a mandate at around that time. If the Government continue to drag their heels on this issue, which is important not only for EU nationals here, but for our nationals elsewhere, the certainty and uncertainty provoked will affect those people and their livelihoods for two years. What are the Government going to do once the formal negotiations begin on article 50, on the money and on all the things about which there will be such acrimony? How will the Government avoid EU nationals here and UK nationals in the EU being part of those negotiations? The Secretary of State did not provide an answer to that question. We have a short window of time, which will probably start tomorrow and end sometime in May or June.
Secondly, I reiterate something said by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) in her eloquent speech. Some hon. Members on the Government Benches want us to leave without a deal, but what deal is worse than no deal? I find it difficult—in fact, impossible—to conceive of one. There is not one, and the right hon. Lady said that very clearly. Is falling back on WTO rules, with all the tariffs and obstructions to trade that go with that, better than some other deal that the Government can conceive of? What is this weird deal that they are talking about? There simply is not one. This House needs to have a say, whether there is a deal or not.
The Government have given very little clarity about what happens if—we are told that they are preparing for this eventuality—a deal is not agreed between the UK and our European partners. That would be the very worst situation. The Secretary of State has spent his political career espousing and promoting parliamentary scrutiny and sovereignty—well, he used to, before he got his current position. Could we really leave the EU without a deal and without this Parliament having a say? Of course we could not. Why do the Government not just admit that and put it on the face of the Bill?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A three-minute limit on each Back-Bench speech will now apply.
Mr Grieve
I want to support the Government in carrying out an efficient and effective Brexit but, after listening to some of the contributions this afternoon, I think I am living in wonderland.
I will focus solely on Lords amendment 2, particularly subsection (4). The first thing to understand is that, as matters stand, there will be a need not for resolutions of this House, but for primary legislation to complete the process. In fact, there will be a need for primary legislation even if we have no deal at all. I do not know when the Government want to deal with that. They could conceivably try to do it during the course of the great repeal Bill, but they have not suggested that that is what the great repeal Bill—which is, in fact, an entrenchment Bill—is all about. So it seems that if there is no deal at the end of the process, there will have to be primary legislation passed by this House, if that has not already been done.
Interestingly, far from the Lords trying to lead to great litigation, their view—if the Government bother to read Lord Hope’s speech—was that litigation could be avoided by tabling the amendment and providing for a resolution mechanism at the end. I can promise my hon. and right hon. Friends who think that there is some whizzo way of getting around the litigation that, if they do not follow proper constitutional process, there will be litigation, and that litigation will hold matters up.
Now, I am not so concerned about amendment 2. I am concerned about getting an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that, if there is no deal at the end of the process, which will be a very significant moment in this country’s history, Parliament has an opportunity to debate and vote on that. Far from that being an obstruction of the process, I would expect it to be part of the normal constitutional process and the Government to seek the endorsement of the House for that very significant act. I worry that my right hon. Friend—who, I think, personally may well agree with me—has been prevented from saying that at the Dispatch Box. I am afraid that I am not prepared to follow processes that appear to be, frankly, deranged.
There is a clear way of doing things. If we follow them, we will come up with the right decisions at each point; if we do not, we will mire ourselves in chaos. I want to support the Government, but I have to say, most reluctantly, that if we persist with this, I cannot support the Government this evening when it comes to amendment 2. I am very sorry about that. I would like to be able to support the Government because the critique of the Lords amendment has some force, but someone has to put down a marker that we have to follow a proper process in the way in which we carry out Brexit.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for his speech. Notwithstanding my obvious support for the Lords amendment on EU nationals, I urge Government Members to think carefully about what they are being asked to do by Ministers today. The Lords have already inserted into the Bill the amendment to give Parliament a meaningful vote, and Ministers are asking hon. Members tonight to wrench that out of the Bill and delete it. As the Bill stands, it provides that parliamentary scrutiny and authority. Government Members should ask themselves whether they really want actively to go through the Lobby and delete that from the text of the Bill.
Ministers have asked hon. Members to do a number of things. They say, “Don’t tie the hands of the Prime Minister. Whatever you do, give her unfettered power to negotiate in whatever way she likes.” I say to those Ministers and to hon. Members that we should not be putting power entirely in the hands of one person—the Prime Minister—without any insurance policy whatever. With the greatest respect to Ministers, the Prime Minister decides who is on her Front Bench, and parliamentary democracy is the insurance policy that we need throughout the process. We should not be frightened or shy of that. We should welcome it because it is a strength and it is a part of the process.
The Government say, “Take back control.” Yet at the same time they are asking us to muzzle Parliament for the next two-year period by saying, “Well, whatever happens, Parliament may not have a say on that.” We could find ourselves in circumstances where the European Union offers a really good deal but the Prime Minister, singularly, on her own—or his own, of course, because it depends on who the Prime Minister is in two years’ time—could say, “Absolutely no deal.” This Parliament would have no choice but to accept that. We would have no say on the matter.
Ministers ask us to accept their verbal assurances. Well, Ministers are here today, but could be gone tomorrow. May I speculate that we could have a different Prime Minister by the time we get to spring 2019? Who knows? It is possible that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—the Foreign Secretary, no less—could be Prime Minister one day. He said at the weekend that it would be
“perfectly okay if we weren’t able to get an agreement.”
He could be Prime Minister—Government Members do not know—and that would be the situation we would have to face, with no votes and no rights for Parliament. Verbal assurances are not sufficient.
Mr Duncan Smith
Under your instructions, Mr Speaker, I am going to be brief. I want to deal specifically with the first amendment—I thought the second amendment was well dealt with by my right hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).
We have heard a lot in this debate, and we heard a lot in the other place, about the emotional end of what it is to give EU citizens some kind of reassurance, and I myself am publicly on the record as saying I would like to have done that by this point. However, I remind people that we also have UK citizens. The ex-leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), rightly went on about his own family, but I have a sister who has lived and worked in Italy pretty much all her life, and she has retired there. It behoves this place not to dismiss the concerns and worries of such UK citizens quite as lightly as they were dismissed in the other place and have been dismissed here today. I actually heard it said from the Opposition Benches that the reason we should not be so concerned about those UK citizens is that many of them are older and, therefore, pensioners, so they are less important. That is wrong, and I encourage the Government to stick to their plans to deal with the two issues together.
However, the thing about the amendment is that it is not actually what all this emotional argument is about. For those who want to guarantee these rights, this is not the amendment for doing so—it actually does the exact opposite, and that is for two reasons. First, it does not reassure EU nationals over here. I have had conversations with various EU nationals, and they do not feel in the slightest bit reassured by the idea that we are going to call the Government back three months after we have triggered article 50 to ask them what they plan to do. That is no reassurance, and it does not give EU nationals their rights, so we are not voting to reassure them at all.
The second element is that the amendment actually damages the Government’s position in the negotiations. Let us imagine there has been no agreement about what to do with UK citizens. On the three-month mark, the European Commission knows full well that the Government will be dragged back to the House to explain publicly what their plans are, regardless of the negotiations. I can think of nothing worse than to bind their hands in the worst way possible and make sure that UK nationals do not get reciprocal arrangements.
My point tonight is that, whatever the realities of what people want, neither amendment satisfies the requirement to protect EU nationals or to give this Parliament a meaningful vote without damaging the prospects for the Government’s negotiations. I urge the House not to vote for the amendments, and I remind those on the Opposition Benches who talk endlessly about parliamentary sovereignty that, for the 25 years I have sat in this place, all the arguments about the EU have been dismissed on the basis that we were not allowed to amend a single European treaty.
Helen Goodman
I wish to speak particularly to amendment 2, which is very similar to new clauses 99 and 110, which we debated about a month ago.
Conservative Members have complained about Lord Pannick’s drafting. When Ministers make that complaint, I feel it is slightly disingenuous, because they had the opportunity to amend the amendment. If they really felt the other place should not be involved, they could have changed the drafting to say not “both Houses of Parliament” but only “the House of Commons”, or they could have taken out subsection (4), which provides for what we do if there is no agreement with the EU. They have not done that, so they are making the bar higher for their colleagues behind them. In any case, either it is a problem that the House of Lords has a veto, because it is an unelected Chamber, or it is not a problem. It seems the Prime Minister made a promise that the vote would come to both Houses, so she does not seem to think it is a problem, and I do not know why it is being put up as a problem now.
The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) took us on a long perambulation about what might or might not happen. That was completely unnecessary: if we had the amendment on the face of the Bill, we would, in effect, make it part of the constitutional arrangement, which, under article 50, has to be respected by the EU counter-parties in the negotiation.
Mr Grieve
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, because in the last debate we had, we discussed the possibility of being up against the wire. However, it seems to me on reflection that, in actual fact, if our own constitutional processes are not finished, we could not simply fall off the edge of the cliff until we had finished them, and I believe that to be the view of the lawyers in the European Commission as well.
Helen Goodman
I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention.
The point I was going on to make was that it is obviously reasonable for us in this House to have a vote, not just because we all believe in democracy, and not just because the campaigners for leaving argued on the basis of parliamentary sovereignty, but because the European Parliament will have a vote. How can Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and say it is all right to have constitutional arrangements that give Members of the European Parliament a vote and do not give us a vote?
There is one final thing I want to say about the risks of leaving without an agreement. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) set out extremely well what the problems are, but I think they could be even worse than leaving on WTO terms. For us to have an agreement with the WTO, we require every member of it to agree that we should have one. After everything that has happened, does the Minister really think that the President of Russia is going to do us that favour?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I would like to accommodate a number of other colleagues. It is not compulsory to speak for the full three minutes. There is a prize for anybody who can do it in a minute.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Until the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) spoke, I was afraid I was the only person who was having a bit of a flashback to the endless nuclear arms control negotiations of the 1980s, and there are, indeed, a couple of parallels, to which I will allude very briefly.
The first, on Lords amendment 1, is that the question we are asking ourselves is whether we should make a one-sided gesture, regardless of the fact that it would leave our own citizens exposed. We made it clear from the outset that we would agree to guarantee the rights of EU citizens here if other countries would do the same for our citizens in those countries. Why is it that that suggestion has not been seized with both hands? One has to say that that indicates that there are some problems with the way in which the EU intends to go about its negotiations with us.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr Lewis
No, I will not.
The way forward would have been for the EU to say straightaway, “Yes, you’re making this offer. We accept it. No problem.”
However, the second point, on the second amendment, is the more important one. We have heard it said repeatedly from the Opposition Front Bench and from elsewhere in the Chamber that no deal is the worst possible outcome for Britain. Put another way, that is like saying that any deal at all is better than no deal, and I would like to draw a parallel with those arms negotiations in the 1980s. The most successful negotiations were those that led to the treaty in 1987, when we got rid of all the cruise missiles and Pershing missiles on our side, and the Russians got rid of all the SS-20s. It happened like this: we carried out our threat in the negotiations, and the other side walked away from the negotiating table, but when they saw we meant it, they came back, and they gave us a better deal. What we have to remember is this: no deal may lead to a better deal a year or two down the road. If you are determined to take any deal rather than no deal, you will end up with a much worse deal than you might otherwise have had.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I shall vote against both the amendments on the simple basis that this Bill has one purpose and one purpose only: to give legal effect to the decision of the people on 23 June. Any amendments that go beyond that are inappropriate to the Bill.
However, I look to the Secretary of State to give firm assurances that his top and first priority will be the rights of EU citizens; that he acknowledges that that will require a bespoke EU citizenship right to remain, to accommodate such problems as health insurance; and that we will act on that as our opening gesture in the negotiations, to set the right tone.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I will vote against the amendments tonight. I want briefly to address amendment 2 on the final vote. As others have said, it is quite wrong for noble Lords to abrogate for the other place a right of unelected peers to veto Brexit at the 11th hour. But more than that, it would be entirely counterproductive as a matter of diplomatic practice, with Jean-Claude Juncker talking about the possibility of the UK rejoining the EU, to start these negotiations signalling that a lousy deal might lead the UK to reverse its decision. That would be surest way to elicit the worst terms. I understand the legitimate concerns and anxieties in all parts of the House at this very delicate moment for our country’s history, but the truth is that we cannot legislate away legitimate concerns that we have, whether we voted leave or remain, and we cannot legislate for every permutation of these negotiations. We have to trust the Government and support the Government. Yes, scrutinise this, but for heaven’s sake do not weaken it at the very outset of these crucial negotiations. We have debated a one-clause Bill for six weeks.
In summing up, I want to draw approvingly on the view expressed in other place by the noble Lord who headed up the remain campaign—Lord Rose. He made it very clear that in his view the Government should be given the flexibility they deserve and need to get the best deal for the country, and that it is incumbent on all politicians of all parties to rally behind the Government so that they can get the best deal for the whole country. I commend the noble Lord, and I will vote against the amendments.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State would like a minute to wind up, with the leave of the House. I am bound to say that that seems reasonable, but I require the co-operation of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and of the House.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
We live in very strange times. The campaign to leave the EU was based to a very great extent on the idea of restoring parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, the Government’s White Paper asserts:
“The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution.”
Yet Ministers seem set on opposing any attempt to guarantee a meaningful role for Parliament in the process of withdrawing from the EU. Instead we are being asked to write a blank cheque to give Ministers power to withdraw the country from the EU on whatever terms they like—or worse, on no terms at all. Ministers seem to regard their colleagues as little better than lemmings. Faced with the prospect of falling off the cliff edge, we are apparently meant to suspend all judgment and blindly follow wherever they lead. But to allow Ministers to proceed in this way would be an extraordinary and unforgivable abdication of parliamentary responsibility. The manner and terms on which we withdraw from the EU will have implications for the rights and interests of every citizen and business for many years to come, and Parliament must take responsibility for these decisions.
The final deal on trade with the EU will almost certainly need to be ratified at both national and federal level of each EU member state. Lords amendment 2 simply gives the UK Parliament the same power. Do Ministers really want this Parliament to be the single most underpowered of all European Parliaments during that process?
I appeal to colleagues to defy the whipped-up anger of the anti-European press, and to stand up to the ridiculous notion that any and every attempt to give Parliament a role in the Brexit process is somehow a betrayal of the will of the people. It is no such thing—it is simply the exercise of the judgment that we were elected to bring to this House. We were not elected to be lemmings.
Mr David Davis
With the leave of the House, in 60 seconds, Mr Speaker. I start by thanking hon. Members for their valuable contributions. We have heard some formidable speeches. Perhaps that reflects on me. I liked best the ones that were made at my expense.
I will deal very quickly with some of the more important issues. The right hon. Members for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), spoke passionately about the rights of the 3 million. I agree. I care equally passionately about the 4 million. I am afraid that I do not agree with the Chairman of the Brexit Committee or the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) in saying that we are using these people as bargaining chips. We are not. By treating them as 4 million, we are stopping any of them being bargaining chips and getting an outcome that will reflect well on this House and on the European Union.
With regard to amendment 2, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), in a brilliant exposition of the Alice in Wonderland consequences of subsection (4), told us why my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) was right to say that we should stay out of the law in these matters.
The simple truth is that last time round we in this House passed this Bill unamended by a majority of 372. I hope that we will send it back with a similar majority and that the House of Lords respects that rejection of the amendments.
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
It is entirely right that at this pivotal and exciting moment in this country’s—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman develops his speech, may I gently say to those Members who—unaccountably—are leaving the Chamber before the oratorical fireworks the Foreign Secretary will volunteer that it would be greatly appreciated if they could do so quickly and quietly, so that we can proceed with the debate and the right hon. Gentleman can enjoy the certainly quiet and even possibly—if he is lucky—respectful audience that he seeks?
Boris Johnson
As I was saying before your kind advice to Members, Mr Speaker, it is right that at this pivotal and exciting moment in our international economic relations, not just with the EU but of course with the 93% of the world that does not live in the EU—shortly to be 94%—that I should be the first Foreign Secretary in more than 10 years to open a Budget debate. I do so with pride, because this is a Budget that will sustain the momentum of what is already one of the fastest growing economies in the west, with unemployment at its lowest for 11 years, the stock market 1,000 points higher than it was on 23 June, to pick a date entirely at random, and with more people in work—
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Boris Johnson
I want to make a tiny bit of progress. I will give way many times, but let me get to the end of my second sentence—more people in work than ever before. This is a Budget that continues and enables the biggest programme of infrastructure investment this country has seen since Victorian times. It offers our young people the funding and technical qualifications to enable them to realise their full potential. As Britain prepares for re-entry, as I call it, into the global economy and for forging new relationships and partnerships around the world, the Budget—
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On forging new relationships, can the Foreign Secretary explain how he will do that when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget will be cut so substantially?
Boris Johnson
As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, we manage to run a world-class network—the most developed diplomatic network in the world—on approximately two thirds of the budget that the French spend, and we will continue to exercise the greatest prudence in managing our budget. I am fortified in that by the support that I have from the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was, of course, my predecessor in office. It is thanks to the Chancellor’s wisdom in his Budget that young Britons will be able to compete with confidence.
This is a Budget for global Britain. It is this Government’s argument not only that Britain is more outward facing by history and by instinct than any comparable economy, but that its global character is profoundly in the interests of the British people. A truly global Britain is a prosperous Britain, and it is Britain’s engagement with the world that means this country plays an extraordinary and indispensable role in the security, stability and prosperity of the world.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Specifically on the issue of global Britain and our new trading relationship, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that one of the ultimate ways in which we could project the soft power and prestige of Britain around the globe and promote trade is to recommission a new royal yacht for Her Majesty the Queen as a floating trade mission to be used by industry around the globe in the interest of our nation?
Boris Johnson
May I say how much I admire my hon. Friend for the indefatigable campaign he is running to create such a vessel? It is my view that it would indeed add greatly to the soft power of this country, which is already very considerable, if we were to have such a vessel, always provided—I know that this is part of his prospectus—that the new Britannia should not be a call on the taxpayer. If it can be done privately, I am sure it will attract overwhelming support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Boris Johnson
I believe that measures such as a new royal yacht—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Why are people making such a noise when the Foreign Secretary is saying things that might be important? [Interruption.] Order. I would like to hear the Foreign Secretary.
Boris Johnson
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The new royal yacht is one of a number of measures that I am sure this Government will be able to consider. In the meantime, we have before us a Budget that is helping to create the conditions in which this economy can continue to flourish.
The first of these conditions—
Several hon. Members rose—
Boris Johnson
If Labour Members will allow me, I shall say a couple more sentences.
The first of the conditions that are essential for the prosperity of global Britain is security. Unlike the Labour party, whose idea of a nuclear deterrent is to send our submarines to sea without a nuclear missile aboard so that the whole nation is literally firing blanks, this Government see the vital importance of maintaining our defences. This Budget therefore provides once again for the United Kingdom to set an example to our European partners by spending 2% of our GDP on our armed forces, thereby giving vital credibility to NATO, which of course serves as the guarantor of the security of all our major trading partners on either side of the Atlantic.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
On the point about our trading relationships, at the weekend, the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be perfectly okay for the UK to leave the European Union with no deal and to fall back on World Trade Organisation rules. Lord Heseltine said, “Well, that’s rubbish, isn’t it?” Is it rubbish?
Boris Johnson
I repeat what I said at the weekend, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was paying attention. I do not believe, by the way, that it will come to that, because we will have no difficulty over the next couple of years in doing a deal that is very much in the interests of both sides. I shall come on to that later.
To get back to the defence of the planet, let me remind Members that we are not only committed to transatlantic defences, as we will also spend £3 billion east of Suez in the Gulf region over the next 10 years. In fact we are reopening and restoring our role east of Suez, arguably for the first time since 1967. We are reopening a naval base in Bahrain, which makes perfect economic sense as well. If Labour Members cared about these things, they would understand that there is an absolute connection between our security and our economic prosperity, because the region of the Gulf—the Opposition probably do not know this—is our largest and fastest-growing export market apart from the EU and the US.
It does not end there either, because we are also committed to the security of the wider world, including Asia. Last year, as the House will know, the Royal Air Force sent Typhoon fighters to Japan, South Korea and Malaysia, proving that Britain remains one of the handful of countries able to deploy air power 7,000 miles from its shores. Soon the Royal Navy will have two giant aircraft carriers, each of them longer than the Palace of Westminster—the biggest warships this country has ever possessed, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
Boris Johnson
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman opposes those aircraft carriers as well. Perhaps he does. Perhaps he will enlighten us.
Owen Smith
Much as I am enjoying the Foreign Secretary’s travelogue, could we get back to the business in hand, which is the Budget? Will he confirm that the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that we are going to see less trade and less economic activity as a result of Brexit, and that we are going to borrow an extra £100 billion as a direct consequence of Brexit?
Boris Johnson
With great respect, I think we have heard enough of that sort of stuff over the last year or so. It has been proved convincingly to be wrong. As I said, the stock market is 1,000 points up. As for the deficit, which the hon. Gentleman mentions, we are bringing it down to below 3% for the first time since 2007—thanks to the prudent management of this country’s finances, and thanks to the Conservative-led Administration who had to take over the catastrophic mess that needed to be cleared up after his party was in office.
Boris Johnson
I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman resumed his seat. I do not intend to give way to him again.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way to me?
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am grateful. May I say how much I support the Government’s commitment to the 2% minimum on defence spending? However, does my right hon. Friend agree that we are going to need every penny of it, given in particular that the Chinese—my right hon. Friend mentioned east of Suez—are seeking to colonise militarily a number of uninhabited atolls in the South China sea, which is destabilising the region? Given that we are signatories to the five power defence arrangements, does he agree that we need to take action on that, and therefore increase the defence budget and not keep it steady where it is?
Boris Johnson
I am delighted that my hon. Friend makes that point. He reminds me that it was the leader of the Labour party, the current Leader of the Opposition, who said that he did not think this country needed a defence policy at all. I think he said that we do not even need an Army, let alone any spending on the security and stability of the South China seas. I remind my hon. Friend that 25% of the world’s trade goes through the straits of Malacca, so it is more vital than ever that we have a truly global commitment.
Boris Johnson
I shall give way in a moment or two. I wish to return to the Budget. [Interruption.]
Boris Johnson
I will give way in due course, but I wish to make this point, because I have been asked to return to the Budget. I do so with absolute pleasure, because it is thanks to the careful stewardship of this country’s finances that we are able to deploy not only hard power on the scale that I have mentioned—we are the second biggest military contributor to NATO—but soft power on a scale unmatched by any of our European partners. The BBC, our universities and the British Council, an absolute gem of this country and its culture—an unsung gem, I might add—give the United Kingdom a cultural penumbra across the world that is of massive economic value.
Mike Gapes
The Foreign Secretary has mentioned the British Council. As he knows, the British Council will no longer receive any funds from the British Government. At the same time, there are continuing pressures on our diplomatic missions around the world as a result of the budget crisis with which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has had to deal. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us how many additional diplomats will be appointed to increase the FCO’s budget so that it is able to deal with the consequences of Brexit, which is what the Foreign Affairs Committee called for in a recent report?
Boris Johnson
I have to say that I am deeply disappointed that I finally gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has shown the most staggering ignorance of the British Council, of Foreign Office spending and of the success of our diplomatic network. However, I will give him the answer to his question. In response to the challenge and the opportunities that we have, we are increasing our representation: just in our European posts, 50 more diplomats and 25 new trade experts have been recruited. We are expanding a fantastic network, and that is on top of the enormous soft and hard power that we have. As I am sure the House will know, the United Kingdom is the third biggest contributor to development finance in the world, after the United States and the European Union. That is an extraordinary record, of which I think every Member in the House—certainly every member of this Conservative Government —should be proud.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I am glad to hear the Foreign Secretary talk about Britain’s soft power and its global reputation. Does he agree that he poses the biggest risk to both by putting his foot in his mouth on too many occasions?
Boris Johnson
I am terribly sorry; I missed the second half of that question. However, if the assertion was that British diplomacy is in any way falling short, let me say this. I believe that in the last few months we have seen an understanding of what the country wants, and a growing warmth towards our objectives, because they are, after all, shared with our European friends and partners.
As I have said, one of the things that are most admired by our colleagues around the table, not just in Brussels but in the United Nations, the G7 and the G20—all the bodies whose meetings I attend—is the fact that, as they realise, our Government have an extraordinary record of giving development aid. As we sit here now, the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is helping the Pakistani Government to put 6 million girls through school in the Punjab alone. I think everyone appreciates that that is the best way of promoting economic growth, curbing infant mortality and reducing the pressures of a growing population.
We do not spend our aid budget—0.7% of gross national income—just because that is the right thing to do, although surely it is morally the right thing to do. I am not embarrassed to say that it is also the best way of promoting the development of the economies concerned, and thereby spurring the growth of our export markets. In that sense, a global Britain—[Interruption.] I did not think Labour Members would like that, because they are not interested in any policy that is so obviously of economic benefit to the country, but that is one of the reasons we are doing this. I speak as a defender of, and a believer in, globalisation, because millions of British people in our country—tens of millions, indeed—depend for their jobs and their livelihoods on the benign force of global free trade, which in turn requires safe and open shipping lanes, clear rules and effective institutions. None of that can be taken for granted.
Boris Johnson
I think I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I have not. Go on.
Geraint Davies
In the context of global free trade and, in particular, the judgment of the international financial markets, does the Foreign Secretary not accept that since 23 June our economy has slipped from fifth biggest to sixth biggest, and that those markets have deflated its value by 15%, which is why we have devalued and everyone’s wages and all our assets are 15% lower? That is not a success; it is a failure.
Boris Johnson
One would have thought that they would learn. One would have thought that the merchants of this kind of thing would have understood that there is no point in continually standing up and running our country down when, in fact, we are back up at No. 5. We have seen record investment in the United Kingdom, and we continue to see that the fundamentals of the British economy are strong and getting stronger.
Boris Johnson
I will in 10 seconds.
One of the reasons for that is the active role that we play in protecting and insisting on rules-based international order. And with that, I give way to my hon. Friend.
Crispin Blunt
My right hon. Friend talks of the importance of the development budget and what it brings to the United Kingdom. Will he at least accept that there is an issue over how that money is invested in, for instance, the British Council, and, indeed, cross-invested in elements of his budget? Will he accept that that policy can only be applied to the developing world, that it is rather more important for him to have the tools to present global Britain across the whole world, and that the policy should not be constrained by the source of the expenditure?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend speaks with great wisdom and authority. I know that the Foreign Affairs Committee, which he chairs, has made some useful recommendations on how we can maximise our overseas spending, and co-ordinate it so that it helps to deliver not only our security but our economic objectives. I totally accept that point.
In the pursuit of the system that we want to see, our diplomats and intelligence officers and our serving men and women, backed up by the Department for International Development, are striving every day to preserve the essentials of the rule-based order, thereby helping to protect jobs and the safety of our constituents here in the United Kingdom.
Boris Johnson
Let me just conclude my thought about trade. Back in 1990, about 37% of our fellow human beings world wide lived in absolute poverty. Today, that figure has fallen to less than 10%, which is all the more remarkable when we consider that the world population has risen by 1.8 billion in the interim. That dramatic fall in poverty, unparalleled in history, coincided with the biggest expansion of free trade and open markets that the world has ever seen. Conservative Members believe in that policy implicitly.
Boris Johnson
I think that the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) will agree with me when I say that the rules-based international order which we uphold in global Britain is an overwhelming benefit for the world as a whole.
Mr Howarth
Of course I agree with the Foreign Secretary. It is just a pity that on some occasions he does not seem to project that view when he travels abroad—but that is another problem.
A moment ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) asked him some questions, the Foreign Secretary dismissed them as ignorant. When the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), asked him exactly the same questions, he agreed with his hon. Friend. He cannot be right in both cases.
Boris Johnson
With great trepidation, I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. We travelled abroad together and both spoke the same sort of language at the time. Alas, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) revealed the profoundest misunderstanding—let me put it no higher than that—of the exact state of the British Council’s finances. That was regrettable and worth correcting.
Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we are able to continue to support an active global Britain through the Budget, but there is of course much more to be done. Once we leave the EU, the Government will—we will all—regain a power that this country has not been able to deploy for 44 years, and that is the ability to conclude free trade agreements. The first and most important of those deals will be with our friends and partners in the EU. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, we are leaving the EU but we are not leaving Europe. To those who seriously doubt that we can pull it off in the next two years, let me remind them of the most essential point—that deal is profoundly in the interests of our friends and partners on the other side of the channel, who have a massive net balance of trade with us. They are optimistic. They are determined. I sometimes wish that we could have a little more of the same spirit from the Labour party.
Boris Johnson
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now say that he is abandoning his gloomadon-popping and that he is going to come up with something supportive of the British negotiating position.
Owen Smith
I am going to seek to support the Foreign Secretary’s getting back to the question of the Budget. He talks about trade being increased in future—as a result of Brexit, I presume. Does he therefore disagree with the view of the independent, Tory-created Office for Budget Responsibility that trade will be reduced as a result of our leaving the EU?
Boris Johnson
I must respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that, again, he is being too pessimistic. If we look at the UK’s trade with the rest of the EU over the past 20 years, regrettably we see that it has been declining as a proportion of our exports. I would like to see it increasing again—why not?—but I would also like to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade, who I am delighted to see sitting next to me, doing those free trade deals around the world. As the House will know, there is massive excitement and enthusiasm among our global partners to do just that. There is literally a queue of countries that want to do significant and substantial free trade deals.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which just yesterday said:
“The possibility of ‘no deal’ is real enough to”
justify planning for it and that not to plan would be a mistake and constitute a serious “dereliction of duty” by the present Administration. That is your Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. No, it isn’t. It is the Foreign Secretary’s Select Committee.
Boris Johnson
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. If I may, I will remind the hon. Lady of my optimism. I urge Labour Members to contain their pessimism. They asked me to name the countries that wish to do free trade deals. There are dozens. They have heard what the United States of America wants to do and that will be hugely in the interests of every part of this country. Right hon. and hon. Members may not know this, but at the moment the United States still has an embargo not only on British beef but on Scottish haggis. I do not know whether Members of the Scottish parties agree with that, but there is no way of liberating the haggis to travel across the Atlantic again unless we do a free trade deal with the United States.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. This point might be about haggis and the House must listen to it.
Alan Brown
I appreciate the Foreign Secretary’s concern for Scotland’s exports. Does he still believe that a pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde?
Boris Johnson
What I certainly believe is that a free trade deal with the United States and free trade deals for this country would be of profound benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Since the hon. Gentleman has interrupted me, let me remind him that today is Commonwealth day, which provides an opportunity for us all to celebrate that remarkable institution which embraces one third of humanity and now includes some of the fastest-growing economies in the world—a free association of 52 countries, spread across every continent and dedicated to advancing the values that we share. I am proud to say that Britain will host the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit next year. Although we may not be able to sign free trade deals with our Commonwealth friends now, we can see them in outline and taking shape. Let me say this to our friends from the Scottish nationalist party, who seem so determined to wrench themselves out of the UK, even though they had a decisive referendum on the matter, as Members will recall, only a couple of years ago: never mind haggis; Scotch whisky exports to the Indian whisky market, a potentially huge market—the Indian thirst for whisky is colossal—account for only 4% of Indian whisky consumption. That is because at the moment, without a free trade deal, the Indian Government impose a 150% tariff on Scotch whisky.
Imagine a free trade deal that lifted the exports of Scotch to India by only a few per cent.—to, say, 6% or 10%. Dare to dream that Scotch whisky, which everyone in the House would concede is the original and authentic whisky, were slaking just 15% of that gigantic Indian thirst for whisky. We would be talking about an increase in profits for the Scotch whisky industry, for this country and, above all, for Scotland every year running into hundreds of millions of pounds. That means jobs, growth and investment for Scotland. It means the prosperity that comes with having a truly global outlook, which unfortunately Members on the Opposition Benches signally seem to lack.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Boris Johnson
Let me make some progress.
In that global marketplace, this Budget will allow young Britons to compete with the best by investing in the talents and skills of the rising generation—more than a hundred new free schools provided for; a thousand more PhD places specifically for science, technology, engineering and mathematics; and another £270 million for biotech, robotics and electric vehicles. There will be another £16 million for 5G mobile technology. That is building on and fostering a global reputation for innovation. Last year, we were ranked the third most innovative country in the world. We were one place above America, seven places ahead of Germany, 15 higher than France, and fully 21 places above China. That is the measure of the extraordinary intellectual fecundity of this country.
Cambridge University alone has produced more Nobel laureates than every university in Russia and China added together and multiplied by two. When those breakthroughs take place, when that spark of innovation takes place, we foster it, we encourage it and we give business every possible incentive to turn those brilliant ideas into world-beating products.
From next month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will cut corporation tax to 19%, and it will be 17% by 2020—the lowest of any G20 economy. And it is by creating the right business environment—by investing in infrastructure, skills, housing and technology—that we are not only building a platform for sustainable growth but creating a launch pad for the most extraordinary exports. As I never tire of telling my friends, we export tea to China and cake—chocolate cake—to France; we export bicycles, I am proud to say, made in London to Holland; we export TV aerials to South Korea, and boomerangs to Australia, I believe; I think we have at least once in the past exported sand to Saudi Arabia, and Nigel Farage to America, I am delighted to say.
On Friday—
Several hon. Members rose—
Boris Johnson
On Friday—[Interruption.] Opposition Members mock, and they may mock the entrepreneurial spirit and the exporting drive and originality of this country—[Interruption.]—but let me tell them that on Friday—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Foreign Secretary will give way when he is ready to give way; meanwhile, no shouting.
Boris Johnson
I will conclude with these thoughts.
Last Friday, I was in my constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and I am proud to say that I visited a business on a backstreet in Uxbridge that has more or less cornered the market in manufacturing the fancy display cabinets used to sell delicacies such as Toblerone in every airport in Saudi Arabia, and it is expanding. Thanks to the ingenuity and enterprise of that business, if we go to a Saudi Arabian airport and buy a Toblerone, we will buy it over a counter made in Uxbridge.
Given the ingenuity that this nation is showing, I believe—
Boris Johnson
I will not give way.
I believe that we have every reason to be confident in what we can achieve together, as one United Kingdom. This is a nation that in the last 300 years has become prosperous and successful precisely because it adopted a uniquely global outlook—active, engaged, and trading with every corner of the planet—not just for the benefit of the people of this country, but, I dare to say it, for the benefit of the entire world. This is once again the course on which we are now embarked, and this Budget will help us to fulfil our potential as a truly global Britain.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that, like many other Members, it was my privilege this afternoon to attend the service of celebration for the Commonwealth at Westminster Abbey, in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen. In the context of tonight’s debate, it was a reminder of the powerful and historical ties that Britain enjoys all over the world; we are a country that will always face outwards and never turn in on ourselves, and, like the Secretary of State, I hope that at next year’s service we will have another member of the Commonwealth present, as a democratic Gambia completes the process of re-admission.
I thank the Secretary of State for opening this evening’s debate on the Budget and Britain’s place in the world. It is an issue of vital importance, and yet one that, it is fair to say, has not been centre stage in the five days of the debate on the Budget. If someone had told us last summer that going into article 50 week the Prime Minister and the Chancellor would be at each other’s throats, at war through the media, and engaged in a desperate blame game, while the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would be sent into the television studios to act for the Government as the voice of calm and unity, no one would have believed them. However, if this is indeed to be the Foreign Secretary’s new role—if he is going to be the new Willie Whitelaw figure, or, dare I say it, the new John Prescott—I congratulate him and wish him the very best of luck in the future.
Of course, there will be some unkind souls who look at the row between No. 10 and No. 11 and think it is exactly what the Secretary of State needed this weekend. In their cynical minds, had it not been for that row, much more attention would have focused on Sunday’s real heavyweight contest, the one the public really wanted to see explode, the one between the two Tory blond heavyweights: Hezza versus Bozza; Tarzan versus the Zip-Glider; the Dog-Killer versus the Dave-Slayer. We were denied a true fight, but we were left with these immortal words from Lord Heseltine:
“When I listen to Boris…he has turned the art of political communication into a science”
of using
“waffle, charm, delay, anything to stop actually answering questions.”
In the rest of my speech, I intend to ask some very straightforward questions on the Budget and Britain’s place in the world, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to answer them without waffle or delay, and with no more charm than he feels is absolutely necessary.
It is striking that we are here to debate a Budget that has almost nothing to say about Britain’s place in the world, and with even less to offer for it. I am sure that we could all have predicted some of the rhetoric that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman tonight about re-entry into world markets, a truly global Britain and an active global Britain. I predict that we will hear more about “brand Britannia” and terms such as “dynamic”, “agile”, “cutting edge”, “global powers”, “global reach” and “global influence”, and about the yacht and exporting boomerangs and so forth—but the question is this: what is the strategy for achieving all that ambition, and how does the Budget provide the resources to back it up? So far, we have seen no evidence of either.
It is not enough simply to want a relationship with Europe that has all of the benefits and none of the costs, and to be a leading global power at the same time, or to say, like Tinkerbell, that all we have to do to make it happen is believe that it is possible. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman almost seems to be implying that if we do not believe, or if we ask awkward questions, somehow these things will not happen, and that fairies will start falling from the skies.
It has been said in this debate—no doubt it will be said again—that the Government are meeting their commitments to spend both 2% of GDP on defence and 0.7% on development, but while these seem like clear commitments, when we scratch the surface there are many unanswered questions, about how funding is split between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, and about how, where, why and on what this money is actually spent.
It seems likely that a large part of the Foreign Office budget over the next few years will come from funding streams that are nominally shared across Departments, most of them with blandly unobjectionable names such as the conflict, stability and security fund and the prosperity fund. The idea of shared funding is perfectly valid in principle, but we need to know how these funds will be used by the Foreign Office. How much will be classed as “aid” spending, and how much as “defence”, and, for that matter, how much will be classed as both? We need to know why there is so little transparency on this issue, and what kind of oversight there is to make sure that these funds are used responsibly. One might, if one was of a suspicious frame of mind, even conclude that the Government are being wilfully opaque in this matter, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will bristle at the very suggestion, and will want to do all he can to dispel such a thought from the debate.
Of course, the reliance of the Foreign Office—perhaps the over-reliance—on funding from outside its budget settlement is really just symptomatic of a much larger and much more damaging trend under this Government. Unlike defence or overseas aid, our diplomatic service lacks the financial security of a politically or legally binding spending target, and I am sorry to say that it shows. Of the three Departments that share most of the responsibility for “Britain’s place in the world”—the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development—the FCO’s budget accounts for just 3% of the combined total, despite the fact that it is every bit as essential as the other two.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman saw the Financial Times on Friday, which highlighted the real change in Departments’ resource budgets between 2016-17 and 2019-20. It is no surprise—there was a great deal of fuss about this—that there has been a cut of 37.2% to Department for Communities and Local Government budgets, but which Department has the largest cut of all? It is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has a minus 38.1% change to its budget. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) may shake his head, and if I am wrong, he should please tell me. I would be interested to see him go into battle with the Financial Times on this matter.
The Department’s budget is already very small, and it comes as no surprise that these cuts have had serious consequences for our standing in the world and for our global reach and influence. To start with, there has been a loss of expertise. We have seen the Government repeatedly being caught by surprise on events of great global significance such as the Arab spring, the crisis in Ukraine and the attempted coup in Turkey. There has been a hollowing out of expertise in these critical areas, not to mention a loss of skilled linguists. If the Secretary of State can tell us what progress has been made on recovering Russian and Arabic language capabilities, for example, I should be very grateful.
Mike Gapes
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the hollowing out of the FCO’s budget. On the question of linguists, has she seen the report on Russia from the Foreign Affairs Committee that we published last week? It describes the lack of expertise in the FCO for looking at Russia. Does she agree with me and the Committee that the FCO needs more resources if we are to confront and understand the problems being caused by Russia’s behaviour towards its neighbours?
Emily Thornberry
It is because I have read that report that I mention Russian language capabilities. In my view, the reports produced by the Foreign Affairs Committee are thoughtful and informative, and I recommend them to the Secretary of State. The Committee has raised a number of flags that need to be carefully considered, because changes are happening to our precious Foreign Office and we are losing capabilities that it will be very difficult to redevelop.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is making a reasonably cogent case—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] She is most welcome—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Hon. Members must not object when a Member is polite to someone on the other side of the House. That is being honourable.
Mr Jackson
That is a rare phenomenon in respect of the right hon. Lady, sometimes, Madam Deputy Speaker. On a serious point, is it not only fair to record that those of us who occasionally travelled to central and south America witnessed a shrinking of our footprint and our soft power as the previous Labour Government closed many of the embassies there? We also downgraded the Chevening scholarships. This is something that we now need to review urgently as we go forward post-Brexit.
Emily Thornberry
I am surprised to find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I do. It is important that we should stop and have a review. We need to look carefully at the 38% cuts that are being implemented by his Government at this crucial time for Britain. That is the point that I am making in this Budget debate. I believe that these issues need to be seriously addressed, and questions and answers about haggis are not sufficient when it comes to dealing with cuts of 38% to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
It is not just language skills that have suffered. Let us consider BBC Monitoring, a vital service that monitors and translates foreign news reports and serves as an indispensable source of intelligence for Government Departments, including the Foreign Office. By transferring the responsibility for its funding from the taxpayer to the BBC itself, the Government have left BBC Monitoring open to cuts, and last year saw the announcement of 96 job losses and the closure of 20% of its posts overseas. Is that responsible behaviour, at a time like this? Cuts such as those will continue to have effects as incalculable as they are far-reaching.
It turns out that what a Government choose to fund, or not to fund, can tell us a great deal more than just the short-term spending priorities of the Government as a whole. For the Foreign Office, those decisions can identify the most basic principles underlying the Government’s foreign policy approach. For perhaps the best example of that, we need look no further than the downgrading of human rights as a priority for the Department. They are now considered far less important than the so-called prosperity agenda— [Interruption.] I hear people saying that that is entirely untrue. Let me pray in aid the permanent secretary to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who has said precisely that. That decision has been confirmed as a more or less direct consequence of the cuts imposed by the Government.
It was not so long ago that a Tory Foreign Secretary, William—now Lord—Hague, was able to say with a straight face that there would be
“no downgrading of human rights”
under his Government. He argued that it was neither in our interests nor in our nature to have what he called a
“foreign policy without a conscience”.
I could not agree more, and he must surely be sharing our disappointment to see a Tory Foreign Secretary and a Tory Prime Minister practically tripping over each other to cosy up to the likes of Donald Trump. We used to think that there were some world leaders who would always unite the opinion of this House, and that Members on both sides would always have the courage to speak out against those who did not share our values. These days, the Government’s values are obscure, to put it politely, beyond being in favour of trade, so the question is not just one of how much the Government are prepared to spend on the world-class diplomatic service that they want, important though that is; it is also a question of what they are prepared to do with the resources that they have.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is making her points from the Opposition Front Bench, but does she not agree that the Government have made important strides on freedom of religion or belief? They held a conference a few months ago to help to promote those issues, not just in the Commonwealth but globally. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, I really appreciate that sort of action. It is very important, and it should not be downgraded by such talk from the Opposition Benches.
Emily Thornberry
That is to be acknowledged, but we must also look at what is happening within the various missions and at the posts that are being stripped out. Those whose job it was to make contact with human rights activists and with civil society within those countries—[Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, wishes to intervene on me, I will have no problem with that. However, if he is not going to intervene, could he just be quiet and let me finish my speech? I would appreciate that.
I want to talk about what our foreign policy is, in essence. Ministers are fond of speaking of the opportunities that leaving the EU could provide. On foreign policy, a fundamental rethink of the Government’s approach could be one of those opportunities, but in fact it is more than that: doing so is an absolute imperative. As the Government start to think—however belatedly—about the kind of relationship they might want with Europe, they should also consider what kind of relationship they want us to have with the rest of the world. In doing so, we need more than just warm words from the Government—we need a plan. Our Foreign Office has been at its very best when it has been allowed in its foreign policy to give proper weight to British values as well as to British interests. I hope that the Secretary of State will look to that legacy and embrace and build on it, rather than undermining it any further. In the more immediate term, we need the Government to start thinking sensibly about Europe as a matter of urgency. We know little more about Ministers’ intentions than that they are prepared to break the British economic model if they feel that that is needed if we do not get a deal.
I heard the Secretary of State say at the weekend that we would be “perfectly okay” if we left the EU without a deal. So why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer briefing that he is going to hoard £60 billion because of Brexit? Perhaps it is to fund the extra £350 million a week that the Secretary of State promised for the national health service. If so, I hope that the Secretary of State has asked the Chancellor about it, because £60 billion would provide three years, three months and one week’s-worth of extra money for the NHS. At the moment, he seems to be doing no more than crossing his fingers and hoping for the best. This is a serious situation. We need clear thinking about our future in Europe and in the wider world, and simply talking about Toblerone display cabinets in Saudi Arabia is not sufficient. We need clear thinking and a clear plan, and we need them without any further delay.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to colleagues that a great many people want to speak and, although we have plenty of time, I am going to set a time limit immediately for Back-Bench speakers. Otherwise, the people who speak at the beginning will take three times as long as the people who speak at the end, which is what happened last week. So we will start with a time limit of eight minutes.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I totally agree with the Foreign Secretary that today—at this moment—we are presented with a massive opportunity to create a new form of global Britain. I particularly agree with his points about Britain’s soft power. Just to clarify the point about the British Council, the figures actually show that there will be a 43% rise in FCO funding by 2020, reflecting the seriousness with which we take the opportunities for Britain’s soft power.
The opportunities for global Britain are of particular importance to my constituents and to people in the Black country part of the west midlands. The announcement of the midlands engine strategy in the Budget is a significant moment for the people of the Black country. The Budget sets aside £55 million of new investment for the area, building on the significant investment made in the previous Parliament when, through the city deals, £1 million was invested in an advanced science, technology and engineering centre at Halesowen College. Significant progress has already been made in investment in the Black country, and the area is one of the UK’s fastest growing sub-regions, with more jobs and better skills, but we need to do more.
As we build the global Britain that the Foreign Secretary talked about, areas such as the Black country face five key challenges. The first is skills. Even though the number of young people not in education or training in the Black country is below the national average—we have made significant progress—skills gaps still exist in the area that I represent. I welcome the £7 million of new capital investment for further education that was announced in the Budget as part of the midlands engine strategy, but more is needed for investment in technical skills and to tackle historical levels of educational underperformance in the Black country and the wider west midlands. Skills gaps hold the Black country back as we seek to develop this global Britain.
The second challenge is transport and infrastructure, where historical under-investment is also holding the west midlands back. I welcome the announcement of £25 million to tackle congestion as part of the midlands engine, and we need a longer-term focus on the potential benefits of HS2, the development of Birmingham airport, and our rail and road network across the Black country and the west midlands.
The third big challenge addressed in the Budget, and one that we need to consider in the long term, is innovation rates. The Black country is becoming a world leader in, for example, the automotive, aerospace and advanced manufacturing sectors, with products such as Bugatti brakes and even the chairs used on “Match of the Day” being produced in the area, which is developing a worldwide reputation for design and product manufacturing.
The fourth challenge, which is a cumulative impact of the others, is relatively low productivity. It is a puzzle that we are yet to solve, and we need to tackle it by approaching it from all angles: improving skills, improving education at primary and secondary levels, and investing in transport infrastructure and the wider social realm.
The fifth challenge for the Black country is exporting, inward investment, and the potential opportunities of Brexit. With a 49% increase in exports since 2010, the west midlands’ export performance has been excellent in recent times and better than many other UK regions. We must be positive about the future and position the west midlands front and centre in our global trade plans to take advantage of the opportunities presented by Brexit. That is why I welcome, as part of the midlands engine strategy, the move towards the creation of a midlands trade and investment programme to develop markets to which the west midlands does not currently export. It has a good record in China and the United States, but we have the opportunity to open up and exploit new markets in many other countries.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that foreign language skills are one of the most important things that we lack? That is intimately associated with our relatively poor export performance in the past, and we need better learning and teaching of foreign languages in order to penetrate those new markets.
James Morris
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Foreign languages are one key component, but the challenge in areas such as the Black country is to raise education performance levels more broadly. Standards need improving at primary and secondary levels, and we need to focus on technical education. The west midlands must face outwards and take advantage of the global opportunities that are currently presented.
Critically, the Black country and the west midlands are too often talked about as though they are a relic of Britain’s industrial past, but that is wrong. The Black country is increasingly in the vanguard of our industrial future. It is a leading player in high-tech manufacturing and has an increasingly competitive, productive economy. We do not need to focus on managing decline. The Black country is not some kind of industrial museum to look back on with fondness as part of Britain’s industrial greatness. The area is becoming a world leader in critical parts of our economic future.
As we take a forward view of global Britain, it is important not to focus just on London and the south-east; part of our long-term strategy should be the rebalancing of the economy. It is taking a long time, but we have made a lot of progress towards achieving that rebalancing. We must redouble that effort, invest in the appropriate skills and in the future of the businesses in the west midlands, and take away the barriers to growth, which include our transport infrastructure. It is simply too hard to get around the Black country and the wider west midlands, and the evidence is that transport bottlenecks make it increasingly difficult for the west midlands to realise its economic potential and achieve productive growth. As I said, we are not managing decline or nostalgically looking back to a mythical golden age; we seek to embrace the future of the Black country and of our young people in a global Britain.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this Budget debate. I had the same pleasure last year, and I appreciate the opportunity. I want to talk about quite a few things. The Foreign Secretary talked about global Britain, but we are in fact looking at a broken Brexit Britain. We are looking at a package of unfairness not only in the Budget, but in the austerity that the Government have followed for years. Ordinary working people have not been supported by this Government or the previous Government.
The UK Government have their head in the sand, and they have it there for two good reasons. First, they do not have the faintest idea of what Brexit will actually mean. What they do know about the outcome of Brexit is that it will be bad, so they do not want to tell us what they know. Secondly, the Government talk all the time about how things will affect the ordinary working person, but most Conservative Members—or at least too many of them—do not actually have a clue about what it is like to be an ordinary working person. They do not have a clue what it is like to push a trolley around the supermarket and feel inflation going up, as it has done over the past three months. Inflation has gone up to its highest level in ages during the past three months. People are seeing a 15% increase in the price of butter and a 6% increase in the price of tea. Those things have a real impact on families’ budgets, because they are everyday essentials which people regularly buy, so when they go up in price people are disproportionately affected. In Scotland, 48.4% of adults have less than £100 in savings. Across the UK families owe, on average, £2,770—that is the debt that families have. This is a really tight situation for people. People are struggling; they are not able to save and they have levels of debt.
People who have had a mortgage in the past eight years have never seen interest rates above 0.5%. Therefore, if the Bank of England decides to raise interest rates because of the weakness of the pound, which is not inconceivable, these people will be hit by increased mortgage costs that they did not expect, because they had never seen such increases before and so have not planned for them. This Government are doing nothing to help the budgets of these people. I spoke to some of my friends about how they feel the economy hits them. Too many of them told me, “I lie awake at night worrying because I have no savings. What if my partner gets laid off? We have no money. We have no slack in our budgets.” With rising inflation, because of Brexit, and the fact that the UK Government are not willing to take action now to combat it, people’s budgets are going to be squeezed even more tightly.
We have also seen wage stagnation as part of this package of unfairness. In 2022, average earnings will be no higher than they were in 2007. The UK Government need to take action—they need to be spending—to counter that and to make sure that people’s everyday budgets and everyday family incomes balance.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Just to put this into perspective, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts are for inflation to be 2.6%, then 2.4% and then coming down to 2%. Although that is higher than we would like—it is above the target—it is not the kind of inflation we have seen in the past under other Governments. The hon. Lady is talking about a fiscal reflation—throwing more money into the economy—but that would increase inflation.
Kirsty Blackman
I am talking about putting more money into infrastructure, things that actually create jobs, and research and development. What we have seen in the UK is pitiful productivity. In Scotland, we are beginning to counter that, as our productivity has grown much faster than the level in the rest of the UK. That is partly because of the fiscal stimulus given by the infrastructure packages we have put in place, which has allowed us to make a difference to productivity. If the UK Government intend to take us out of the single market and to make it more difficult for us to have trading relationships and to export, they will need to make sure that they are increasing productivity to counter that, otherwise we will face a real issue on the lack of wage growth.
The Chancellor stood up and said, “It is fabulous what we are doing for the oil and gas industry. We are going to make it easier for oil and gas companies to transfer late-life assets.” This is really important, because the oil and gas industry will continue to take oil out of the ground for a very long time to come. Some fields are nearing maturity and may be operated by one of the big operators, and we need to make it easier for those assets to be transferred to some of the newer, smaller operators so that they can “sweat” them: get the maximum economic recovery out of those assets. My problem with what the UK Government announced is that they announced it last year and did not do it; they announced this exact thing on late-life assets last year and it has not been done, so I hope they will forgive me for not dancing around in excitement at the fact that there is now going to be a panel of experts to look at this thing that the Government announced last year—it would have been nice if they had actually done it back then.
I want to mention the £350 million of extra money that is going to Scotland. It was kind of the Chancellor to stand up and say, “We are giving £350 million of extra money to Scotland,” but this is rubbish—it is not what is happening at all. Because of how the Barnett formula works, if the Government spend more money in England and Wales, it just so happens that Scotland gets an extra slice as a result. The Chancellor cannot pretend that he is giving lots of money to Scotland while asking Departments to make 6% cuts and in the face of continuing austerity. He cannot stand up and say that the Government are giving Scotland all this money, given that we have had a £2.9 billion real-terms cut over the decade from 2010. It is ridiculous that we are in this situation.
I wish to touch on a couple of things that the Foreign Secretary said. In response to an intervention, he talked about falling back on WTO rules and how it would be “perfectly okay”. I am interested to see the analysis that he has done on that, because I do not think it would be perfectly okay. I think he is guessing, imagining, inventing—[Interruption.] He is hoping with his fingers crossed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) says. I say that because falling back on WTO rules and most favoured nation status is a harsh reality for our exporters, particularly for our small and medium-sized enterprises.
On SMEs, the Foreign Secretary said that people on my side of the House were mocking entrepreneurial spirit. He is from the party that has made changes to the national insurance contributions of the self-employed and he is accusing us of mocking entrepreneurial spirit! We are supporting entrepreneurs. We are supporting those people in small businesses, particularly the incredible numbers of women and people on lower incomes who have started businesses and taken on the mantle of self-employment. This is really important. These people have decided to become self-employed and now this Government are taxing that aspiration.
This Budget has dodged far too many of the important issues. It has not spoken about the real fallout from Brexit. The Government are unwilling to give the OBR any real information, and the improper forecasts that they have therefore been provided with have allowed them to dodge those issues. Despite all the comments in the run-up to it, this Budget has been shambolic. It has dodged the issues, taxed aspiration and done absolutely nothing for the oil and gas industry beyond what was promised last year. This is not a Budget that is promising for Scotland. It has increased the package of unfairness and consigned ordinary working people to a long-term lack of prosperity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I just say that we will introduce a six-minute limit, so if Members could stay tight to that, we will be able to get everybody in?
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), although I did not agree with a great deal of what she said. None the less, Scots have played such a valuable role in shaping the foreign affairs of the United Kingdom over such a long, protracted period, and, through that, those of the fifth largest economy of the world and, through that, the affairs of the world. I trust and hope they will continue to do so for many, many years to come.
It will not come as a great surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to learn that I am not much of a mountaineer, but I have been told by those who are that the most dangerous point in climbing any mountain is after one has made the stupendous effort and reached the summit, and one then begins the so-called “easy descent”. In fiscal terms, after nine long and difficult years, the House finds itself nearing the summit. The struggle to rein in public debt is an immense and ongoing undertaking, but, according to the OBR, public sector net debt as a percentage of GDP peaks in 2017-18—this coming year—and in every successive year thereafter it falls. Whatever the very real temptations, encouraged by some one-off factors this year, to slow further the pace of deficit reduction, we owe it to future generations to finish what we have begun.
We are now in our eighth year without a recession. Unlike others, Conservatives do not pretend that we can abolish the business cycle. It is critical to our domestic economy and to our standing in the world that we rebuild our financial firepower so that we can tackle anything that comes our way. The 2% of GDP on defence and 0.7% on overseas aid, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred, give us great hard and, indeed, soft power, but our allies need to know that our commitments are real and sustainable.
It was frustrating to hear the passionate words of the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She bemoans efficiencies being made in the public sector, without recognising, in this Budget debate, how critical it is that we bring down the deficit and show our ability to act credibly abroad and to achieve long-term sustainable finances.
With our national debt topping out at some £1.8 trillion, our annual interest payments also represent the entire combined annual spend on defence and policing, as the Chancellor pointed out. That is why the proper, sensible husbandry of our resources is critical. Despite the huge increase in the national debt, we are currently spending the same on interest as we were 15 years ago. With the base rate bound to rise—something on which I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North—that is not sustainable in the long term. The risk is compounded by demographic shifts, notably the retirement of the baby-boomer generation. Demographic changes are projected to increase the cost of the state pension by 40% and to drive up health and social care spending.
I recognise the efforts being made to enhance our productivity with T-levels; the half billion of extra spending on technical education for 16 to 19-year-olds; and the £300 million commitment to support the brightest research talent, including 1,000 new PhD places in science, technology, engineering and maths. Combined with transport spending, that will help to narrow our relative productivity gap.
Education is the key. I have literally studied line by line the financial projections of some of the schools in my Horsham constituency, so I can assure the Chancellor that, after years of being relatively underfunded, they run an extremely efficient and tight ship, with staffing costs often accounting for 85% of total spend. Schools in historically well-funded areas have much to learn from schools such as those in West Sussex and could potentially do more than is currently being asked of them. I am grateful for the Secretary of State for Education’s commitment to look carefully, as part of the fair funding consultation, at the minimum funding required by schools to deliver the standards and curriculum that students, and we, have every right to expect.
National insurance contributions have been much discussed in the media. I welcome the Taylor review, and feel sure that later this year his report will outline many ways in which the Government can support the genuinely self-employed and clarify the position of the virtually employed. The self-employed population is higher than ever before and steadily growing. It is a simple matter of maths that such growth undermines the tax base on which future generations will rely.
The Government are introducing a package of measures: the changes to class 2 and class 4 NICs and the enhancement to pension provision for the self-employed are coming in over the next two years and cannot be viewed in isolation. Some 60% of those affected by the changes to NICs will gain. For those at the higher end of the earnings bracket, the impact is capped at around £600 a year, and the average annual additional contribution is £240 a year. Meanwhile, self-employed pension benefits will be enhanced by £1,800 a year—a benefit which, if purchased in the open market, would cost some £50,000.
Those measures will help to support the self-employed in retirement. They are progressive, while still ensuring that being self-employed has tax advantages. Of course we will support the entrepreneurs who will help to drive our country forward in the new post-Brexit environment, but by helping them to meet the costs of retirement while also narrowing the potential reduction in our tax base, these are proportionate, long-term steps in a Budget focused on the long-term financial health of the country, which I commend.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
The test of the Budget should be whether it tackles the big challenges facing our country now and in future. I shall focus on three of those challenges: the need for support for business to alleviate the inevitable uncertainty that will prevail throughout the Brexit negotiations; the need to tackle the inequality that is dividing our society more each and every day; and the need to provide sustainable funding to build a new integrated NHS and care system that can cope with ever-increasing demand. On all those counts, the Budget is a missed opportunity.
The increases to business rates and national insurance contributions for the self-employed have raised questions about the Government’s competence, integrity and business credentials. Even David Cameron has expressed concern that a clear Tory manifesto commitment has been broken. At a time when Brexit is causing so much uncertainty for business, it is unforgivable that the Government should make the situation worse, not better. Alongside that, the Budget failed to identify any measures to begin the process of mitigating the impact of the UK no longer being a member of the single market. As that is the Government’s stated objective, they have a duty to take it fully into account from now on when they introduce measures that will affect business.
Inequality is fuelled by many factors, but wage stagnation is one of the worst. The Government should commit to phasing in a proper living wage over this Parliament, not the bogus living wage they are currently implementing. I propose a register whereby every three years companies would be required to publish their profits and the pay increases they have awarded their staff, from the boardroom to the shop floor. If companies are struggling, or if they are start-ups, it is totally right that job protection, not wage rises, should be a priority. However, if significant profits are being made, it is immoral that workers are not seeing an increase in their pay.
Perhaps the most grotesque symbol of inequality in today’s society is the epidemic of rough sleeping we are seeing in many of our towns and cities. I welcome the Homelessness Reduction Bill and the work of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that made it possible, but it will not solve the problem alone. The Government should have used the Budget to make specific resources available to ensure that local authorities and third-sector organisations can come together to offer people who are sleeping on the streets emergency accommodation and a package of support to enable them to reintegrate into the community. In the longer term, the Chancellor must consider new ways to enable councils and housing associations to access finance so that they can build a mix of social and affordable housing.
On the NHS and social care, I welcome the extra money for social care in the Budget, but the gerrymandering of public money to favour political friends brings the Government into disrepute. The extra money will not change the fact that in the vast majority of local authorities, the eligibility criteria that determine access to publicly funded social care mean that people have to deteriorate to a very poor state before they receive any help whatsoever. People whose financial means make them ineligible for funding are all too often not even offered advice and support to choose the right care and support for themselves and their families.
As a former social care Minister, I can testify that successive Governments have been reluctant to tackle the social care funding issue because there is no credible solution that will not require the public to pay more. Unlike the NHS, social care has always been means- tested. Higher taxes and/or national insurance, greater individual and family contributions, payments out of inherited estates, and an insurance-based system for social care are all difficult options. Any solution, therefore, must not be a political football, and any work must be done on an all-party basis.
I am sorry to say that the Budget commitment to yet another Green Paper on social care funding matches neither the scale nor the urgency of the challenge. I reject the view of those on the right who argue that the NHS as a system free at the point of use, funded by general taxation, cannot be sustained. It must be sustained as a non-negotiable and enduring statement of unique British values.
The Government rightly talk about the importance of shifting the focus of public services to prevention and early intervention, yet their slash-and-burn approach to council funding is having the opposite effect. My local authority, Bury, will be required to make cuts of approximately £30 million between 2017 and 2020, and the situation is made worse by an unfair local government funding formula. If Bury were funded at the English average, it would equate to an additional £9 million per year. The reality is that Bury and local authorities are having to shut preventive and early intervention services rather than invest in them.
The Budget exposes, once again, the illusion that the Government have been economically competent or successful. Not only have they failed using their own measures of success—deficit reduction and borrowing—but they have failed to address low pay and the rising cost of living for too many of our fellow citizens. They have also failed to address the growing under-employment of young people, the impact of benefit sanctions, child poverty and cuts to grassroots and frontline public services, all of which are creating a deeply divided society—a division that both contributed to and was reflected in the Brexit vote.
The incompetence of this Budget has brought the Prime Minister’s honeymoon period to an end. She can talk as much as she likes about standing up for working people and those struggling to get on, but unless her Government change course, that will not happen, and furthermore her legacy will be a deeply divided country, and a party once again viewed by many as the nasty party. That would be both an irony and a tragedy for the first Tory politician with the courage to face up to the reality of her party’s reputation.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), though, in contrast to him, I believe that there is much to praise in this year’s Budget. I was particularly pleased to see the focus on investing in technical skills, school buildings, broadband infrastructure, transport and road infrastructure, and of course the increased funding for social care.
The Chancellor absolutely struck the right tone in outlining the overall state of the British economy. He highlighted the record employment numbers, increasing GDP and wages, and lower debt, while underlining that Government debt remains stubbornly high, at an astonishing £62,000 per household. That is one of the figures that really stood out for me in the Budget speech. Of course, another term for that level of debt is deferred taxation; it has to be paid off at some point, and we need to take responsibility for doing that, rather than leaving it to future generations.
While we are paying off the debt, the reality is that despite all the comments about cuts and all the rhetoric about austerity, Government spending overall is increasing by significant amounts; it was £754 billion last year, versus £716 billion five years ago. In the last five years alone, spending has increased by more than £11 billion on the NHS, £2 billion on overseas aid, £7 billion on transport, £4 billion on education, and £13 billion on welfare and pensions. We may well, and do, disagree on how Government money has been spent, and whether the spending is enough—certain areas have been cut—but the fact cannot be avoided: Government spending has increased by about 9% since the last Labour Government, and it is expected to reach £800 billion by 2018.
The theme of this debate is Britain’s place in the world. It is worth remembering that we are world leaders in many aspects of our economy, including in the pharma industry and precision engineering. We have some of the best universities in the world, and we are one of the world leaders, if not the world leader, in the digital space. At 12.4% of GDP, our digital economy is the largest in the G20—something that we should be immensely proud of and should shout from the rooftops. As the Budget indicated, investing further in digital skills, technology and broadband will enable us to keep that leadership position.
On the subject of changes in the landscape, it is heartening to hear some indication and recognition that perhaps taxes like business rates have had their day—ones based on bricks and mortar, as opposed to clicks and order. We need to change the dynamics of the economy, reflect the fact that the economy has changed, and tax appropriately. I am looking forward to the debate that I am sure that we will have in the House looking at ways of raising business rates that are fairer to companies, including small businesses, that have a presence on the high street, as opposed to the likes of Amazon. I also ask the Chancellor and the Treasury team to look again—I am sure that they will—at cases such as individual cinemas, which seem to have been unfairly hit by the changes in business rates.
Finally on Britain’s place in the world, there was perhaps one missed opportunity in the Budget, which I am sure will be taken in the November Budget: air passenger duty. Perhaps as early as April next year, the Scottish Government are likely to reduce air passenger duty by 50%. That would immediately put English airports at an unfair disadvantage. Many of us have been discussing with the Treasury whether, or how, we should respond on air passenger duty. It is absolutely vital that we support our aviation industry; it is the third largest aviation industry in the world, and at this time of Brexit, there is great uncertainty about the future of the aviation industry; after all, there are no non-WTO alternatives, should we not reach a deal. The share price of easyJet has fallen by a third, and £2 billion has been wiped off its value since Brexit. I look forward to playing my part in further discussions about APD and how we can support the aviation industry, and I look forward to further statements on the subject in the November Budget.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
May I begin by agreeing with the comments of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) about air passenger duty and the effect of Brexit on UK aviation?
The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), did not have many great reforming achievements, but let me praise one: the emergence of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is essentially the benchmarking organisation that lets the Government know what fiscal room they have to work in, and lets us all know where the bodies are. The OBR made a series of assumptions in its central forecast for the Budget. The first was that the UK would leave the EU in April 2019. The second was that the money that we spend on the EU would come back and be spent broadly on the same things as before. The third was that we would need to make no exit payment, and the fourth was that no changes to taxes levied and payments made through the EU would be made over the period that the OBR looked at. It said:
“While the Government has now set out some of its objectives more formally, there is understandably little detail about how it intends to achieve them.”
Each of those assumptions is questionable at best; that is the fault not of the OBR, but of the Government. Each assumption will have a huge impact on the public finances. This was a Budget with a black hole at its very heart. Brexit is mentioned just once in the Red Book, yet we are entering the chilling reality of a hard Tory Brexit at a time when they have presided over seven years of economic failure and missed deficit reduction targets year after year. Short-term fixes have meant that the past decade’s most intractable economic problems have not been dealt with. Let us examine those assumptions.
The first assumption was that we would leave the EU in April 2019. I have no reason to question that after the Bill on article 50 passed through the Commons today, but we know that there could be a hard landing on to WTO terms, or a transitional deal. We could be doing this against the backdrop of one of our nation states leaving the other three.
The second assumption was that after Brexit, our money would return from the EU. The sum of £350 million a week was spoken about quite a lot during the referendum campaign. Where did that come from? It was an inflated figure; the actual cost to us is about £8 billion a year. Provided that we are able to do everything as efficiently as we do now—now, we pool the resources of 28 member states, but we will shift from sharing costs to them being borne by one state—and provided that we choose not to contribute any additional sums to our farmers, regional development, or university research, we will get back that £8 billion a year, but if the economy was just 1% bigger, borrowing could be some £14 billion lower each year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that if leaving the EU were to reduce national income by just 0.6%, that would be enough to outweigh the positive effects on the national finances. Bear in mind that the effect is cumulative; 0.6% lower in one year means that the economy is 0.6% smaller in every year going forward. That is because of lower tax receipts, higher debt, a larger deficit, and less to spend on public services such as our schools or the NHS.
The third assumption was that no exit payment would be made. The figure being talked about in Brussels is in the range of £50 billion or €60 billion. We have built up liabilities, commitments, and pension funds, and without settling those, we will not get the kind of deal that we want with the rest of the European Union. We have bailed out the banks, but actually we have had significant amounts of that money back. This will be a one-off payment that we will need to make, and it was not reflected in the Budget that we discussed this week.
The fourth assumption, which is no changes to taxes levied through the EU, rather begs the question: why are we doing this in the first place when we know that we are going to diverge over this period? What did we learn? We learned that economic growth is down, not up, from Brexit; that we will have lower tax revenues; that lower immigration will hurt us, not help us; and that a weaker pound will drive inflation, storing up the inflationary effects into 2017, 2018 and 2019. On trade and exports, UK trade will fall, slowing the pace of export growth for 10 years; business investment will be lower and will drop; and EU students and exports will drop off as well, taking money out of the real economy.
Last week, we learned that the Vauxhall van plant in Luton, where my dad and his dad before him worked, will be sold to a European firm. Despite the fact that that organisation is one of the most efficient and profitable parts of the business, the long-term future of that plant will be down to the kind of deal that we get on Brexit. Frankly, with an eight-year lead time on the van that we build there, I am perfectly content that the workers will see that through, and I thank PSA Group for its assurances. The reality is that when we look at Ellesmere Port, where a decision has to be made on a new vehicle coming in at the back end of 2018, it becomes abundantly clear why those of us on Labour’s Benches and some on the Government Benches say pushing for the hardest possible Brexit available is a bad choice; it comes at exactly the wrong moment for the kind of investment that we want. A hard Brexit is not some big bang, but the slow deflation of a balloon as the air comes out.
In conclusion, this Tory Budget amounts a massive hit to the public finances—around £100 billion. Targets have been abandoned, and there are no rules of the road. There is a lack of acceptance that the effects of this Budget will last for a long period of time. If we are going into a storm, the ship in in a poor state and the captain is driving us harder and harder into those choppy seas.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker). I have to say that although we do not always agree, he has put forward some good points.
It is well recognised that Britain is a world leader in science and technological research. As we saw earlier at a STEM event in Portcullis House, many advances, which begin as just glimmers of ideas, are developed by our amazing entrepreneurs and commercialised. Such entrepreneurs are vital in helping Britain to succeed in a global economy. However, that is not a reason to shy away from bringing parity into the tax system, between the employed and the self-employed. Before being elected to this place, I was self-employed for 19 years. When I first ventured down that path, I did not think, “I must become self-employed to pay less national insurance.” I went self-employed because I had a business idea and relished the challenge of making a success of it, and I wanted the freedom of being my own boss.
After my first year of trading, I was quite surprised to see just how little national insurance I was paying. Although I recognised that there were many benefits that I would not be able to access as a result of being self-employed, I felt that the advantages outweighed those disadvantages. I welcome the news that Matthew Taylor is looking at the differing employment practices that we now find across the industry. I also welcome the review, because this is the time not to tinker around the edges, but to make lasting reforms to the tax system that are fit for the changes that we are seeing in today’s employment environment in the gig economy and also to keep us at the forefront of the global market.
I also want to spend a little time in welcoming the additional funding for social care. As the Chancellor quite rightly said in his Budget statement, the social care system is under a great deal of pressure, which in turn puts pressure on our national health service. As someone who has family experience of great working practices, I can say that this is about not only money, but how we implement processes and spend the money.
I am a member of the Health Committee, which has taken evidence from people about great working practices. Although I welcome news of the extra £2 billion over the next three years, with £1 billion for the next financial year, we must ensure that that money comes with reform. What is wrong is when stakeholders, clinical commissioning groups, local authorities, health trusts, primary care trusts and third sector providers are not willing to come together to make the changes that are so necessary.
Sustainability and transformation plans are necessary. We cannot continue to do what we have always done and then expect to get different results. The future of the NHS and social care has got to be two-way: reform must come alongside additional funding. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of a Green Paper on the future financing of social care later this year. As with the reforms to the tax system, these reforms cannot tinker at the edges and think that the job is done.
As a midlands MP, it would be remiss of me not to mention the midlands engine. As an east midlands MP, it would also be remiss of me not to remind people that the midlands engine covers both the west midlands and the east midlands. Sometimes that gets glossed over. I welcome the focus on skills and training, and the investment in transport infrastructure at pinch points. However, more needs to be done. I have called for an additional motorway junction between junctions 25 and 26 on the M1, which would really help to alleviate some of the congestion throughout my constituency. Alleviating congestion helps productivity.
It is important to remember that investment in skills, training and infrastructure across the whole of the midlands, as part of the midlands engine for growth, will really benefit small towns and large cities. My message to the Chancellor is that we need to continue that investment to ensure that we hold our place in the global economy and at a local level.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
I listened carefully to the contribution from the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who brought her personal perspective and that of her constituency to the debate. But it is more than clear that the Chancellor will have to rethink his plans for national insurance contributions for the self-employed not only because he is widely seen as having broken a manifesto commitment, but also because his scheme has been devised in such a cack-handed way that it looks as though those with the lowest earnings will be the hardest hit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) estimates that a large number of low-income families whose main earner is self-employed will see their income fall by a sixth. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor’s plans are going to be re-examined and I support the call for an impact assessment of the changes, but I very much hope that the Chancellor will re-examine his plans in the context of the much wider problems of insecurity at work. I hope the Chancellor will put his review alongside the work being carried out by Matthew Taylor, which was referred to previously in the debate and in the Brexit White Paper. It is a clear example of where economic policy should be aligned with policies and negotiations on leaving the European Union, even though the Chancellor failed to mention Brexit in his speech. There has been a huge growth of insecure work in recent years, whether that is in low-paid self-employment, insecure temporary work through agencies, casual or seasonal work, or the explosion in the number of workers on zero-hours contracts.
Staff at the Department for Work and Pensions office in Doncaster tell me that whereas one or two companies would have been using zero-hours contracts 20 years ago, it is now almost the norm for many of them. The number of self-employed nationally has risen by about 1 million, and the number of workers on zero-hours contracts has risen by about 700,000. Insecure work is bad for workers, families and our communities. And, as the Chancellor must recognise, it is bad for the Treasury too, as it is punching a massive hole in the public finances. Zero-hours contracts cost the Treasury billions because they lead to a lower tax take and higher spending on in-work benefits. Zero-hours workers pay significantly less in income tax and national insurance contributions than people in more secure employment. A recent study by Landman Economics shows that this has created a £1.9 billion hole in the public finances. It says that the true costs are higher still, as those on zero-hours contracts are more likely to need to rely on in-work benefits such as tax credits and housing benefit.
Overall, the TUC has estimated that over the past decade there has been a net loss to the Treasury of £5.3 billion due to insecure working—equivalent to just over a third of the social care budget for England, as set out by my hon. Friend. People in insecure work tend to be paid lower wages. Some employers use zero-hours contracts or bogus self-employment to manage their financial risk and leave the public finances to pick up the bill. Inevitably, employers who prefer to keep employees on insecure contracts are the least likely to invest in proper skills and training, which is again bad for our overall economy and has a huge impact on productivity.
As well as the increased use of agency staff by employers, there has been a growth in employers encouraging workers to set up as a limited company. This bogus self-employment has a knock-on effect on other parts of the economy. Last week, one of my constituents told me of the experience of her and her partner when trying to get a mortgage. She said:
“My partner went from working as an agency worker to being a limited company: however he remained working for the same company on the same if not higher wage. This meant getting a mortgage was particularly difficult as we were unable to use his wage as income as he didn’t have enough years limited company accounts, despite the fact he remained at the same company for 2 and a half years and it was just the way his wages were paid which had changed. Neither of us had any other outstanding credit and we had saved 25 per cent of the house price.”
Her father acted as guarantor, and that was the only way she could get a mortgage. Insecurity at work affects the whole of our economy, and the Government should tackle its root causes. They should strengthen legal protections for workers on zero hours and clamp down on bogus self-employment and agency employment.
This is not only a UK issue; it is affecting other EU countries, as well as EU migrants in this country, who are often kept in insecure, undercutting work. That is why having a proper review of this area, and linking it to how migration between the UK and the remaining EU countries post-Brexit will operate, is something the Government should get on with as a matter of urgency.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is a real honour to follow the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), who made some extremely important points, particularly about those who are self-employed.
I believe the Budget was extremely balanced and very sensible, not trying to do too much, but trying to do the right things and, by and large, succeeding. The concentration on technical skills—the T-levels—on infrastructure and on living within our means was welcome. We saw money put into the right places, including business rate relief, addressing a problem for a number of companies in my constituency and, no doubt, in the constituencies of all right hon. and hon. Members.
There was also a substantial increase in the investment in social care. I believe this is just the start; we need to see a radical revamp of the financing of health and social care. In announcing a Green Paper on social care, the Chancellor took a first and firm step in that direction, and it needs to be followed by others, but I very much welcome the increased investment in social care.
Of course, there has been some discussion about the ways in which the additional revenue was found, but let us not forget that this was a balanced Budget: the Chancellor did not seek to increase borrowing—absolutely rightly—and nor did he seek to cut spending any further than was already planned in some Departments. He sought to raise the revenue to pay for the additional investment in social care. That is absolutely the right way to go about it, and I commend him and his team for that.
Raising the revenue through national insurance contributions was absolutely understandable given the constraints, but I welcome the fact that there will be a closer look at this whole area. As the right hon. Lady said, self-employment will be with us increasingly in the coming years, and more and more people are becoming self-employed. That is something to be welcomed, and I have been self-employed in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) said, it is something we should encourage, but, at the same time, we have to recognise the risks involved.
In future, as we look to raise additional revenue, we ought to look at some of the reliefs available to the higher paid, whether that is reliefs on national insurance and pensions, or reliefs available through schemes that have perhaps outlived their usefulness and that relate only to people at the higher end of the income scale.
That brings me to an important point. As a Parliament and a nation, we have to decide what level of income—what percentage of our GDP—we will raise in taxation and what percentage we will spend. We tend to raise approximately 37% of GDP in taxation, and that will continue through to 2020-21. We spent 40% in 2015-16, and that will go down to about 37% at the end of this Parliament. If we are to maintain the kind of commitments in all areas that we, and the Government, wish to, whether on defence, international development, looking after the elderly through social care, increasing investment in health or increased pension costs, we will find it very difficult to stick to a level of 37% of GDP in terms of both income and expenditure—it will be nearer 40%. That is still well below almost all our fellow European countries, certainly France and Germany. However, we have to take this seriously. It is not legitimate for us to stand here and advocate the kind of investment that, rightly, we want to see, while retaining our footprint as global Britain, and not be prepared to pay for it.
I serve on the International Development Committee, and a couple of weeks ago was privileged to see the work that DFID-supported organisations do in Tanzania with some of the poorest people on this planet in supporting them in their education. We have seen many other such schemes around the world. In Congo last year, we saw DFID working in a place where pretty much nobody else was working—apart from the Congolese people and Government themselves—to bring water schemes to people for the first time.
I was there with the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). I think he will remember that visit, where we washed our hands together having drawn water from a pump that had just been put into a village—the first water that those people had not drawn directly from the river. This work supported by DFID is absolutely priceless. As the Foreign Secretary said, it gives Britain a global presence. However, the point made by another speaker about funding for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is also valid. We have to remember that as we withdraw from the EU there are many Foreign Office missions around the world where we do not have a DFID presence and yet a lot of British development is going on through the European Union. That will now have to be picked up by the Foreign Office. We need to look very carefully at the funding for that.
I would like to say many other things, but time is limited. I make just one plea. The British Council does fine work, as we saw in Tanzania. It wants to teach people English and there is huge demand for that, so we need to give it the necessary resources.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy).
We have heard many Members speak of the positives and negatives of our imminent departure from the European Union. I voted both in my constituency and in this place to remain. However, I wish to draw our attention to matters a little further afield—first, to the USA. It does our place in the world no good to be seen as too keen an ally of the American President. As America loses influence, we will be dragged down, tarred by his racist policies. When the Prime Minister visited Washington, we saw that she and this Government do not intend to question his policies or to counsel a different course. His racist policies have already led to a climate of fear in which two Indian men were shot in Kansas, and one killed. It is being investigated as a hate crime. We must not allow the same climate of distrust and malice to grow in this country.
With that sober warning behind me, I wish to turn to more positive matters. I look to India, once the jewel in the crown, offering succour today in a way it once did to our predecessors sitting here. I hope I can offer a different perspective from that of some other Members in this Chamber. I am a British Member of Parliament of Indian origin born in India. India must be not only our key strategic partner but our friend and ally at the crossroads of Asia. We have much to gain from each other, not just financially but culturally. There are deep-rooted bonds. Indians and the British understand each other. The Indian diaspora in the UK acts as a bridge between the UK and India. The Indian legal system is modelled on our own, and English is a shared language for almost everyone.
Those relationships, however, cannot be nurtured by business as usual. During the February recess, I led a cross-party delegation to India and we met many businesses. They want to work with Britain, increase trade and create jobs and opportunities, but many are frustrated by the punitive visa policies in place. When we met the Indian Prime Minister, he was keen to stress how much he valued a strong relationship with the United Kingdom. However, good will on the Indian side is not enough; it must be met with actions from us—actions that show that we, too, value the strong relationship. Platitudes alone are not enough.
Wages are still 10% lower than they were before the financial crisis. There are financial black holes in social care, education and the NHS. Some 4 million children are living in poverty. Britain is a wealthy nation, so how can we be proud of that? The Budget does not offer anything to address the real issues facing Britain. We need support for real trade policies that do not hurt smaller and poorer nations and that show real respect to long-term allies and partners, and a foreign policy that leads the world by acting responsibly towards children from Syria. If we are to maintain our place in the world, we should offer proper leadership. The Budget fails to show any, but perhaps our foreign policy can do so.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Budget’s measures include those that will be welcomed by constituents of mine who are concerned about business rates. Equally, the investment in social care will be of great relief to people who are worried about that. Likewise, schools have received welcome funding.
In the brief time available, I want to concentrate on skills. As we discuss Britain’s place in the world and forge a new identity for ourselves as a global Britain outside the European Union, it is right that this Budget puts in place the financial and fiscal measures that will enable us to make a success of Brexit. I believe that the Budget does that, and I want to focus on the skills associated with it.
There are strong underlying factors in the economy. We are an outward-facing, open and globally trading nation. Our economy grew by 1.8% in 2016, second only to Germany of the advanced nations. The growth forecast for 2017 has increased from 1.4% to 2%, and the deficit has been reduced by two thirds since 2010. That is all a testament to the underlying strength of our economy.
My constituency has a number of high-level technical businesses that are very skilled and, in many ways, world beaters. These companies include Polar Tech and Siemens in Eynsham, STL Communications in Witney, and home-grown businesses such as Darke and Taylor in Hanborough. There are also businesses that have not been grown in West Oxfordshire but that have come to make their home and invest in my area, including Airbus, Boeing and Thales in Carterton.
For many years, however, we have not been training the young people that those companies need, so home-grown workers do not have the skills required to work in my area. The CBI estimates that 75% of companies will need higher-skilled workers and that 40% will require intermediate-skilled workers. We are 16th in the OECD rankings, so I welcome the measures in the Budget that promote training people to make a success of our economy, both locally in West Oxfordshire and as we look to become a global nation.
Measures being brought in by the Budget include T-levels, with a fund of £300 million in this Parliament. This is the greatest reform of 16-plus education since the introduction of A-levels. It has long been time this that country had parity between academic education and technical education. That has never been more true than in my constituency, where we have so many excellent, world-beating companies that need highly skilled technical workers. These people, who make things and have ideas, drive our country and its economy forward. I wish to support them, and I am glad that the Budget does so as well.
I therefore applaud measures introduced in the Budget, such as the 15 specific routes to employment, the high-quality work placements and the maintenance loans for higher education students, meaning that such forms of education are seen in the same way as the academic sector. There is a £90 million fund to provide 1,000 PhD places beneath the underlying umbrella of the industrial strategy, of which 85% are in STEM disciplines and 40% are collaborations between business and academies, again under industrial partnerships. That is critical for companies like Abbott Diabetes Care in my constituency which need such a system of STEM education so that their workers have the level of education they require.
Lastly, I will touch very briefly on research and development, about which I am equally pleased. I welcome the £23 billion national productivity investment fund. It will focus on an area of enormous significance to my constituency, and it will improve the productivity of the country and its economy as a whole. I will quickly mention full-fibre broadband, which is of massive importance. My constituency is full of innovative, intelligent, creative and thoughtful people, but they need high-speed broadband to ensure that their businesses can operate and export to the world. It is very much the same with transport networks: the A40 has long been a source of contention for such people, and it is a real brake on the ability of my constituency to achieve the full potential of its economy that is just within its reach. Technology is important, as is housing that people can afford to live in, so that they can come to work in and remain working in the areas that they have grown up in and that are near all the wonderful companies I have mentioned. I welcome the measures on research and development and skills that the Budget will bring in. It is a Budget that underlines and supports the skills our economy needs, and I commend all these measures to the House.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts). I warmly endorse much of what he said about investment in technical skills and in our industries.
Today, we are debating the elements of the Budget that relate to Britain’s place in the world. I want to start by saying that I found it absolutely extraordinary that, apart from a passing preliminary reference, the Chancellor had absolutely nothing to say in his Budget speech about the most significant event affecting our position in the world, which is of course Brexit. We know that Brexit is bound to bring economic shocks and economic instability and that it will create economic uncertainty, including in relation to the divorce settlement itself. The European Parliament has been very clear that that settlement has to include our meeting our financial obligations, whatever the Foreign Secretary and the Government may believe.
In my constituency, people are already feeling the effect of rising prices as a result of the devalued pound. More importantly for a manufacturing and exporting constituency such as mine, local businesses have highlighted to me the impact on them of the rising cost of imports. In that context, it is deeply worrying that the Government seem so determined to pull us out of the single market at all costs, while leaving their intentions about our engagement in a customs union quite murky. Failing to protect our maximum access to the single market will be deeply damaging for the many businesses in my constituency that have a long and deep trading relationship with the European Union.
I of course support measures to tackle exploitation in the labour market, which can be exacerbated by the free movement of workers, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) said, the insecure position of those in low-paid, unstable unemployment is not addressed at all in this Budget. As many hon. Members have said, for the self-employed, the position is particularly troubling. I agree that there should be consistency in treatment both of contributions and benefits between the self-employed and those in employment, and that we should crack down on the bogus self-employment that is really employment in disguise, but it is not right for the Government to put the cart before the horse in a way that will be unfair to many self-employed people by increasing their contributions without fully aligning their benefits with those in paid work.
I am particularly troubled by those self-employed people in low-paid self-employment, the group the OBR identifies as rising fastest. Some of those will be the newly self-employed, who in practice are in low-paid self-employment because they cannot find the permanent employment that many would prefer. I hope that in developing this measure—I understand that the Government will now take a little time to think more carefully about it—Ministers will publish a detailed impact assessment of who will be affected, in which industrial sectors and how the effect will vary across regions, age groups, and how long people have spent in self-employment.
In the context of this debate’s theme of Britain in the world, I also express my concern at the Budget’s failure to address our environmental obligations. Last week, the Chancellor missed the opportunity to announce measures that would have reduced the number of diesel vehicles on our roads, but it has been estimated that nearly 40,000 early deaths a year can be linked to air pollution in the UK, and the cost to the Treasury is more than £27 billion. It is therefore disappointing that the Chancellor did not announce an increase in vehicle excise duty for new diesel vehicles, or have anything to say about a scrappage scheme.
On our ability to compete in the world, I want to say something about the education and skills announcements in the Budget. I agree with the Chancellor about their importance to improving our productivity, but the proposed back to work support of £5 million is frankly derisory. I am dismayed by the announcements on schools—£320 million on new free and selective schools, increasing to £655 million in 2021-22, but only £216 million for all other schools combined. That funding is only for the next three years with no additional funding in the long term. Trafford schools already face losing £443 per pupil according to teaching and support unions, but the Government are to pour more money into new free schools that will educate only a minority of our children, with no evidence that they will raise standards or the attainment of our most disadvantaged kids.
To add insult to injury, there will be money for children on free school meals to travel to selective schools—that amounts to fewer than 3% of children. In Trafford, parents of children with special educational needs have to pay for home to school transport. Last week, a primary school serving a disadvantaged intake in my constituency was unable to take up the offer of a free health and wellbeing session at Lancashire cricket club because it could not afford the bus fare to get there. It is iniquitous that transport to school should be prioritised only for those going to selective schools.
I do not see this Budget as one that works for everyone. It is a Budget that will leave us poorer, more isolated, and more divided, especially for those of my constituents in low-paid work, who are just about managing, if they are lucky, but more likely struggling to get by. In betraying the next generation, it will do nothing to enhance Britain’s status in the world.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. It is interesting that the Opposition keep telling us that we must spend more, when of course we inherited a deficit of £150 billion from them, so every year we were borrowing £150 billion more than we were earning. Now we are finally getting that down to £50 billion, but we still have a £50 billion deficit. It is right that the Chancellor takes strong action to get down our deficit. Until we remove our deficit, we will not get debt down—debt will rise. The Opposition will then start saying, “Debt’s going up.” Of course it is—because we inherited such as basket case of an economy from them.
I very much welcome taking many of the lower paid out of tax altogether, and I welcome the fact that work actually pays. I have some concern, however, when we look at the self-employed. This Government have rightly reduced corporation tax so that large businesses can come to this country and existing businesses can do well from lower corporation tax. Many small businesses and companies in my constituency and across the country are not, however, incorporated, so trying to tax the self-employed more is not the right way forward.
I look forward to the Taylor report. There may be some abuses where people set up bogus businesses and act as self-employed, but the genuinely self-employed who have set up their businesses and struggled to start them without earning much money do not get all the benefits of the employed, so they need to be helped through that situation.
As we move into Brexit and away from the European Union—whether or not we are in the single market—the one thing this country will need is a lot of good businesses, and we have got them. We have seen a reduction in the value of the pound. We might not necessarily have engineered that as a Government, but after the Brexit vote the pound dropped by about 18%, which has created a huge stimulus to the economy. We must make sure that we benefit from it by allowing these businesses to develop. As these self-employed businesses develop, they will create employment, which is what we need. It is another great success of this Government. Millions of jobs, we were told, were going to be lost when the coalition Government came into power in 2010. Instead of that, we have created millions of jobs—something that seems to be lost in the forecast of Opposition Members.
Let me deal in my remaining three minutes with the situation in my constituency. It is great to see that, on the basis of previous Budgets and this one, we are still very much looking at infrastructure. What has happened on the A303 and the A30 is a great innovation, but we must make sure that we do not stop at Ilminster, but get through to Honiton, because there is a bit of a gap at the moment. I have been talking about this matter for some time.
When it comes to social care and our hospitals, I very much welcome the little bit of extra money in the Budget, but many Members always have little local difficulties, which is the case for me, too. At the moment, we have hospital beds both in Honiton and in Seaton, but there is a proposal to remove those hospital beds from both of those places. That will create an area of approximately 100 square miles without any hospital beds. The administrations of the health service need to realise the size of Devon and the distance people have to travel in order to get to hospital, including those who want to visit their loved ones. The cottage hospitals have a great advantage in reducing some of the pressures on the acute hospitals, so we need to ensure that we find some funding for them. We need to care for people more in their homes, but we also need to care for people in hospital.
There was a little mention of more funding for schools and education. Devon has been able to educate its children across the county with a very low budget. Over the years, we have had a poor share of the overall budget. Now we have seen an increase in that share, which is welcome, but as always we need some more cash. Although this is not down to the Chancellor, we also need a little more flexibility when it comes to how Devon spends its cash. If we had that flexibility, we could make the money go further.
Great education for our children is what we will need when we move into this brave new world. I voted to remain, but I am now very much committed to the fact that our economy is strong and that this country will be great—in or out of the European Union, and in or out of the single market. We must make sure that we get our trade deals, look after our farmers and have great food, as we do these Brexit deals. The one thing we must do is always talk up this country—never down.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), He described the health and social care crisis in his constituency as “a little local difficulty”. It is a funny that “a little local difficulty” seems to affect every constituency in the country.
I want to deal with three Budget issues as they affect my constituency. The first is school funding. Teachers’ unions contacted me recently to express—rightly—concerns about funding cuts. Over the next few years, such cuts will have a considerable impact on schools in Knowsley, and the council predicts, as a result, a significant rise in the number of schools that will go into deficit or, in some cases, be forced either to merge or to close.
The Government’s decision to cut school funding while preparing to spend money on creating additional places in grammar schools and offering schools incentives to become academies is counterproductive, certainly in Knowsley. The Government’s policy will do nothing to deal with deprivation in Knowsley, or with the challenges posed by its above-average number of pupils on free school meals and high levels of absenteeism: that simply is not going to happen. The Department for Education has confirmed that there will be no inflationary increase in Knowsley’s dedicated schools grant for 2017-18. This will be the seventh consecutive year with no inflationary increase. If the grant had been increased by the average rate of inflation over that period, it would have grown by about 20%, so there has been a significant real-terms cut in school funding.
Training is one of the key drivers for long-term increased economic growth. It is also critical to ensuring that young entrants to the labour market are properly prepared for the opportunities for skilled people that a modern economy can offer. In some cases, however, skill training alone is not an option. Employers whom I speak to in Knowsley often cite another problem: young people who are ill prepared for any form of employment. The reasons for that vary from case to case. In some cases it results from challenging family circumstances, in others from poor attendance, or non-attendance, at school. There are projects—such as Knowsley Skills Academy, a charity that I chair—which can help by providing a structured framework that helps to address those problems, but it is increasingly difficult to fund such approaches, although they are overwhelmingly successful in putting young people back on track.
Having been an engineering apprentice originally, and having taught in further education, I know that skill training should be straightforward. Under successive Governments, however, we have succeeded in over-complicating the process, at best focusing on the names of technical qualifications, and at worst passing off tick-box training as a substitute for the classroom and the workplace. Calling something an apprenticeship is entirely different from actually providing apprenticeship training worthy of the name. The key, which will benefit our economy, is providing skills that are transferable, and not just relevant to a single workplace. That can be achieved only by day release to colleges that can provide transferable skills that are both valued and recognised. If the Government are serious about meeting the economic challenges of the future through training programmes, they need to engage in a radical rethink about skill training.
The second issue is health and social care. Chronic underfunding and increased cuts in local government budgets have created a health and social care crisis. The supplementary funding through the improved better care fund—in Knowsley’s case, it amounts to just under £9 million over three years—is completely inadequate to cover the needs of local residents appropriately. A large proportion of that extra money will be taken up solely by the cost of implementing the national living wage. Lack of resources threatens the financial stability of care homes at a time when they are badly needed.
Finally, Government cuts in local government grant funding have meant that Knowsley has had to save £86 million since 2010, with another £14 million needed over the next three years. Knowsley will have reduced its spending on key local services by £100 million between 2010 and 2020. The funding provided by central Government will have been cut by 50% by 2020. In Knowsley, it is simply not possible to generate enough funds to cover that, so this is a Budget that is unfair to schools, those who need social care, local authorities and those who depend on their services.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
In his contribution, the Foreign Secretary undertook a global perambulation, bumbling for Britain. May I bring the debate back to Birmingham, a city of 1.5 million people—I am proud to represent Erdington—the city of Chamberlain, and an ambitious, growing, young city that is determined to build on its strengths?
There are some welcome steps in the Budget. We have worked cross-party to secure the midlands engine initiative and local growth deals, but those steps are modest in the extreme. There is £392 million for the entirety of the west and east midlands, and £54 million for job creation in Birmingham and Solihull. That pales into insignificance given the £700 million of cuts already made to Birmingham City Council and the fact that London, in the autumn statement, got nearly 10 times more than the entirety of the west and east midlands, and that was for housing alone. Once again, Birmingham loses out to London.
Time and again, there is a grotesque contrast between how Birmingham is treated and how the leafy Tory shires are treated. The Surrey sweetheart deal on social care is now legendary. On other fronts, the Government talk about social mobility, yet for our nursery schools in Birmingham, which are absolutely vital to giving kids the best possible start in life, final baseline funding is set to drop by 5%, the maximum allowable and the biggest in the country. However, in the Prime Minister’s constituency, in Windsor and Maidenhead, funding per hour goes up. Every school in Erdington bar one is losing out on the funding formula.
On safety and security in the west midlands, crime is rising—little wonder; there has been a cut of 2,000 police officers. Crime is rising by 9%. Violent crime is up by 20%. Yet the west midlands has been hit five times harder than Surrey in terms of police funding since 2010. It goes on.
Time and again, what we hear from the Government is talk of all this being about fair funding. Fair funding? It is shameful doublespeak because it pays no regard to need. One in three children in Birmingham are in poverty. Infant mortality rates in Birmingham are twice the national average. Birmingham is ranked first for the total number of fuel-poor households. There is the extraordinary statistic that, if a man gets on the train at New Street and gets off at Erdington or Gravelly Hill, he is likely to live seven years less than if he continues on that train to Four Oaks in leafy Sutton Coldfield.
It is true that Birmingham is a great city, but it is a city of high need. I always say about my constituency of Erdington that it is rich in talent but it is one of the poorest in Britain. It has the seventh highest level of unemployment. Despite all that, the city and my constituency have been failed by a Government, and a Tory leadership in Birmingham and the west midlands, who have lamentably let Birmingham down. To add insult to injury, they then blame the city for the problems created by the combination of the mess inherited by a Labour council from a previous Tory administration on the one hand and what the Government have done to the city of Birmingham on the other. It is little wonder that in Birmingham people are not impressed by the Budget.
On other fronts, the Government failed to listen to appeals for justice, but nevertheless imposed additional burdens on working people in Birmingham. They failed to listen to the appeal for justice. There were 100 WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—women down last week, who were utterly dismayed that there was not one penny in the Budget to put right that terrible wrong. For example, there is a woman in my constituency who is 62 and cannot now retire until she is 66. Her husband died two years ago, and her father died a week later. She has never done a cleaning job in her life—not that there is anything wrong with cleaning jobs—but is now having to do three part-time cleaning jobs to make ends meet. She had hoped that her appeal for justice would be listened to by the Government, but there was not one penny in the Budget for her.
There are also the additional burdens imposed on working people. If there are 37,000 WASPI women who feel let down, there are over 60,000 of the self-employed who feel that they have been hit hard by a Government who are oblivious to the consequences of their actions. Little wonder that a Kingstanding white van man on Saturday told me how bitter he was that he is being treated in the way that he is, with no additional rights but having to pay more national insurance. What he said is true of so many in the city who feel let down by this Government: “I’ll never believe any promise from the Conservative party again.” He will not be alone.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome this debate. One thing that the Budget shows is that we cannot have properly funded schools and hospitals with a Tory hard Brexit. My schools confirmed that in a meeting I held with the Minister for School Standards and representatives from both a selective and a comprehensive school, both of whom felt that they were going to be under very severe financial pressure as a result of Government funding for schools. Also, on what the Government have offered in terms of health and social care, while the £2 billion over three years is welcome, it clearly will not suffice. As a number of Members have said during the course of various debates, I am sure that in just a year’s time we will have to return to that.
The Budget would have been an opportunity for the Government to roll back their proposed changes to personal independence payments. They claim the withdrawal of mobility funding from people with mental health problems was what was intended in 2012. I urge Ministers to go back and look at the Government response to the consultation in 2012, because that clearly indicated that they did not intend to withdraw those benefits from people with mental health problems.
However, I want to focus most of what I say today on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it was the Foreign Secretary who opened the debate. Perhaps I have misunderstood the departmental resource budgets, but they seem to show very clearly that the FCO is going to suffer very severe budget cuts, going from £2 billion to £1.2 billion in 2017-18; to £1.2 billion in 2018-19; and to £1.3 billion—going up slightly—in 2019-20. If I have misunderstood those figures, I hope someone will explain them to me, but the Foreign Secretary seems not to be aware of what is happening to the funding for his Department. Perhaps he is thinking that if we add up the budgets of the other Departments that have been created—those for Exiting the European Union and for International Trade—we miraculously we get to roughly the same figure. Well, we do not; we get to less than the £2 billion allocated to the FCO for this year. I hope we will get some clarity on that when the Minister responds, because it is difficult to see how the Foreign Secretary’s claim that this will be a Budget for a global, outward-looking nation will be achieved at a time when the FCO’s budget is plunging.
Other Members have referred to the issue of staff with language skills. We know from a freedom of information request that in June last year fewer than 500 staff in the FCO spoke Russian, Mandarin or Arabic. I wonder what progress has been made on that, given the necessity to strengthen staff numbers in all those areas. The Foreign Secretary was rather dismissive of the concerns being expressed about human rights issues, but I say to him and to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who will respond to the debate, that the Government’s position on Bahrain, Burma, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Yemen makes it clear that human rights are not a priority for them, although trade and arms sales are. This is something that the Government need to take seriously.
There is an area of funding on which I can support the Government, and it relates to the Department for International Development. However, I am worried that the Government are losing their focus on eradicating poverty. There has already been controversy over the envelope for the CDC. I think it was the spokesperson for the official Opposition who raised the issue of the prosperity fund and the conflict, stability and security fund. Organisations might be doing valuable work, but it is not entirely clear what they are doing or where their funding is coming from. I am waiting for a response to a parliamentary question asking when these funds and activities are going to start appearing on the development tracker, so that we can see what is being spent and, I hope, confirm that it is being spent sensibly on DFID’s priority of eradicating poverty, rather than on slightly less deserving priorities. I hope that the Government will mount a vocal defence of the work that DFID does. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary did so earlier, because it is clear that the Department and its budget are under a huge amount of scrutiny, if not assault, from certain parts of the press who would be quite happy to see its budget slashed. That is something that the Government must defend against.
I should like to finish on a specific issue. I rarely praise the Foreign Secretary, partly because I hold him personally responsible for the decision on Brexit, which I believe is going to do permanent damage to the UK’s economy and to our global influence. He has been outspoken on the issue of Israel and Palestine, however, and I hope that in this anniversary year of the Balfour declaration, he will ensure that the Government recognise Palestine. That would be something of which he could be proud. It would leave a legacy that would be widely recognised internationally, and it would benefit the Palestinians and, in the long term, the Israelis.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
In the Foreign Secretary’s introduction to the debate today, we heard his typical bluster, lack of detail and “winging it” approach, which augurs very well for his forthcoming visit to Russia. His speech gave a complete fantasy view of what is likely to happen to our international trade. We were told that we were going to get a trade deal with the United States, yet the Trump Administration have already torn up the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In any trade negotiations with the UK—with our 65 million population, compared with the EU’s 550 million—the US Administration’s desire to put America first and make America great again will mean that they insist on getting more than they give. Are this Government prepared to accept food from the United States that is pumped full of steroids? Are they prepared to lower our health and safety standards? That is what will happen if we no longer have EU regulations and we accept the American model of trade.
Fortunately, we have the possibility of an agreement with Canada based on the EU-Canada agreement that was negotiated over seven years. Similarly, the EU-South Korea agreement could provide a model for something that would be beneficial to us. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) pointed out, as for the idea that we can just export thousands of crates of whisky to India, as implied by the Foreign Secretary, in some kind of great trade agreement, India generally does not want to consume vast amounts of whisky—certainly not Prime Minister Modi, who I understand is a teetotaller. The reality is that India will desire access for its young people to study in this country and a loosening of the visa regime. So much for this Government’s 100,000 yearly immigration target. The forecasts on which the OBR’s economic growth assessments are based assume 185,000 people coming to this country. How can that be reconciled? This is a Government of smoke and mirrors, and the Foreign Secretary’s pathetic performance today is a great example of that.
Similarly, the Budget states that the Government are going to put £325 million over three years into financially challenged sustainability and transformation plans in the NHS. The STP in my area of north-east London has a predicted deficit of £575 million, which must be eliminated within three years. That is just one STP. The Government say that they are providing £100 million for capital spend on new A&E departments. If the plan to close the A&E at King George hospital in my constituency goes ahead, they will need almost that amount just to replace the beds and wards on the site of the Queen’s hospital in Romford, which is part of the STP. This is Mickey Mouse economics, and it does not make sense.
I do not have time to comment on the underfunding of our schools, the wasting of money on free schools, or the damaging consequences for local government of the continuing cuts. There is a sticking-plaster solution to assist for two years with the social care crisis, but there is no long-term plan. We need a more serious Government who consider such issues.
Then, of course, there is the NICs crisis. As The Daily Telegraph headline said, the Tories are no longer the low-tax party. That is the perception of millions of people in this country. If we had a credible Opposition, we would be able to challenge on that issue effectively and avoid diversions into other matters. Twenty years ago, Labour was 20 points ahead in the opinion polls and on course for a landslide victory, and I say to all Labour supporters, “Things can only get better.”
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I do not want to accuse the Chancellor of any dodgy activity, but I would love to know where he has hidden his stash—his cash stash to help us make our way in the world as we ride out the storm of a low pound, rising prices, and uncertainty as we leave the EU. Everywhere we look, we see our companies working harder than ever to sustain their business and to persuade their often overseas-based bosses to invest in the UK rather than somewhere else. I am particularly worried about the future of our energy-intensive industries, such as steel, chemicals, and ceramics. Nothing that I have seen from the Chancellor does anything for any of them.
The North East England chamber of commerce was disappointed last week and said:
“What we needed to hear were optimistic and supportive policies which would help existing and potential exporters access new markets.”
It said that small and medium-sized businesses will be particularly affected by the fluctuation of the pound and will be hit the hardest by increased import costs.
The Chancellor also announced £90 million of roads cash for “the north”, but what did the area covered by the new Tees valley mayor get? It looks like it will be a set of traffic lights and some minor improvements to a junction on the A19—this is worth less than a million pounds. That is not a serious commitment to infrastructure in the north-east of England. What a great day it would be if we could just have 1% of all the money invested in London and the south-east, and HS2.
Other areas in which we could establish a place in the world and lead are in carbon capture and storage, and the decommissioning of North sea oil and gas infrastructure. The Chancellor did refer to a discussion document about maximising the extraction of oil and gas from wells that are nearly depleted. That is welcome, but he missed a trick by not extending that to plans to create thousands of jobs in areas such as Teesside from the decommissioning of oil and gas rigs. The Government have invested money in Decom North Sea, but no work and no jobs appear to have followed other than in the organisation itself. Teesside is ideally placed for this, with the right riverside facilities, furnaces to receive the metal and many people who are qualified for the jobs that would result from this decommissioning.
I am sure Ministers will be aware of the Teesside Collective, a cluster of leading industries with a shared vision to establish Teesside as the go-to location for future clean industrial development by creating the UK’s first carbon capture and storage-equipped industrial zone. Labour’s mayoral candidate for the Tees valley, Sue Jeffrey, joined me in a direct plea to the Minister to back the Teesside Collective, and although we received kind, warm words, they were simply that: just kind, warm words. I think we can expect a strategy some day from the Government, but I just wonder when that will be and whether it will be backed by funding in the autumn Budget.
Seven years ago, the Tory-Lib Dem coalition axed the new hospital in my area, and the North Tees and Hartlepool Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has been forced to make do in an area where health inequalities are a major issue. Don’t get me wrong, the trust does a good job but in very difficult circumstances. The capital spending cuts across the Parliament and the £5 billion shortfall in NHS maintenance means there is no hope of our Teesside people being provided with the same facilities enjoyed elsewhere. Our people need to be healthy if we are to make our way confidently in the world, and that includes being mentally healthy. But we know people are not getting the support they need, and I illustrated that when I raised a constituent’s case at Prime Minister’s questions. The Prime Minister said she would “take up” the case, but she passed the buck to the Health Secretary and I am still waiting for a reply.
The Chancellor did mention social care, and I remember the Tory cheers when he announced £2 billion extra—and then the rather pale faces opposite when they realised they had been had and it was not per year, but spread over several years. They have also been had on the whopping great tax increases on self-employed people, 2,600 of whom live in my constituency. I wonder how many more will put up with this manifesto betrayal. Another tax is to be increased, with probate fees set to rise from a flat rate charge of as little as £155 to a minimum of £300 and as much as £20,000—that is a nice little earner from the Tories’ very own and very real death tax.
There was some good news with the announcement of £500 million for further education, but we should not forget that it replaces less than a third of the money taken away since 2010. The scheme to merge colleges across the country is in tatters and, after a year of talks, in the Tees area the proposals are falling apart and one of the colleges in Redcar is going bust. Now that mergers are collapsing, not just in the north-east, but across the country, what will happen to that cash? Will it be invested in our young people or will it just be swallowed up by the Treasury?
Finally, the Chancellor gave us half a smile when he talked about wage growth, but he chose to ignore the public sector workers who have actually faced a real-terms loss of about 10% in wages since 2010. I am talking about the nurses and doctors who look after us when we get ill, the care assistants who look after the elderly and vulnerable day in and day out, and the teachers who are educating the minds of the future. Clearly this Government have no plans at all to help those who put everything into public service in this country, yet their wealthy friends face more tax breaks.
If Britain is to maintain its place in the world, rather than end up as some kind of low-wage, backwater economy, we need to invest in our people, our industries and our public services, and keep our people happy and healthy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, colleagues, but at least 15 hon. Members are seeking to contribute, and if I am to accommodate each, I am afraid that a limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches is now required. I am sorry, but it means that people get in, rather than not, as was commonly the case in the past.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), as well as, of course, the Toblerone tour de force that came from the Foreign Secretary earlier.
It is strange to be debating Britain’s place in the world in the context of a Budget statement that refused to address the single issue that will completely dominate our place in the world for an entire generation: Brexit—a word the Chancellor managed to avoid using even once in his speech. His announcement that he will spend £500 million of new money on technology such as artificial intelligence sounds wonderful, but when we look at what is happening in the real economy, we see that our high-tech businesses are actively considering whether they can afford to remain in the UK at all if we leave the single market.
Only last week, UKIE—the Association for United Kingdom Interactive Entertainment—which represents the UK’s dramatically successful gaming industry and has several members in my constituency, reported that 40% of its members are considering relocating all or part of their businesses abroad because of Brexit. Of course, the same figure, or higher, will be found in many other parts of the UK economy. The Chancellor knows that, and that it was always likely to be the case, which is why he—along with the Prime Minister, of course—opposed Brexit in the referendum.
Has the Chancellor, then, made any allowance in his forecasts for future losses in tax revenue yielded by the taxes of EU citizens working in the UK, who may be given no choice but to leave rather than be forced through the humiliation of expulsion? Some 7% of the UK workforce are EU citizens, and the Office for National Statistics estimates that they have been net contributors of more than £20 billion in the past decade. Why did he make no mention of the tens of billions of pounds the UK will be asked to pay in exit-related costs? The OBR is clear that he has made no contingency for this huge cost, which may be more than £50 billion—why?
As time passes it becomes clearer that the Government have been hijacked by a small gang of ideological fanatics who want the hardest of hard Brexits, and against whom the Prime Minister and her Chancellor appear powerless. This hard Tory Brexit rests on nothing more than wishful thinking—on the fantasy that the UK will be able simply to stroll up to negotiating tables around the world and come away with deals that favour us and our industries, as if the likes of China, India and a Trump-led USA are unaware of how isolated and desperate our position will be.
Last June, the British people did not vote to apparently reclaim their sovereignty, laws and rights from Brussels only to see the Government auction them off to the highest bidder, behind closed doors. We are talking about our NHS, our Climate Change Act, and our employee rights. Nor did the British people vote to divide the Union, yet the Government’s hard Brexit is the key reason Nicola Sturgeon has given for requesting a second referendum. The First Minister wants the people of Scotland to have a choice, just as the Government now have a choice: do they want hard Brexit or do they want to retain the Union?
We must be on our guard. We stand to lose much more than the economy and the Union if we continue down this path. The world that the Donald Trumps, Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pens want to build is a genuinely dangerous one. It is a world of protectionism, bragging nationalism and domestic politics dominated by the empty, angry rhetoric of scapegoating. As any student of 20th-century history will tell us, these are ominous tidings indeed. The world around us is rapidly changing, and not always for the better. Out there, there is a sense that things are out of control. The term “going to hell in a handcart” is one we hear frequently. In this climate of uncertainty and instability—
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
That excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) was certainly much more entertaining than the after-Budget speech we heard from the blond Bullingdon bombshell, who told of his experience selling Toblerone, whisky and boomerangs, after an apprenticeship in selling pork pies to the British public over Brexit. Hon. Members will remember that he promised us £350 million a week for the NHS, though it has not materialised in the Chancellor’s Budget—or, should I say, fudge-it?
Since 23 June, there has of course been a 15% reduction in the size of the economy due to the devaluation of the pound, which is reflected in asset values and people’s wages. Our economy has shifted from the fifth to the sixth largest. We are about to hurtle forward with triggering article 50, giving all the power to determine what happens to the EU 27, without us having a vote in the House. They will impose tariffs. We send 43% of our exports to the EU, and 7% of their exports come to us; we are much more reliant on them than they are on us. Only two countries—the Netherlands and Germany—have a net export surplus with us; the others have an interest in imposing tariffs and making sure that it is not worth while for others to leave the EU, so things do not look too good.
I have spoken to the CBI, particularly in Wales, and it is worried about what is happening to cars—and not just Vauxhall, and Ford in Bridgend; there are other problems: Nissan wants under-the-table deals, and we have seen Rolls-Royce devalued by €4 billion, thanks to the revaluation of the pound. Our second biggest export is chemicals; we are told that 20% of chemical manufacturers are relocating to Ireland, or at least thinking of doing so.
We are told that if we lose trade with the EU, we can go to the emerging markets. Of course, those markets want to trade market access for migration and visas, in the same way that there is a trade-off with the EU between migration and intervention, so there is no obvious net benefit. Donald Trump said on his inauguration that countries are ravaging his economy, taking his jobs, selling his products, and stealing his companies, and he will not have a deal that does not give a net benefit to the United States, so things are not looking too good there.
As for Swansea West, which I represent, there was no news about the Swansea bay lagoon. There was no money for the city deal. There was no bringing forward of rail electrification; it is going to Cardiff in 2018, but it will not arrive in Swansea until 2024. Overall, in Wales, 70% of exports go to the EU, compared to 43% from the UK, so people are naturally concerned. We are told that the economy has grown by 2%, but that has been fuelled by consumer borrowing, which is unsustainable. We know that inflation will grow, which will further undermine people’s wages. Debt has risen from 45% of GDP under Labour to 90% under the Tories. What a failure! If we look at the Red Book, productivity has been flatlining since 2010.
John Maynard Keynes famously said:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
The vote for Brexit was predicated on more money, market access and less migration. All that is cast into question. We in this place, regardless of the votes earlier today, will have to look again at the situation that arises, and my prediction is that the British public will rise up against market failure, economic failure by the Government, and their decisions.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said so eloquently, there is so much wrong with the Budget that it is difficult to know where to start. In the little time available to me, I would like to look at the Chancellor’s decision to reinstate the alcohol duty escalator and raise duty by 4%. I should declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Scotch whisky.
The Chancellor’s decision was particularly galling given that on 3 March, the Prime Minister praised the industry, describing it as
“a truly great Scottish and British industry”,
only for her Chancellor to undermine that same industry with a huge tax grab just five days later. The Chancellor’s decision to raise duty is a major blow to an industry on which so many in my Argyll and Bute constituency depend. He has undone, in one fell swoop, all the good done in the last couple of years, in which the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), cancelled the duty escalator, cutting duty by 2% in 2015, and freezing it the following year. When he cut duty by 2%, it was estimated in the Treasury’s own Red Book that it would create a revenue shortfall of £185 million. However, the reality was very different, because that 2% cut in 2015 actually increased the tax take to the Treasury by more than £100 million, with a further 4.2% rise in revenue from spirit duty in 2016. In cutting duty, the Chancellor sent out a message to potential investors that confidence in the industry was high.
The initial duty freeze followed by the cut gave confidence to investors who, for the first time in decades, believed that the Government no longer saw the whisky industry as a cash cow. Their investment saw more than a dozen new distilleries opening in the past two years, with no fewer than 40 in various stages of planning, hoping to come on stream over the next two decades. It allowed existing production sites to grow and it helped distilleries to expand the very lucrative tourist/visitor side of their business. I fear that the signals sent out by this excise duty increase threaten to stall that investment and damage industry confidence.
In this Budget, 36p was put on a bottle of Scotch whisky, which means that the excise duty paid on 70 cl bottle of scotch is a whopping £8.05, taking the total tax take on a bottle to £10.20. That means that the tax on an average priced bottle of Scotch whisky now sits at an eye-watering 79%. A total of £4 in every £5 spent domestically on Scotch whisky now goes directly to the coffers of the Treasury in either duty or VAT. Sadly, this tax hike is little more than a cash grab by the Chancellor because, as I have said, it goes against the evidence of the past couple of years when duty was cut and then frozen. I fear that the days of the Chancellor using Scotch whisky as a cash cow have returned with a vengeance.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
On Wednesday, I listened to the Chancellor’s statement and waited for the elephants in the room to be addressed: Brexit, the housing crisis, and infrastructure in the west of England—but I waited in vain. This Budget could have set out a great future for our country, but it did not. Businesses of all sizes in Bristol have told me that, to continue to secure jobs and growth for the region, they need the benefits that we currently get from full membership of the single European market. From the aerospace industry to the financial services sector to traders on the Gloucester Road, Bristol businesses say to me that they face huge uncertainties as our future relationship with the EU is negotiated, and yet the Chancellor said virtually nothing about Brexit in the Budget.
On housing, Bristol’s fantastic Labour mayor, Marvin Rees, and his team are working hard to tackle our city’s homelessness crisis and to get more homes built. Bristol West is in the midst of a housing crisis, which particularly affects young people, with soaring house prices and rents, and yet the Chancellor said nothing about housing.
In her speech last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) described how this Budget fell short on infrastructure in the west country. Bristolians have put up with the inconvenience and cost of railway electrification work, followed by its postponement. We have had all the bother with none of the benefits. Time and again, I have impressed on the Government that we need action, not least to eliminate the dangerous air pollution in our city, and yet the Chancellor said nothing about infrastructure in the west. However, what the Chancellor did say gave me cause for concern, particularly the proposed rise in national insurance contributions for the self-employed. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are 12,800 self-employed people in my constituency, which is well above the national and regional averages. That includes freelancers in the technology and creative sectors, taxi drivers and car mechanics, decorators and plumbers, hairdressers and musicians. All earn, on average, 40% less than employees, but now face having to pay more in taxes in an already uncertain economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) said last week that this Budget shows just how much Bristol was better off under a Labour Government than under these Tories. Then we had new schools and hospitals, Sure Start children’s centres, the education maintenance allowance and tax credits and so much more that has now gone. Under coalition and Tory Governments, we have had cuts to school budgets. Real-terms funding per pupil is set to fall and there will be a total budget cut of £3 billion by 2020—the worst funding cut since the 1970s. There are mounting pressures on the NHS, cuts to local government causing real suffering in social care, and further problems in hospitals when people cannot be discharged. This Chancellor dealt with none of those problems. There was also no mention of mental health issues, which particularly affect young people in my constituency.
I am disappointed. This could have been a Budget to prepare our country for the journey ahead, to reassure the people, universities, mayor and businesses of Bristol, and to put Britain’s families, schools and hospitals on a firm financial footing. It could have put minds at rest, and helped us to look outwards to fulfil our potential in the global economy. It could have been a Budget that invested properly in mental health, physical health and social care, that tackled the housing crisis, and that showed we value older people, who have a great deal to offer and deserve to feel secure, and children and young people, who need a decent education.
The Foreign Secretary says that we are not being patriotic, and thinks that we can just snap our fingers and summon up trade deals, but this Budget is not patriotic. Instead, it threatens jobs, growth and the vibrancy of Bristol West. It is a Budget built on oversights and blind spots, which revised down Government estimates for growth and earnings for the next five years. It is a Budget that fails to face up to the issues threatening our nation. That is not patriotic; that is letting down the country.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
This is my first Budget in the House. I sat here last week with real hope and anticipation, only to be let down, but as I come from the NHS, I am used to being let down by this Conservative Government.
Last Wednesday—International Women’s Day—was the perfect opportunity for the Government to take concerted action to ensure progress towards true equality for women, but they did not deliver. They simply provided cash handouts to keep women quiet. Yes, I welcome the three measures for women announced in the Budget, but £30 million spending in a Budget of more than £800 billion is simply a distraction from the fact that this Budget does very little for women. It does nothing to enhance their lives or living conditions. If anything, it entrenches them further. Why were women only considered in three measures? Why not throughout the entire Budget?
There is an old quote:
“Don’t tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I’ll tell you what they are.”
In the choices we make, we demonstrate what we care about, what we value and what is important to us. It is clear that this Government do not care about or value women, nor deem women important in our society. Throughout this Budget on International Women’s Day, the Chancellor proved himself to have little to no understanding of the struggles facing women today. The Chancellor has proved himself to be so far removed from women who are just about managing, women who are doing all they can to put food on the table, and women who simply wish to contribute to the economy. The Government had the opportunity to take the burden off women’s shoulders, but they did not. The Chancellor refused to ensure that women would receive the same pay as their male counterparts when returning to work after a career break.
I visited Burntwood School in Tooting last week, where more than 200 sixth-form students told me that they were concerned about gender inequality. I apologise to those students and all students in Tooting for this Government’s inaction on ensuring that women are seen and treated as equals. I apologise that this Budget not only lets women down, but ensures that it will take until well after the retirement age of those sixth-formers for the gender pay gap to close.
A Budget is not just numbers. It affects real people, real lives and real families. However, that seems to be something that the Chancellor so easily forgets. Food bank usage is soaring. I see families week in, week out in my constituency surgeries who simply cannot cope, who get halfway through the month and are unsure how they are going to provide food for their children. We on the Opposition Benches have a responsibility to protect this country’s citizens. Forcing women to prove that their third, fourth or fifth child is a product of rape in order to be eligible for further child tax credit and universal credit is simply moving the burden of spending away from one area on to another. The Treasury has chosen to make a series of tax cuts that will actually cost £41 billion a year by 2020—more than the £37 billion saved from social security cuts.
Fundamentally, on a day to celebrate women—all they do and the potential they have—the Chancellor chose to segregate them further in society, and to silence them with cash handouts that will not even touch the sides of improving their day-to-day lives. If it is true that how someone spends their money shows us what they care about, we can only conclude that this Government do not care about true equality for women. This Conservative Government love to focus on having two female Prime Ministers, but it is a Labour Government who will congratulate themselves on how they treat 32.5 million women in the UK. Whatever headlines the Government try to spin, whatever jokes the Chancellor has tried to make and whatever cash handouts they provide—
Mr Speaker
Order. A Member must not continue when told to sit down, otherwise we will have anarchy in this place. It is not acceptable; it just must not happen. I call Rachael Maskell.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me this evening. As has already been—
Rachael Maskell
As has been spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), the economy has shrunk by 15% since June, and that cannot be ignored. Labour Members did not talk about economic cliff edges, but we did talk about the impact that leaving the European Union would have, and that has, of course, escalated, with the Prime Minister’s call to leave the single market and the customs union now weighing heavily on our economy. The pound fell to £1.14 against the euro and £1.22 against the dollar this weekend, and it is down 12% against the euro and 20% against the dollar since June, showing just how fragile our economy is—it is not an economy in recovery. And before someone pipes up about how well FTSE 100 companies are faring, I would remind them that that is due to the strength of the trade in dollars, not sterling.
All that means that our nation is poorer, so the lack of attention in the Budget to building economic resilience was really quite astounding. I believe everyone voted last June with a legitimate aim: to see a better country. They put their trust in this sovereign Parliament to deliver that, but they are being badly let down. Half the country voted to achieve that aim by staying in the EU, and half voted to achieve it by leaving the EU, but no one talked about leaving the single market or the customs union. Of course, that is now impacting, with the increase in food and fuel prices really hitting the people in our constituencies on the front line—the consumers—who can least afford it. No one voted to become poorer, but people will have £21 less a week to spend as a result of the Government’s economic failing, with wages dropping below the level before 2007 and the economic crash.
Businesses in my constituency are also seriously challenged, even with the tweaking of our business rates, because the extortionate, over-inflated rents they pay on their properties are pushing up business rates. The sticking plasters do not go far enough to address these issues.
This is not a story of economic recovery. As we look at the £1.5 trillion of personal debt burdening people across our country, and at the national debt of £1.7 trillion, we no longer hear those calls from the Government Benches about confidence in the long-term economic plan, because we have long-term economic incompetence, and the eerie silence is echoing not just in this Chamber but throughout our land.
My concern is this: the Prime Minister has made her decision—hers alone—about what future we will have. We will be pulling out of the single market and the customs union—a hard Brexit, not a people’s Brexit—and that is destabilising our economy further. When we reach the end of this period of negotiation, and we judge the Prime Minister against her Lancaster House objectives, I think we all know what the truth will be: she will have failed.
What did not come forward in the Budget? There was nothing on how the Government are going to mitigate economic risks such as the loss of jobs, businesses going overseas, the fall in the pound and the shrinking of our public services. When will the Government seriously say, “Stop. We have had enough. We need to put people’s interests and the economy at the forefront of these negotiations”? We need to shift the negotiation priorities to stabilise the market, recognise the benefit of the single market—I will be the first to say it should be reformed—and make sure we are part of the customs union.
Economic competence is about showing that risk can be mitigated and managed—something the Chancellor failed to do last week. Before triggering article 50, I trust that the Government, perhaps even in their response today, will set out how they will respond to that risk.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It has not taken long for the gloss to come off this Budget. We have learned just how clueless those in charge really are. The reckless national insurance blunder told us what we need to know about the Chancellor; they saw him coming as he fell for a classic Treasury bottom-drawer policy. In the old days, it could take at least until the weekend for a Budget to unravel, but this Chancellor seems to have set a new record by producing one that disintegrated before the day was out.
What is worrying about this dreadful performance is that it is beginning to look like a pattern. As each day passes, we learn that this Government make it up as they go along, with Ministers woefully unprepared and in some cases just not up to it. We have had the City Minister relieved of key duties and an Education Secretary who hides from the press, goes around closing schools and pretending that huge cuts in funding are fair, and thinks she can sell grammar schools by promising an easier 11-plus. The health service is on its knees, so the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is planning to take an extra £4.3 million in business rates from Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, and has not even had the time to discuss the implications with Health Ministers. One measure they should have announced is that they are going to treat NHS hospitals like their private counterparts and exempt them from business rates. At the head of this shambles, we have a Prime Minister without a mandate who thinks that as long as she repeats it often enough, people will believe her: no sweetheart deals, the Home Office getting more efficient, Brexit means Brexit. The more she repeats it, the more we see right through her. Even the Chancellor’s allies are describing her key aides as economically illiterate.
I acknowledge that the performance on the Labour Benches is not always good enough, and that may be partly responsible for the extraordinary complacency we are now witnessing from Conservative Members, but that is no reason for them to think that they can get away with providing the British people with second-rate government. It is quite incredible that in this non-event Budget the Chancellor had nothing to say about preparations for Brexit, especially as we learn that the Government are seriously contemplating crashing out of the EU without a satisfactory deal. That is not respecting the will of the British people—it is abusing the referendum result to embark on a reckless course that threatens people’s jobs and businesses large and small, and guarantees the most enormous hike in food prices.
When will this nonsense stop? When will we stop having to listen to the Foreign Secretary? I never thought I would be grateful to the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) for anything, but I am beginning to think he did us all one enormous favour. They cannot agree on anything. The Foreign Secretary thinks it will all be all right on the night, the International Trade Secretary warns that leaving without a deal will be a problem, and the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU says he is thinking about a back-up plan. It is like a live performance by the Three Stooges. Just how much longer are these people going to try pull the wool over our eyes?
This Budget could have been the opportunity to clarify some of the confusion over Government policy. They could have tried to sort out the mess on the apprenticeship levy before it is too late. They could have done something about energy prices, and the fiasco that if someone puts in a smart meter and then changes supplier, it has to be turned off. If they persist with this, that is £11 billion of Government money down the drain. There are plenty of things that they could have done in this Budget, but of course what is wrong with this Budget is that this Government do not know where they are from one day to the next.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is astounding that as we face a harsh cliff-edge Brexit there was practically no mention of the economic impact of Brexit in the Budget. However, I will focus on the challenges facing higher education, which have not been addressed.
The UK currently has a world-leading research base with academics from across the globe. Many of these researchers are EU nationals. In order to protect the quality of this sector, the Prime Minister should be rolling out the red carpet for these staff, begging them to remain here, but instead the Government have only offered vague and confusing messages to EU citizens without providing any guarantees as to their right to stay. This has left many of our EU national friends and colleagues, world leaders in their fields, looking elsewhere for positions. This impacts significantly on the economy. International students, both EU and non-EU, are worth over £25 billion to the UK economy and provide a significant boost to regional jobs and businesses. Research conducted for Universities UK on the economic impact of those students shows that in 2014-15, spending by international students supported more than 200,000 jobs in university towns and cities, with the transport and retail sectors benefiting greatly from their spending.
The UK is currently the second most popular destination for overseas students, after the US. In 2014, the 400,000-plus international students in the UK made up 19% of all students registered at UK universities. They come here not because they like the weather, but because of the quality of courses on offer and the research being conducted. Without international research expertise, we will struggle to attract those students and we will feel the economic pinch.
The picture in Scotland, of course, is similar to that in the UK as a whole. Scotland’s higher education institutions benefit greatly from EU funding programmes, but how much longer that continues is currently in the hands of the UK Government, and that is a huge worry. Through Horizon 2020, Scottish higher education has secured more than €217 million. That funding is vital for attracting skills and talents and for keeping our research institutions at the top of international league tables. Without that funding stream and the associated collaborations, our institutions may struggle to remain internationally competitive. As well as losing international students, we could fall behind other economies in terms of productivity and innovation.
The Chancellor has not made clear how the UK Government are going to match that threatened funding. To not do so would just prolong the uncertainty, which is already causing much anxiety in the sector. Securing our future in Horizon 2020 and its successor programme should be a priority.
I am really positive about the £300 million being offered in England to support 1,000 new PhD places and fellowships in STEM subjects, but I do wonder where the supervisors and lecturers will come from. Will EU nationals be welcome to apply for those posts? Will they be welcome to stay?
There is £320 million of funding for 110 new free schools and grammars, but we know that the single most important resource in ensuring excellence in education is the teacher. We have already seen an erosion in the terms and conditions of teachers in England under this Tory Government. Can the Tories now guarantee that nationally agreed pay scales and conditions such as maternity and sick pay will be guaranteed? At least Scotland now has the possibility of a new and brighter future.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
This year’s Budget coincided with International Women’s Day, whose theme was “Women in the Changing World of Work: Planet 50-50 by 2030”. It is nearly 100 years since women were first granted the right to vote in the UK, but there is still much to do to achieve gender equality, both here and around the world.
The last Labour Government achieved so much for women. We introduced the minimum wage, created tax credits, increased maternity and paternity leave and pay, introduced pension credits, expanded childcare, and introduced the Equality Act 2010. That all made a massive difference to women in this country.
Gender equality means delivering long-term, tangible change for women, including securing women’s economic freedom, providing secure work and promoting women’s access to innovative technologies. The Budget could have taken greater steps to achieve some of those aims. Instead, the Tory Government, in their seventh year, have failed to redress the disproportionate impacts experienced by women as a result of tax and benefit changes and public spending cuts since 2010. From tax credit cuts to the crisis in social care, it is women who have consistently been hit hardest by the Tories’ policies.
Yet again, this Government have made no assessment of how their policies impact on women in the UK. As of the 2017 spring Budget, £80 billion—more than three quarters of all savings—have come from women, with a disproportionate impact on women from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Even the lauded £5 million for returning-to-work mums works out at a pretty useless £10 a mum. What exactly will that buy?
That is why I support the recent announcement by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, that she will seek to introduce an economic equality Bill, which will eliminate obstacles that prevent women from reaching their economic potential. Part of that will be the need to provide more secure work. The number of those working without guaranteed hours or baseline employment rights has shot up by more than 660,000 over the past five years. How is a working parent —a working mother—supposed to plan childcare when they do not know the hours they will be working? Never mind the fact that, under this Government, only a third of local authorities actually believe there will be enough childcare available in their area for eligible families.
The reality is that women still make up the majority of part-time, non-permanent full-time and zero-hours contracts. Of the 900,000 workers—nearly 1 million—on zero-hours contracts, 55% are women. That should come as no surprise because, in almost any labour market in the world, social care work is performed by an insecure and largely female workforce. In the UK care sector, companies delivering social care for cash-strapped councils are, in a bid to remain viable, offering more zero-hours contracts than ever, which means even less protection for these workers.
Equality must take more of a priority than this Government are currently affording it. One way to do that would be for the Government to provide a clear commitment to play a much more active role by promoting women’s access to innovative technologies to help them to be successful entrepreneurs and leaders in innovation; encouraging women to enter and thrive in the tech industry; creating the conditions necessary for change at all levels; and encouraging women to enter typically male-dominated sectors, such as the energy and renewables sector. That is happening in my constituency, where the likes of DONG Energy and E.ON are providing excellent apprenticeships for young women. The Government used to talk about that, but they have now gone suspiciously quiet.
We should do much more than the Government’s Innovate UK initiative, which is seeking to invest £200,000 to help more women to be successful entrepreneurs and leaders in innovation, as this one-off initiative essentially offers just 12 women a tailored package of support, of whom just four will actually receive a financial package worth up to £50,000. That is not a ringing endorsement of women by this Government.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
This was supposed to be a new start with a new Chancellor, yet we have ended up with the same shambles and the same post-Budget fallouts.
Yet again, Scotland did not really feature in the Budget. It was mentioned twice: once in terms of increased productivity, and once with regard to Barnett consequentials. The way this Budget process works is that at no time do the UK Government ever ask the Scottish Government what they need. All that happens is that there are some panicked health and education allocations in the Budget, Scotland gets some Barnett spin-offs and we are meant to be eternally grateful. That is not mature Budget setting.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) said, the tax system is outdated, especially in the way it treats whisky. Why should whisky be taxed at 79%? Why do we not tax real luxury goods that only the wealthiest can afford and increase taxes that way? If the concern is about alcohol harm, why do the Government not look at minimum unit pricing, instead of crippling the Scottish whisky industry?
The Chancellor mentioned clamping down on tax avoidance, yet there are only two new additional income streams in the Budget. They are predicted to bring in only an extra £200 million over five years, which is a paltry amount compared with the Budget. Meanwhile, tax credit debt collection is predicted to bring in half a billion pounds in just over four years. We must ask ourselves whether the Government are clamping down on tax avoidance, or on hard-working families that have gone into tax credit debt due to failings in the tax credit system. It is another Concentrix waiting to happen.
The Chancellor told us he wants to leave some gas in the tank, yet he has left us all the tax giveaways: he has not revisited them or slowed down on them. We have £23.5 billion in giveaways with corporation tax, £2.8 billion with inheritance tax relief and £3.7 billion in lifetime ISA tax relief, which is £30 billion of tax giveaways in just a few lines. Yet the very same Chancellor sees fit to take £2 billion in national insurance contributions off the self-employed. The self-employed are struggling and do not get holidays, and many of them were forced to go self-employed because of Tory austerity measures in the first place. These people have been hailed as the new entrepreneurs who are going to take the country out of recession, yet they are getting hammered by national insurance contributions.
Meanwhile, for other hard-working people £1 billion is being recouped from salary sacrifice schemes, £1 billion from the realignment of primary and secondary national insurance contributions, £1.7 billion from changes to termination payments—more people are having to take voluntary redundancy than ever before—and £4 billion from insurance tax premiums. That is £10 billion from those who are just about managing, or are struggling to get by in work. Then there is the £6 billion to come from the two-child tax credit policy. Not mentioned in the Budget were the 2016 measures that have already kicked in—£30 billion from the benefits freeze and the welfare cap. We have already heard tonight about the WASPI women. There was nothing in the Budget for them, even though the SNP has a costed proposal for £8 billion, which is easily affordable compared with the tax giveaways. It is clear that the tax giveaways come on the backs of the most vulnerable in society.
On energy, there was nothing for the oil and gas industry; nothing on carbon capture and storage; nothing on renewables where investment will fall by 95% by 2020 and one in six jobs is at risk; nothing on decarbonisation and transport; nothing on Brexit; and nothing for farmers in Scotland. This is a poor Budget and it is only hidden by the Brexit shambles.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Chancellor made several errors in his Budget. Somehow within hours he managed—in one of the thinnest Red Books for years and with a Budget of so little detail and so little action—practically to unite his Back Benchers, the Opposition and the press in calling for a U-turn on his central announcement on national insurance contributions.
I will be slightly kinder to the Chancellor than the former Prime Minister, because I know what he was trying to do. I can understand it: there is a worrying and growing trend of companies outsourcing their employees as self-employed contractors to save on employer NICs costs. Self-employment is a good choice for many workers in the UK, but when workers do not have the choice and the employer drives the change, it tends not to be in the best interests of the workers. Raising employee NICs is not the way to solve the problem, and I suspect that the Chancellor may have to go back to one of his infamous spreadsheets soon.
The Chancellor’s biggest errors, for people up and down these isles, were errors of omission, and I plan to speak briefly about three of them—the employment and support allowance work-related activity group, WASPI and squeezed family budgets.
There was nothing from the Chancellor on ESA WRAG. In November I tabled a motion that was supported by Members from nine parties—that does not happen often—and it called on the UK Government at least to pause their cuts to ESA WRAG until the work and health Green Paper had been considered and implemented. People receive ESA WRAG because they have been assessed as unfit for work—they have long-term health conditions or disabilities that slow their path to employment. It has always been considered right that given their increased costs in finding work because of their disability or health problems, and the fact that they need support for longer than those on jobseeker’s allowance, they should receive a higher weekly payment. On 1 April that extra £30 a week will be cut away.
During the debate in November, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) garnered an important commitment from the Minister that financial mitigation and new regulations to help those falling in and out of work would both be in place before the cut came into force. We are less than three weeks from ESA WRAG being cut and we have heard nothing from the Government. The motion I tabled in November was deliberately consensual. It was a final appeal, a last pitch to the Government to act. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are now fast losing patience: time is running out and the Government need to act now.
The Budget included nothing on WASPI. On Budget day I joined a huge rally of women outside Parliament to call on the Chancellor to act on the injustice served to thousands of women born in the 1950s who have seen their state pension age increased at a faster rate than promised with little or no warning. Three of the 3,500 women affected in my constituency were there and it was a pleasure to speak to Ellen Connelly, Joan Cassels and Margaret Nisbet. It is not sustainable for the UK Government to keep trying to ignore those women—women who have suffered workplace injustice throughout their careers. The Government should do the right thing by those women and give them appropriate transitional relief.
All the people affected by those errors of omission were victims of this Brexit Budget as the Chancellor set aside £26 billion as a down payment on exiting the EU. Ironically, however, there was barely a passing mention of the greatest economic, social and constitutional challenge to face this or any other Government for decades. Inflation is expected to rise, further squeezing households that are facing social security cuts and painfully slow wage growth. Cuts to support for sick and disabled people, cuts to women’s pensions, hundreds of thousands more in child poverty, slow wage growth and poor productivity—not so much spreadsheet Phil as the Dickensian Chancellor.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Budget and Britain’s place in the world. I want to speak about the Budget proposals for education and the risks they present to our children who, in the context of Brexit and changes across the world, face an uncertain future. Our education system must be equipped and resourced to deliver the best possible education for all our children and young people to provide them with the skills, knowledge and confidence to navigate our uncertain world and to be truly global citizens of it.
I am fiercely proud of the schools in my constituency and everything they deliver for local children. The transformation of the quality of education in London was one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. In my constituency alone, we saw four new secondary schools, and this record of delivery is continuing with a further new secondary school that opened last year as a result of a strong campaign by parents and local councillors. Every day, teachers in our local schools are delivering brilliant imaginative lessons, helping our children to be the best that they can be and achieving excellent results.
Yet the resources that the schools in Dulwich and West Norwood need to continue their excellent work are under threat. The Government have broken their manifesto commitment to protect per pupil funding for our schools. The NAO confirmed that the Department’s overall schools budget is protected in real terms, but does not provide for funding per pupil to increase in line with inflation. In addition, the Government have loaded further significant costs on to our schools that are not funded: national insurance contributions, the national minimum wage and the apprenticeships levy. Each of those costs are important in their own right, but it is entirely unfair of the Government to impose them without also funding them.
Schools in my constituency are already reducing staffing numbers to cope with these additional costs. On top of these burdens, the Government are proposing to cut the funding for London schools in order to deliver a fair funding formula for schools across the country. I support the objective of fair funding for our schools, but there is nothing fair about taking vital funds away from some schools. This will have a direct impact on the quality of education our schools are able to provide, and it will affect the competitiveness of the UK economy. The Budget does nothing to address this. Instead of committing to increasing the education budget by just 1% to ensure that all schools can access fair funding without any school losing out, it commits funding in order to open new grammar schools which, by any measure and definition, can deliver only for a small number of children.
As we contemplate the future of the United Kingdom outside the European Union in a rapidly changing global economy, it is not a time for nostalgia to be the defining force in education policy. It is a time to be learning from the success story of London schools—investing in our education system to ensure that it is fit for purpose to equip our children with the knowledge, skills and confidence to thrive in a challenging and uncertain world. The Foreign Secretary may trivialise the challenge of global trade with reference to boomerangs and Toblerone, but I want our schools to be able to equip all our children with the values of tolerance, diversity and internationalism, and with the skills and qualifications to pursue careers in science and technology, culture and the arts, green industries, health and social care, construction and many other fields. By cutting the funding for our schools, this Government and this Budget are failing them.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Since the Budget statement last week, this Government have been heckled by headteachers, nobbled by national insurance and slated by the self-employed, as they blatantly break manifesto promises. The Chancellor appeared to have spent far too much time polishing up his stand-up routine and far too little on the finer details of what his party promised in their 2015 manifesto. The fact that the Prime Minister has now been forced to announce that the increase in national insurance contributions for the self-employed will be pushed back to the autumn shows a Government in disarray and does nothing to give security and certainty to working people. The Federation of Small Businesses is scathing about the national insurance rise, saying that it should be seen for what it is—a £1 billion tax hike on those who set themselves up in business.
The Chancellor claims that the economy grew more than expected last year, but this does not mean that everyone is better off. Indeed, the growth in the economy is on the back of a rise in employment coupled with a shift towards lower-paid jobs, with this growth largely driven by rises in self-employment and part-time jobs. In fact, while in most other countries, including France and Germany, both the economy and wages have grown, the United Kingdom is the only big, advanced economy in which wages contracted while the economy expanded. For the one in five public sector workers in the UK whose average pay is now more than £1,000 lower in real terms than it was in 2010, the Chancellor’s boast of growth in the economy is cold comfort for those who are not “just about managing”, but are really struggling to cope with a constant fall in living standards.
The Chancellor’s statement was remarkable more for what it did not say than for what it did. There was barely a mention of Brexit, there was nothing for WASPI women, and there was no mention at all of the previous Chancellor’s failure to deliver a promised surplus by 2020. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) now seems to be devoting himself to creating his own personal surplus, having failed to deliver on his promises for the UK economy. He was the Chancellor who used to talk about strivers and shirkers; the current Chancellor is now attacking the self-employed strivers and shirking his own manifesto promises.
The £2 billion for social care is welcome, but that money is needed now to address the crisis in social care, rather than being spread over three years. Moreover, it is well short of the £4.6 billion shortfall in social care funding in the last Parliament.
As the Chancellor was at pains to point out, Budget day coincided with International Women’s Day. It is a sad fact that women are bearing the brunt of Tory austerity. Since 2010, 86% of the Tories’ net savings to the Treasury through tax and benefit measures will have come from women. Nothing in the Budget will reverse that trend, and, in yet another example of women being unfairly hit by this Government, the Chancellor has once again failed to address the hardship caused to millions of women by poorly handled changes in the state pension age.
As for our young people, the Chancellor claimed:
“We on this side of the House will not saddle our children with ever-increasing debts.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 811.]
This from a party that trebled tuition fees, scrapped education maintenance allowance, abolished maintenance grants and NHS bursaries, and denies the so-called national living wage to those below the age of 25.
The Chancellor told a lot of jokes last week, but people in my constituency are not laughing. This is not a Budget for women, for the young or for business entrepreneurs, and it does not work for everyone.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The first thing that we should celebrate is the fact that the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill has come back from the other place, and this House is now, at long last, free to implement the Brexit will of the people. That is good news.
This is a difficult time of the year for those who have the dubious honour of lifting that red case. There are always groups who are happy to see a cut or happy not to see a cut in some sectors, depending on their opinion, but we all know that rises are inevitable when the aim is to cut one’s coat to suit one’s cloth.
I want to speak about the increase in national insurance for the self-employed. Some 4.8 million self-employed workers in the European Union will be affected by it. The rate of class 4 national insurance contributions is to rise by 1% to 10% in April next year, with a further rise planned for 2019. There have been some murmurs from the Government that the move may be reviewed. I know that some Conservative Back Benchers are not happy about it, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what the position is.
Given that small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland employ more people than large companies and the public sector combined, it is essential that we provide support rather than further burdening a group who pay more than their share in tax. I have, of course, heard the cries from Conservative Members that the increase is “only a few pounds a week”, but that refers to last year’s Budget. The fact is that the cumulative rise will put more pressure on those who work so hard as it is. I do not think it is right for the Government to take this approach at this stage. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Budget is a curate’s egg, containing some good things and some bad things. It is good news for the NHS that it will receive £425 million in Government investment over the next three years, and congratulations should be given where they are due. However, the British Medical Association has expressed concern, saying that
“the plans need at least £9.5 billion of total capital funding to be delivered successfully.”
Can the Minister confirm that there are indeed no plans to privatise further any aspect of the NHS?
I want to speak about health issues, too. The number of full-time GPs has fallen by nearly 100, while overall there has been no real increase in the number of GPs working in GP practices. I ask the Government and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is looking responsive—as a former Health Minister, that is important —what steps are being taken to ensure that students are encouraged to take up the GP mantle. Some things could be done. I am aware of incentives last year that offered golden handshakes of up to £20,000 to become a GP in an understaffed area. Again, I am not saying that that will be the norm for the Government, but we need to address those issues in a positive way. Whatever way we recruit more GPs, I ask that consideration be given to that.
I conclude on one issue that really concerns me and many in this House. No specific funding has been allocated to children’s palliative care. Research by Together for Short Lives on equitable funding for children’s palliative care shows that voluntary sector children’s palliative care organisations receive just 22% of their funding from statutory sources, compared with 30% for adults. The Government have stated that commissioners and providers of services must prioritise children’s palliative care in their strategic planning. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that happens? Will they provide further guidance to commissioners of children’s palliative care charities to address the inequity in financial support received by these organisations, which do tremendous work, deserve to be helped and provide lifeline care to children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions, and their families?
As I said earlier, this is a curate’s egg of a Budget. There are good things and there are bad things in it. Among the things we need to address are the health issues. Among the good things is the extra money that has been set aside.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been a privilege to listen to the Budget debate today and to be able to respond on behalf of the Opposition. We have heard 32 Back-Bench speeches, two thirds of which have come from the Labour Benches, but in many ways it is understandable that so few Conservative Members wished to speak today. It was surely quite an achievement that the Chancellor managed to deliver a Budget that was so thin on announcements yet could generate so much criticism in response. In many ways, it was a Budget that pleased no one—apparently, not even the Prime Minister or, as we have learnt, the former Prime Minister.
For those of us hoping to see real help for public services, especially health and social care, there was only disappointment. For people who wanted to see how the Government would tackle the squeeze on living standards and persistent low pay, there was only consternation and outright anger at the national insurance rise. For anyone wondering what the path to prosperity will be for this country as we leave the European Union and seek a new place in the world, there were no answers at all. The Chancellor may be known as “Spreadsheet Phil”, but on this occasion he certainly did not Excel.
The Chancellor did, however, surprise us all by revealing that he likes to make a joke himself. I particularly liked his opening anecdote about Norman Lamont delivering his last spring Budget and being sacked as Chancellor just 10 weeks later. However, I imagine that that started to feel a bit less funny when the Chancellor saw his own headlines the next day.
Let me begin by considering the most controversial item, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members today: the significant hike to national insurance for the self-employed. On the Labour Benches, we simply do not accept the Conservatives’ belief that self-employed people now receive the same rights as employees. Self-employed people do not receive sick pay, maternity pay or paternity benefits. They are not eligible for industrial injuries disablement benefit and they cannot be auto-enrolled into a workplace pension scheme. The law may now give them similar access to state pension benefits, but receipt of that is decades away for most. Simply put, while they are in work, they are on their own. Most significantly, as one of my constituents said to me on Friday, if they lose their business, they are not even eligible for contributory jobseeker’s allowance. So to increase the tax burden on them, without a commensurate increase in benefits, is simply unfair and we will oppose the Government on it.
We recognise absolutely that there is a need to tackle bogus self-employment. I have constituents who are construction workers who have been forced to register as self-employed, who are paid the minimum wage and then receive the remainder of their salary as dividends. I believe that to be completely wrong. But it seems clear to me that an arrangement such as that is primarily designed to avoid liability for employers’ national insurance and for other benefits, and that is surely where the Government’s attention should be. To punish the self-employed, beginning with those earning above just £16,250 a year, while at the same time pressing ahead with very large reductions to corporation tax, to inheritance tax and to the bank levy, is a sign of a Government who simply have the wrong priorities—and to break a manifesto commitment to do that represents a profound lack of judgment.
Those misplaced priorities were also evident elsewhere. Social care in this country is in crisis—although, to be frank, the word “crisis” does not seem strong enough. As several Members have said today, that view is widely held on both sides of this Chamber. In the last Parliament, over £4.5 billion was taken out of adult social care alone. The King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust say that the social care funding gap for just this coming financial year is £1.9 billion. We did get that from the Chancellor, but spread over three years with nothing additional scheduled after that. I say this to the Conservative MPs who make speeches about tough spending choices: yes, the decisions we make here in this place on a Budget are not easy, but they are not where the toughest decisions lie. The toughest decisions are actually taken by people on the frontline: by professionals struggling to reconcile their budgets with the real people and the real need they see in front of them.
This year, public spending on social care in real terms was less than it was 2009-10. As we have an ageing population, it is fairly clear that that is a not a sustainable position. Some 400,000 fewer adults are receiving publicly funded social care today than in 2010. Age UK says over 1 million older people have to get by without the support they need.
Of course, this is not just about older people: a third of social care spending goes on adults with learning difficulties—a situation that directly affects me and my family, so I declare an interest in that. These are all areas where we, as a society, should come together and ensure that we are willing to protect and take care of vulnerable people. There can be no area more in need of a long-term consensus than this one, so I reiterate again the offer from the Opposition to the Government: we would join formal cross-party talks aimed at finding a sustainable and long-term solution, as many Members have asked for in this debate.
On the biggest issue of all—Brexit: what it will mean and how we will prepare for it—there was almost nothing. In fact we could be forgiven for thinking that the Chancellor does not think very much is going on right now, but we face some fundamental decisions, at a time when living standards for many people have taken a real hit, and they do not feel the economy works in a fair way for them.
This is the worst decade for pay in 70 years. Real pay rates are still lower today than before the financial crisis. We have 6 million people earning less than the living wage, and 4 million children living in poverty, two thirds of whom have a parent who is in work.
Against that backdrop, this Budget was simply inadequate. Where was the contrition that this has been the slowest recovery since the 1920s? Where was the recognition that we need to see a much greater and fairer distribution around the UK of investment in things like transport, so that we can ensure that each region fulfils its potential? Where was the plan to increase business investment? Fixed capital formation is lower today than it was in the 1970s.
There has been speculation that the Chancellor did so little because he wants to keep a Brexit “failure fund” as a war chest in case things go wrong, but surely it is his job to make those decisions now, to ensure that things do not actually go wrong to begin with. At a minimum, with changes to immigration rules almost certain, we might have thought that the Government would rethink cuts to school budgets and focus on the education of people here in the UK, but no such commitment was forthcoming.
On the issue of spending choices, I understand that when the Government are taking a hit for their poor decisions they always seek to deflect the attention back to the Opposition, but the accounting envelope for the decisions taken in this Budget is very clearly set out in the Government’s own documents. To take just one example, on page 30 of the Red Book it is clearly stated that the decision to further cut corporation tax will cost £2.2 billion in 2017, a further £2.2 billion in 2018, £3.1 billion in 2019, £4.9 billion in 2020, and £5.2 billion in 2021. Of course we want a globally competitive rate of corporation tax, but there is such a thing as a diminishing return. The average rate of corporation tax in the OECD is 25%, and a bargain basement level of corporation tax will do us no good if we do not have sufficient infrastructure across the country or we lack a workforce with the skills that businesses need, or if we have to fund that low level of corporation tax by hammering small businesses with unreasonable business rates or increase the tax burden on the self-employed.
To take another example, on the big cut to inheritance tax, phasing in the new couples’ allowance of £1 million in 2017 costs £265 million this year, £565 million next year, £610 million in 2019, £650 million in 2020, and £725 million in 2021. Incidentally, of the nearly 3,000 houses sold in my constituency last year, only six were sold for values above the current inheritance tax threshold of £650,000. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for her research and campaigning on that issue. This is a Budget dictated not by poor financial constraints but by poor Conservative choices. It is defined by the unfairness of the choices it makes, by the hypocrisy of a broken manifesto commitment and by its total, abject failure to offer a coherent plan for the UK’s prosperity and for our future place in the world.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
This debate has focused on our future. It has asked what kind of Britain we want to be as we write an important new chapter in our history. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expressed, in his very clear style, the fact that Britain must now, as ever, continue to play an active, engaged and constructive role on the international stage. Many hon. Members have echoed that sentiment, and I thank the 32 right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for their thoughtful and varied contributions this evening. In the short time available, I will do my best to address the points that they have raised.
Many hon. Members have focused on that most pressing of priorities: how we make Brexit—I will say the word—a success for the whole country. In summing up this debate, I want to look beyond that to how we want the rest of the world to view 21st-century Britain. For me, and I hope for the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), that means a prosperous country that is open for business and that is pioneering global developments in science and technology. So let me make a few remarks on that theme and respond to some of the points that we have heard today.
First, there is the need for a prosperous, stable and economically successful Britain. Once again, I remind those who do not acknowledge it of the absolute importance of Britain living within its means. Everyone should agree on that. For the sake of our long-term prosperity and for the good of our public services, we simply have to put our national finances on a stable and sustainable footing. So we are going to keep preparing Britain for whatever comes, getting the structural deficit below 2% of GDP and getting our debt falling during this Parliament.
We are also focusing on growing our economy. We want the world to see Britain as a country that is open for business, backing entrepreneurs, creating jobs and attracting foreign investment. That is the best way to raise living standards for people right across our society and up and down our country. That is why we have established a competitive tax environment. Corporation tax, which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) mentioned, will this year be the lowest in the G20 at 19%, falling even further to 17% in 2020. I should point out to him that when it was reduced from 28% to 20%, it resulted in a 28% increase in tax revenues and in more jobs. Also, there are an additional two thirds of a million new jobs in the forecast period, meaning more money, more businesses doing well and more people with a wage packet at the end of the week.
Simon Kirby
I will not give way.
Let me move beyond tax, because there are many other ways in which we are making Britain more productive and more attractive as a place to start or run a business. The big investment in skills—half a billion pounds a year—will benefit hundreds of thousands of our young people, giving them the best choice since A-levels were introduced 70 years ago and bringing forward the next generation of talent that businesses will rely on. The changes that we have made to invest in current and new schools and to make our technical education as good as that of our international competitors are important for everyone. Not only are they good for business, they will make a huge difference to the lives and careers of our young people. It is a good policy for everyone.
Something else that shows the world that Britain is open for business is the £23 billion investment package that we announced only weeks ago in the autumn statement: the national productivity investment fund. The Budget set out some of the important improvements that the fund will make, such as addressing pinch points on our national road network and investing in the digital infrastructure that modern businesses depend upon. There is much going on to establish Britain as a world-leading country for business.
The Government are ensuring that Britain plays its part at the forefront of tomorrow’s technology. More than half a billion pounds was allocated at the Budget to help our innovators compete on the international stage, including support for trailblazing advances such as electric vehicles, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Investing in upholding the UK’s reputation as a world leader in R and D is not only a point of pride; it is a valuable boost to jobs and opportunities for British people.
I tell the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that we have protected the FCO’s budget in real terms to promote British interests around the world. I say to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that both trade and human rights are clearly important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) raised the important issue of the Black country, making good points about productivity, transport infrastructure and skills. To the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), I say that living standards grew at their fastest rate in 14 years in 2015 to reach their highest ever level and are forecast to have gone even further in 2016. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) made a skilful speech and commended the skills measures in the Budget—the biggest change in post-16 education in 70 years.
The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) asked about uncertainty, and I should make it clear that the Prime Minister’s first objective in the negotiations is to provide certainty and clarity. The hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) asked about the type of Brexit, but the Prime Minister has been abundantly clear that we are aiming for a comprehensive deal based on the highest levels of goods and services. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) made an important point and is clearly a strong voice for her constituency and her region. The right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) raised the important issue of protecting workers’ rights. We are, after all, the party of workers, and we will do all that we can in that area.
I tell the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) that the Government have been clear that the UK will remain open for business, outward facing, and global looking. The benefits of immigration will be retained, but immigration will not be uncontrolled. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) applauded measures relating to skills and R and D, and I thank him for doing so. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked about the Budget’s lack of environmental measures. We will consult on a national air quality plan in a matter of weeks. Along with the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also asked about school funding, and I remind them that the Government are giving more money to schools than ever before, reaching over £40 billion this year.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) I say that the Government remain committed to devolving powers to support local areas to address their specific productivity barriers. To the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) I say that the Government remain committed to controlling migration and living within our means.
On business rates, I point out to Members that the £435 million package is in addition to the £3.6 million transitional relief scheme. The Government are also reducing business rates for all rate payers over the next five years—this is costing almost £9 billion—and that includes taking 600,000 businesses out of paying business rates altogether.
National insurance contributions were mentioned by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). The Prime Minister has made it very clear that the changes to national insurance will require legislation later this year, which will be brought forward after we publish a paper explaining the full effects of the changes, along with the changes to rights and protections for self-employed workers.
We have heard questions about regional infrastructure, and as far as the north is concerned we have put in place £90 million to tackle congestion. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) asked me about businesses relocating, and I can assure him that we will be seeking a bold and ambitious free trade agreement. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said that the Budget is not doing enough for Wales, but I wish to point out that the Welsh Government’s resource budget will increase by almost £150 million through to 2020. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) mentioned an increase in alcohol duties. We do recognise the importance of the Scottish whisky industry and I am pleased that those exports have increased.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) asked us to show her the money, and I would say that £2.4 billion over the next three years for social care is quite a lot of money. She, along with the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), also asked about supporting women, and I wish to point out that the gender pay gap is at a record low and there are more women in work than ever before. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the economy shrinking, but ours was the second fastest growing major advanced economy in 2016. I wish to point out that the NHS is free at the point of delivery and that is not going to change.
In closing, let me say that as the UK takes a new direction, we are paving the way for a Britain that is economically strong and stable; a Britain that is open for business; and a Britain at the forefront of technological progress. In short, this is a Britain that takes its place in the world as a prosperous, forward-leaning, outward-facing country. It is a truly global Britain and a country that works for everyone.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mark Spencer.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Business without Debate
Leaving the EU: Poultry Producers
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I declare that I am a member of the British Veterinary Association. It is a pleasure to introduce this Adjournment debate tonight, especially after the landmark Brexit Bill has finally passed both Houses. As we will be debating the effect of leaving the EU on the UK’s poultry meat sector, that is an important landmark.
I shall put the scale and importance of the poultry industry into some perspective for the House. UK agriculture contributes £46 billion to the economy, and for every pound invested in farming we generate £7.40. Poultry is a key part of that offering. The recent Oxford Economics report on the economic impact of the poultry meat industry included the following important facts. The poultry meat industry supported £4.6 billion of gross value added contribution to gross domestic product, which is the equivalent of 0.2% of the United Kingdom’s entire economic output. For every £1 million of economic activity that the industry generates, it supports a further £1.33 million elsewhere. In total direct and indirect employment, it supports 84,500 people throughout the entire United Kingdom, or 0.3% of the total UK workforce. The industry directly employs 37,300 people, and it supported £1.1 billion in tax contributions in 2014, or 0.2% of all tax receipts collected that year. If I were to say it is an important industry, I would be a master of understatement.
In Northern Ireland, we contribute to the vast industry I have described. In fact, one in every four chickens consumed is produced or processed in Northern Ireland. Moy Park is one of Northern Ireland’s largest employers; it is a major employer in our country. Of the 37,300 employees in the sector throughout the UK, 11,750 are employed by Moy Park. Of the £4.6 billion the industry contributes to GDP, Moy Park contributes £226 million in staff costs—a significant contribution given that Northern Ireland has a population of only 1.7 million. Of the 2,500 farms in the UK that produce poultry meat, 800 are contracted to the Moy Park supply chain. Northern Ireland accounts for more than a quarter of the 19 million birds that are slaughtered in the UK each week—in other words, 5 million birds a week.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to the House for consideration an important issue for my constituency. Is he aware that the poultry sector does not receive any moneys directly from the common agricultural policy? Does he therefore feel that, post-Brexit, there is an opportunity for the poultry sector to grow, not only throughout Northern Ireland but particularly in Strangford?
Ian Paisley
I intend to come on to a number of challenges for the industry, but will also offer the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the opportunity to address some of the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is absolutely right: most people think that the CAP supports every aspect of farming, but of course there are many areas that it does not, and that is why we need a new, British agricultural policy, tailor-made to the needs of farms across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I look forward to that opportunity, which this House has helped to create through the legislation that was passed today.
Moy Park, which I mentioned, invested £27 million in its business in the last financial year to make it better, stronger, and more efficient and effective. Poultry is a safe, nutritious, affordable and enjoyable food, and is part of the UK’s staple diet. It also gives us the important luxury of food security: we know where it was raised and slaughtered, and how it gets from farm gate to plate. That food security gives us an important aspect of agri-food protection that we should cherish and encourage, and it is imperative that it be a priority in the Brexit negotiations that will follow the triggering of article 50. The purpose of this debate is to signal poultry’s importance and outline the challenges, which I want to address one by one.
The first challenge is the labour market. Of the industry’s 37,300 employees, 60% are non-UK workers. They make an obvious and valuable contribution to the United Kingdom and to the rich tapestry of the culture here. They will require certainty about their contracts. They are not employed in some low-skilled or semi-skilled industry; they are well educated, contribute to the towns and villages in which they live, and are employed in a sector to which it is difficult to attract our local, home-grown workforce. That sector will have a turnover of about 6,000 jobs a year going forward. It is important that the industry addresses that and ensures that it has access to a vibrant workforce. If the industry grows, more workers will be required, so the challenge must be met head-on. The Government must look at a favourable visa and immigration scheme that stabilises the situation and ensures that need is met in the coming years.
I will identify a number of key solutions that I hope that the Brexit Secretary and the Minister will have on their desk and will keep referring to as the United Kingdom’s Brexit negotiations go forward. I have mentioned one of them: a simplified work visa system that allows in workers who are needed in particular areas, such as the poultry sector, so that those workers’ rights are taken care of and they are provided with opportunities.
A UK food and farming policy that supports the promotion of UK farming at school and a greater focus on apprenticeships will encourage UK labour into the sector. It is clear that local workers will not go into the sector; we must encourage them by educating and training them, and by providing them with the opportunity to get into the sector. A UK food and farming policy that puts British food at the centre of public food procurement is also a necessity. Our hospitals, schools and prisons should serve British food; that is essential. We must have dedicated Government support for opening third-country markets to trade, supported by a strong British food brand. Government support for British food and farming, through focusing support on infrastructure and the regeneration of rural areas, should form part of the new British farm policy in a post-Brexit world.
We need a UK food and farming policy that backs UK food security and increases the self-sufficiency of the poultry meat sector—the only sector that could scale up quickly to meet food security demands. We are not producing enough poultry; demand for poultry is increasing. That creates a viable opportunity for a country that can clearly grow and harvest poultry, and efficiently and effectively process meat that the consumer likes. That is an opportunity that we should seize.
As I wish to leave the Minister with some time to respond to my points, I have just a few brief points to make on trade access. The major component of poultry costs is the feed. Feed is a commodity that is globally traded. The EU currently controls the tariffs, but that could change after Brexit to protect EU feed compounders. How the UK responds to those changes will impact on production costs one way or another. It is important that the availability of feed remains unrestricted. That will be a huge challenge for the Ministers in the future, and it is an area on which they must focus. We cannot have feed supplies being increased so much that it makes our poultry sector unviable. I hope that that will become a significant focus in the days ahead.
We also know that the imports of some poultry meat are essential, because our demand is so high. That creates an opportunity for us to increase production. If we are to import white meat, there is an issue with regard to tariffs. We hope to continue to trade with the existing nations in the EU after we leave. If the UK decides to increase the cost of purchasing white meat from the EU, this would be an opportunity for UK producers to increase production and provide a substitute for those imports. I hope that that opportunity will be considered.
We also export a lot of our dark meat and other co-products. I hope that we are allowed to continue to do that. When the UK is outside the EU, the UK wholesale prices of chicken could increase, making it difficult for local exports to compete with the unrestricted access available to EU members within the internal market without reducing their basic costs to remain competitive.
In addition to our dark meat exports, co-products represent almost 50% of our revenue sold offshore. We rely on Europe and other key global markets to trade the balance of our co-products and we face significant competition, thus the need to have a spread of sales channels at our disposal. Every support will be of the utmost importance to ensure that we have ready access to key global markets well beyond the EU.
Asia, and particularly China, hold great potential as a trading partner, and the Government should prioritise steps to open trade with this market for poultry products. Getting into the far east is absolutely critical for us.
I wish to make two other points before I sit down. America, both north and south combined, is one of the largest poultry exporters in the world. We must be able, in a post-Brexit environment, to compete in that world, which means that that we must also engage very heavily with America, both north and south, to be able to compete in that new global world.
The issue of environment and energy is very specific to Northern Ireland. Our poultry litter disposal includes a project where we export most of our poultry litter, a byproduct of poultry production, to the Republic of Ireland. Poultry litter can be exported to the Republic of Ireland for use in producing biogas in an anaerobic digester. Similarly, feathers are transferred from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland for processing as there is no such facility in Northern Ireland. That means that we have something in common with the Republic, and an opportunity to ensure that, once again, the frictionless border that people talk about is properly addressed.
Finally, we wish to secure the best possible environment after we exit the EU. We support our Government wholeheartedly and wish them well in those negotiations. The terms that we secure should be equal to, if not better than, what we have in the EU. I know that our trade, our labour and our food security and finance will form a very important part of that negotiation.
The relative importance of the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland, which is at least twice that of the rest of the UK average by gross value added and percentage total employment, and the presence of a unique land border with the EU, emphasise the need for the region’s interests to be given due consideration and, therefore, to engage fully with the Northern Ireland representatives here who understand the industry and want to ensure that it is given fair wind.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on securing this debate about the effect of UK exit from the EU on poultry production. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, the poultry industry has traditionally not been supported through the common agricultural policy. It has tended not to receive subsidies and, as a result, has tended to be more market focused, productive, innovative and efficient.
The poultry industry is a dynamic and valuable sector, contributing around £3.3 billion annually to UK GDP. It is especially important in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for North Antrim explained. In 2015, the value of egg production to the UK was £681 million, and the value of poultry meat production was £2.2 billion. The industry supports about 73,000 jobs in the UK. The sector is even more significant for Northern Ireland. In 2015, the value of output for the poultry and egg sector was over £300 million, and the industry provided direct employment to more than 4,800 people. Moy Park, which is based in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, is an important contributor to the economy. It is the largest employer in Northern Ireland, a major supplier to UK supermarkets and restaurants, and the owner of a range of well-known brands. It is clear that the poultry industry is an important part of our economy. As we negotiate to exit the EU, we will work hard to get the best possible deal for the sector.
The hon. Gentleman covered the issue of trade in great detail. Our aim for the future is to get the best possible trading relationship with the EU and the rest of the world. High-quality poultry and eggs are key components of many of the UK’s most famous brands and value-added exports. We already export our world-class produce around the world, with UK exports of poultry meat totalling £250 million in 2016. Obviously, there has been a setback more recently with the outbreak of avian influenza, but we do want to build on our success. Action is under way to promote UK food and drink overseas, break down trade barriers and open up new international markets. That is set out in the joint Government and industry “UK Food and Drink - International Action Plan 2016-2020” from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for International Trade.
On exit, we want the best possible terms of trade between the UK and the EU. That includes, as the Prime Minister said, a bold and ambitious free trade agreement that removes as many barriers to trade as possible. Leaving the EU gives us an opportunity to forge our own free trade deals around the world. We will work with the industry as we shape the priorities and interests for the UK agri-food sector, and explore global trade opportunities.
Underpinning our ability to trade will be effective disease control, which will always be a DEFRA priority. Disease outbreaks damage the livestock industry and undermine confidence. The need to protect the country from the risks to animal health associated with international trade is a key objective for the Government. The UK’s exit from the EU will not change that. In fact, we will become more vocal on the world stage through forums such as Codex Alimentarius and the OIE, which set standards in international food safety and animal welfare. The Government have a manifesto commitment to promote high standards in animal welfare in future trade deals, and we intend to promote that agenda globally.
I turn to the UK-Ireland relationship, which is obviously of great importance to the poultry sector in Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon
Just before the Minister moves on from global trade, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned Northern Ireland’s trade with China. Northern Ireland has already done massive trade deals with pigmeat, and has shown that the market can grow. The poultry sector in Northern Ireland is another potential market for growth, and that backs up what my hon. Friend said. The Chinese market, in particular, could be developed greatly.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I wanted to come on to some other issues on trade, one of which is China. There are opportunities in relation to what is called the fifth quarter; it never ceases to amaze me that chicken feet are apparently a delicacy in China and can attract a high value there—far higher than in the UK. However, there are real opportunities to create value from parts of the carcase for which there is no market in the UK or, indeed, Europe.
Another point I would make is that, as the hon. Member for North Antrim pointed out, there has always been quite a worldwide trade in poultry. We consume more white poultry meat than we can produce, so we traditionally import white meat, but we have also exported dark poultry meat, which is in demand in other parts of the world.
We have set up the Great British Food Unit to break down some of these barriers to get access to markets such as China. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost of feed and the importance of making sure that we have open markets so that we can buy competitively priced inputs. Obviously, once we have left the European Union, it will be within our gift to decide our tariffs and the access we give to feed from other parts of the world, but the vast majority of animal feeds coming into Europe already come from other parts of the world, and we would probably not want to do anything that would disrupt that flow because it is crucial to the economics of the sector.
The final thing I would mention on trade is the US, which is a major producer and exporter. I am aware that there are concerns about the standards of production in the US. It has lower standards of animal welfare and lower standards of food safety, and it allows approaches that are not currently allowed in the European Union, such as chlorine washes. It is important, as we contemplate any future trade deal, that we do not put our industry at an unfair disadvantage, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, and we will clearly take very earnest account of that as we consider future trade deals.
Let me turn to the UK-Ireland relationship. I begin by reiterating the reassurances provided by the Government’s White Paper on the UK-Ireland relationship. The UK and Irish economies are deeply integrated, particularly so in the case of food, farming and agriculture. The Irish Republic is the UK’s top destination for poultry meat, with £68 million of exports in 2016. Over 14,000 people regularly commute between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and we recognise that for them the ability to move freely across the border is an essential part of daily life. Therefore, as the Prime Minister stated in her speech in January, we will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland, while protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom’s immigration system.
There are, of course, many specific issues related to the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and we are working across Government and with the devolved Administrations to identify a potential solution to them. That includes looking at precedents in other agreements, and colleagues in the Government are considering the extent to which digital solutions could help to make sure that we have a frictionless border. They are keen to learn from free trade agreements in parts of the world that are not part of a customs union but that are nevertheless able to accommodate quite complex integrated supply chains, to see what lessons we can learn as we develop solutions to this particular challenge.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned labour, and I recognise that it is an important issue for the poultry industry. Last year, I spoke at the egg and poultry industry conference, where these concerns were very vocally laid at my door. I recognise that, particularly in the last 12 years or so, the sector has become quite dependent on migrant labour. The important thing is this: just because we are leaving the European Union and ending the presumption of the free movement of people, that does not mean that we are pulling up the drawbridge and ending all immigration. In fact, it is incredibly important that we put in place a new type of partnership with the European Union that enables us to control immigration, but that, crucially, allows us to enable some people to come here and work, be that on temporary work permits—that could be for some low-skilled people—or on longer-term permits, for some of the more skilled positions. The crucial thing is that it will be, in effect, in our gift to decide what those future policies would be and what arrangements we put in place. We do recognise that this is an important issue for the poultry industry, and we will take care to ensure that it and other sectors of the farming industry have access to the labour that they need.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned support for the industry. As we design a replacement for the common agricultural policy, we have been clear that we would like to look at the opportunities to promote higher standards of animal welfare and to see how we could incentivise that by rewarding livestock farmers who go above and beyond a regulatory minimum. That could involve some support for the poultry industry to enable it to invest in different approaches to animal husbandry that are better for welfare and might reduce our reliance on antibiotic use, which is another important challenge facing the sector.
The hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned encouraging new people to enter the industry and trying to inspire young people—the next generation—to get involved. I agree that this is important. We have an ambition as a Government to treble the number of apprenticeships. We have been looking at opportunities to use the apprenticeship levy in other parts of the supply chain, potentially enabling us to get more apprentices on to farms. There are projects such as Bright Crop that send young graduates into schools to encourage teenagers choosing their GCSEs to pick the subjects that might enable them to go into exciting careers in the food and farming sector. This is an important area that we are continuing to develop.
We have had a very free-ranging debate to end a rather long day here. The hon. Gentleman has made some important points. We do recognise the importance of this vital industry—a competitive industry—and we will ensure, as a Government, that as we design policies for after we leave the European Union, we get them right for our poultry sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017
Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order 2017.
Brandon Lewis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The draft orders will give effect to the devolution deal struck between the Government and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order makes detailed provision for the transfer of responsibility for police and crime commissioner functions in Greater Manchester from the police and crime commissioner to the new directly elected Mayor. The Greater Manchester police and crime commissioner will be abolished on 8 May 2017. The transfer of those functions to the elected Mayor will not only preserve the democratic accountability established under the police and crime commissioner model, but, by joining up oversight of fire and rescue services and other public services, could promote further and deeper collaboration in the area.
The elected Mayor will exercise the key functions of a police and crime commissioner and must personally exercise the following strategic functions: setting the police and crime plan, taking decisions about chief constable appointments and setting the police component of the combined authority precept. To provide additional leadership capacity, the elected Mayor may appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime, to whom certain responsibilities may be delegated. The elected Mayor will assume the key financial decision-making responsibilities of a police and crime commissioner, including borrowing powers in relation to those functions. Such decisions will be taken by the elected Mayor, acting on behalf of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
The draft order was developed in consultation with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the Greater Manchester police and crime commissioner and Greater Manchester police. The combined authority and its constituent councils have consented to the draft order.
The draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order will transfer responsibility for overseeing fire and rescue functions in Greater Manchester from the fire and rescue authority to the combined authority and provides for the elected Mayor to exercise those functions. The Greater Manchester fire and rescue authority will also be abolished when these provisions come into force. Transferring the oversight of fire and rescue functions in Greater Manchester to the Mayor will provide direct electoral accountability for the provision of that essential public service and facilitate closer working among local partners. The draft order will permit the Mayor to delegate certain responsibilities to a fire committee formed of members of the constituent councils of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
The draft order identifies several fire and rescue functions as strategic functions that must be personally exercised by the Mayor and cannot be delegated. That will ensure that the elected Mayor retains personal responsibility for the fire and rescue functions that significantly impact how the fire and rescue service is delivered. Those strategic functions include approving the local risk plan and fire and rescue declaration, in accordance with the fire and rescue national framework, and approving contingency plans under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The elected Mayor will also remain personally responsible for taking decisions relating to the appointment of the chief fire officer, and the draft order will ensure that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has the power to borrow in relation to its fire and rescue functions.
The changes that the draft order will make were endorsed by the people of Greater Manchester in a public consultation conducted by the combined authority, and the draft order was developed in close consultation with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and formally consented to by the combined authority and its constituent councils. I commend the draft orders to the Committee.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The Minister will be delighted to know that I will not repeat at length my arguments against the course that the Government have taken on police and fire mergers. I will, however, begin by saying that the core of our objection last year concerned local demand and local consent. We thought then—and still think today—that it is wrong to force a merger of police and fire authorities on an area that does not want one.
Thankfully, that does not apply to these draft orders, which have received the consent of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and are part of a wider devolution deal. That deal should enable the Manchester city region to adapt, to the extent that any level of government can, to the extremely difficult combination of reduced service funding and increased service demand that they will face over coming years. We welcome the devolution settlement as a way to bring powers together at a level where they can be used effectively and their use can be held accountable effectively.
There is a long history of local authorities working together across Greater Manchester, with or without a permanent statutory framework, which bodes well for such reforms. That history of co-operation in major cities is one that the Conservative party has not generally had much respect for, so I am delighted by the apparent change of heart. We still have serious concerns about the fragmentation and incoherence of this Government’s attempts at devolution within England thus far, but that need not prevent us from endorsing reforms if they go in the right direction.
I hope that none of us assumes that the devolution process has gone far enough to put in place genuine devolution to Manchester. Our local areas need more control over revenue raised locally, so that such deals will not simply transfer responsibility for cuts made by central Government. Governments should never pass the buck without passing the bucks. Local government needs a system for national funding that is fair, transparent and based on real need—not sweetheart deals with Ministers at meetings in cars outside Downing Street. That is particularly important for areas such as fire and rescue and policing, where community safety is paramount.
More generally, the current model of piecemeal reform is inadequate. Restructuring should not be imposed from the top down and cannot be based only on local authorities going cap in hand to Ministers either. We need to make devolution the default if we are to open up public services to the experience and creativity of local areas and truly demonstrate our trust in the people who are most affected by changes in policy.
The Greater Manchester Combined Authority consent documents noted that the draft orders
“will need to be in place by February 2017 at the latest to allow sufficient time for Mayoral candidates to be fully aware of the powers of the elected Mayor and to prepare a manifesto.”
Clearly, that has not happened, since it is now the middle of March and some of the legislation determining the new Mayor’s powers is still not fully confirmed. Does the Minister have an explanation?
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that not only the mayoral candidates need to be sighted of the Mayor’s powers but the Manchester electorate, many of whom are completely baffled by what the Mayor will and will not be able to do.
Lyn Brown
I completely and utterly agree. My hon. Friend made the point better than I could.
More broadly, this is the first case—apart from the now well-established arrangements in Greater London—where full accountability and power relating to policing will be assigned to the elected Mayor of a city region. The fact that responsibility for fire and rescue services will be mixed in at the same time makes it doubly significant, because the Mayor of London does not have direct responsibility for fire and rescue. There is now an urgent case to be made that the new Mayor of Greater Manchester will have a truly unprecedented degree of authority across those two public services. It will be an important test case for future structural reform.
It is important to note that the offices of Mayor of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and of police and crime commissioner for the area have already been combined to some extent for almost two years now, because Tony Lloyd, Labour’s elected PCC, was appointed as interim Mayor on 29 May 2015. He has served in both capacities admirably and has set an excellent standard, which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will live up to, starting on 8 May.
To sum up, we support the draft orders. They will help to cement the devolution settlement for Greater Manchester, which has received the agreement of local authorities and residents in and around that great city. I hope that members of all parties will join me in wishing the new Mayor well in helping the city region to deal with the undoubted challenges of the future.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in a debate on a matter as important as this to me and the many people who live in Greater Manchester and will be affected by these changes.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, I very much welcome the thrust of what the Government are trying to do, particularly pushing power out of Whitehall and Westminster and ensuring that decisions affecting our lives are made much closer to where we are. I echo her words by paying tribute to all those who have been involved—not only Tony Lloyd, the interim Mayor, who has done an excellent job, but the many politicians and officials who have done something quite unique in bringing together a whole range of diverse interests and circumstances across Greater Manchester and getting everybody pointing in the right direction. It has not been easy, and they deserve real credit.
These statutory instruments, quite understandably, concentrate a great deal of power in the hands of one individual. However, I do not think the Government have thought hard enough about the level of scrutiny and accountability that needs to be built into the system. There is considerable confusion among the general public in Greater Manchester about what the reforms mean. I heard what the Minister said about the consultation, but if he means the consultation on the legislation that gave rise to these statutory instruments, he should know that that was advertised on one Government website and ran for just three weeks and garnered only 12 responses, 10 of which were from the same council leaders who set up these arrangements in the first place.
People must be part of the conversation, not least because Greater Manchester is a very diverse area. For example, the needs in my borough of Wigan are very different from those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. If we look at the details of what is being devolved to the Mayor and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities through the statutory instruments, a very large borough such as mine obviously has different fire and rescue needs from the city of Manchester, which is very small. That is why scrutiny and accountability really matter.
The election of the Mayor is long overdue and very welcome, but the only real place where the Mayor will be accountable under these arrangements is to those same 10 council leaders who helped to establish this situation in the first place and who retain a great deal of decision-making power across Greater Manchester. As the Minister will know, ours is an area where one party dominates politics. Obviously, as a Labour Member of Parliament, I am very pleased about that, and long may it continue. However, that poses a question, particularly when we consider that Greater Manchester is intended to be the first of many areas to follow this model: where will the challenge come from? Of the council leaders who currently represent the boroughs across Greater Manchester, only one of them is a woman and only one is from an ethnic minority background.
In relation to the fire authority, I understand from the documents that a committee will be appointed by the Mayor. Members of that committee will be councillors or officers of the 10 borough councils, but they will be proposed by council leaders—the same council leaders who provide the primary scrutiny function for the Mayor. Those posts appear to come with an allowance; I imagine they will be hotly contested among councillors and officers.
We have a very centralised model of council leadership across Greater Manchester; council leaders are responsible for making the vast majority of appointments to their cabinets and to outside bodies as well. In such a system, what incentive does the Minister think there is to challenge decisions that are made? The documents reference the need to mirror the balance of political parties. I would be grateful to the Minister if he elaborated on the Government’s thinking, particularly on making sure that some cross-party scrutiny is built into the system. That is even more important because a report by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations recently found that, in areas where devolution is under way, the voluntary sector has had little or no involvement at all. As a representative of civil society, I think that is unacceptable; it mirrors what I have seen happening in my area of Greater Manchester so far.
I will say something about the police and crime commissioner functions, because I think that all the points I have made are more important in that area than any other. The Mayor will be scrutinised by a police and crime panel, but our police and crime panel in Greater Manchester is made up of those same council leaders I have just referred to. They also make up the Mayor’s cabinet and provide the only channel of accountability and scrutiny for the public outside of election times.
I understand that the diversity problems I have raised may be addressed by the Mayor via the appointment of up to five additional members to that panel—I would be grateful to the Minister if he confirmed that—but even so, it is likely that the scrutiny membership on that panel will be heavily weighted in favour of council leaders. What resources will those additional lay members have to ensure that they can do that job properly and effectively? I say that because Greater Manchester is an incredibly diverse area, which is not currently reflected in our political arrangements.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is raising concerns that a number of us, although we welcome devolution, have raised throughout the process of designing the devolution settlement for Greater Manchester. Does she think it unlikely that, in making appointments to those five lay places, the Mayor will appoint people who are likely to be assertive and critical of his or her decisions?
Lisa Nandy
The problem with the vision set out in the documents is that it very much relies on the good will of the person who holds that post. In such an important area, I do not think that is an adequate safeguard.
The same seems to apply to the hearing of police and crime complaints. If those are criminal complaints, I understand that the responsibility will continue to lie with the Independent Police Complaints Commission. However, if they are non-criminal, they will be heard by the local authorities, which will of course take them straight back to the 10 people who sit on all those boards and provide that level of accountability. The Minister is shaking his head; I would be grateful to him if he cleared this up. One of the problems we have had in Greater Manchester is in trying to penetrate the arrangements that have evolved over the past couple of years. Obviously, with an election looming large, it will be helpful for the Committee and the wider public to understand where that outside scrutiny and challenge will come from.
Finally, the documents set out that the Government have not seen fit to do an impact assessment, which is a mistake. They say that there are no plans to build in any kind of review period for the arrangements because there will be elections for the position of Mayor three years after the first election and then four years after that. This could build up real problems threatening the very success of this enterprise. Real devolution has to be based on consent and built from the ground up. The people must be heard.
Brandon Lewis
I will deal with the points from the hon. Member for Wigan first. Council leaders themselves will not be on the panels; the panels will be made up of members from the combined authority’s constituent councils. There is a core issue behind this: there is a big difference in how scrutiny works between the structure with a police or fire authority and that with a directly elected Mayor. The clue is in the title—they are elected, so ultimately the scrutiny is there with the electorate. If there are formal complaints, particularly if they are criminal complaints, they go to the IPCC; obviously, that will change to the new body under the Policing and Crime Act 2017.
The committee with fire responsibilities will be limited in the number of members, and it must reflect the political balance of the area it serves. We all want to see balance in terms of gender and ethnicity. We have been very clear about that. I have personally been clear that the diversity in the fire sector in particular is simply not good enough and needs to improve. That is a matter for the constituent councils who represent those bodies to look at and for us all to consider in terms of the candidates we put forward. I have high hopes that the directly elected Mayor who will take on these roles will be Sean Anstee—he would do a great job for the area—but it is a matter for the constituent councils to look at who they put forward. I am afraid that if the hon. Lady does not have faith in her candidate, she might want to take that up with the members who selected the candidate in the first place. Ultimately, it is up to the members of the public who will directly elect somebody to make those decisions in the same way as in London. She talked about the size and variance of the area; I put it to her that London has that challenge as well, and in London we still have a directly elected Mayor.
Lisa Nandy
The Minister says the committee will reflect the political balance of the area. I am not clear what that means and whether it will reflect the leadership of the councils or the political representation within them. Just to be clear, in London, there is an Assembly, but nothing like that is envisaged for Greater Manchester.
Brandon Lewis
An agreement—this links to the points made by the hon. Member for West Ham, which I will come to in a second—has been reached with the local area. Actually, reflecting localism is different in London. This has been consulted on locally and the public will get to vote on it locally, but the elected Mayor has to ensure that the committee’s political balance reflects that of the constituent councils.
The hon. Lady used a phrase about being against false mergers and said that false mergers are wrong. I agree with that, so we agree on more than one thing today. That is why we were clear that the Policing and Crime Act is enabling legislation; it is for local areas to look at what is right for them and to come to us. One of the challenges is that we will see different models around the country. The hon. Lady talked about this not being top down and she is right—this does not work if it is top down, so we will see differences around the country when we look at devolution deals and at PCCs and Mayors who have differing approaches in different areas. That is absolutely right, to reflect the differences across the country in how people work.
I fully accept the point made by both hon. Members who have spoken that a great deal of credit is due to the people involved and to Tony Lloyd—I have worked with him in his current position—in getting to this point and getting a structure that works and has managed to bring together constituent councils of different types, both politically and demographically. I give great credit to everybody who has been involved with that as we go in to that election.
We are, and I am, very clear that bringing together responsibility for a wider range of services, including police and fire, under a directly elected Mayor can not only enhance accountability—that ultimate democratic accountability we all recognise—but provide opportunities for more local collaboration. That is something we have already seen PCCs driving across the country, and I wish Manchester well with it. I commend the draft orders to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT GREATER MANCHESTER COMBINED AUTHORITY (TRANSFER OF POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FUNCTIONS TO THE MAYOR) ORDER 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order 2017.—(Brandon Lewis.)
Draft Tees Valley Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tees Valley Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. The order was laid before the House on 6 February 2017. Veterans of the previous statutory instrument Committee on Tees Valley only three weeks ago will remember that I mentioned that we had laid another order to confer powers on the Mayor and the combined authority. The order we are discussing this afternoon does just that. This is yet another important step on the route to implementing the devolution deal that the Government agreed with Tees Valley in October 2015.
The order will confer on the combined authority powers to be exercised by the Mayor. Those include the power to procure a local transport plan for the area and to control and allocate a devolved transport budget. The draft order also provides that the functional power of competence, which is already exercisable by the combined authority, is also exercisable by the Mayor. The draft order confers various additional powers on the Tees Valley combined authority relating to transport and housing, and makes funding and constitutional provisions to support the powers and functions conferred.
The implementation of the devolution deal agreed between local leaders and the Government has already seen three orders made in relation to the Tees Valley. First, we made the Tees Valley Combined Authority Order 2016, which established the combined authority in April 2016. Secondly, we made the Tees Valley Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016, which created the position of Mayor for the Tees Valley, with the first election to be held on 4 May this year. Thirdly, as I mentioned at the start, we made the Tees Valley Combined Authority (Functions) Order 2017, which enables the establishment of a mayoral development corporation in the Tees Valley combined authority area. That will be the first one outside London. I wholeheartedly welcome it and pay tribute to all those in the Tees Valley who have worked towards instituting it.
Today’s order is made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. As required by the 2016 Act, along with the order we have laid a report that provides detail about the public authority functions we are devolving to the combined authority. The statutory origin of the order is the governance review and scheme prepared by the combined authority together with the five constituent councils: Darlington, Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees, Redcar and Cleveland, and Middlesbrough. That scheme set out the proposals for the powers to be conferred on the combined authority, some of which are to be exercised by the Mayor, and for funding and constitutional provisions to support the powers and functions conferred.
As provided for by the 2009 Act, the combined authority and all the councils consulted on the proposals in their scheme. That consultation ran for six weeks, until August last year. Before laying the draft order, the Secretary of State considered the statutory requirements in the 2009 Act and is satisfied that they have all been met. The Secretary of State considers that conferring the functions on the combined authority would likely lead to an improvement in the exercise of the statutory functions, which is one of the statutory tests. He has also had regard to the impact on local government. Furthermore, as required by the legislation, all five constituent councils have consented to the making of the order, as has the combined authority.
The order will confer the following powers on the combined authority, to be exercised by the Mayor. First, it will confer the power to pay grants to the five constituent councils of the Tees Valley combined authority, with the condition that the Mayor has regard to the desirability of ensuring that the councils have sufficient funds to discharge their highways functions effectively. Secondly, we are devolving the power to produce a local transport plan for the area. The order also provides for the functional power of competence, which is already exercisable by the combined authority, to be conferred on the Mayor.
Finally, the order confers various powers on the combined authority, including powers to provide local passenger transport services, which are already delegated to the combined authority, and the duty to review housing need in the area. It also provides funding and constitutional provisions to support the conferred powers and functions, including the establishment of an independent remuneration panel to recommend the allowances of the Mayor. If approved, the order will come into force on 8 May, when the Tees Valley Mayor takes office, with the exception of the provision relating to the establishment of an independent remuneration panel, which will come into force on the day after the order is made, which will enable the combined authority to make the necessary arrangements now.
The order devolves new powers to the Tees Valley combined authority, giving effect to the devolution deal we negotiated with the five local authorities in the combined authority, which we believe will help the area to fulfil its long-term economic and social ambitions. I pay tribute—I always do with such orders—to the local authority leaders, councillors and officers who have put so much work into bringing the devolution deal together and who are working closely for the betterment of their local area. The order is a significant milestone in giving effect to the devolution deal that we have negotiated. We hope that it will lead to a more balanced economy, improved housing supply and economic success across the area.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. We have considered a number of similar orders before, and there is always the danger of repeating previous comments. I will save you and other Members from that pleasure and cut to the substance of my views on where we are now.
There has been a distinct lack of public engagement in this process. The point has been made a number of times, not only by me but by several other Members and local authorities, about how best to engage the public in devolution discussions, particularly when a mayoral election is hard-wired into the agreement and we expect the public to turn out to vote for those with ambitions to hold that office. I therefore cannot say that it is anything less than disappointing to see such a low turnout for the consultation on these changes. Around 2,000 consultees responded to the local authorities’ consultation, but just 11 members of the public responded to the Government’s consultation; of a population of 670,000, that is a turnout of 0.001% of people who felt engaged enough to take part and express an opinion.
That is important, because those who took the trouble to make representations were responding, in my view, to an important part of the order. In fact, it is so important that it is included in the order:
“In making this Order, the Secretary of State has had regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and to secure effective and convenient local government.”
The identities and interests of the local community are important. Question 2 on page 6 of the Government’s consultation, which was published in February this year, asks whether or not establishing a combined authority will have a positive or negative impact on the identity in that locality. Of the 11 people who responded, seven said that it would have a negative impact on the identities of those areas.
The order tells us that the Government will take local identities into account, but the majority of the 0.001% of people who actually responded to the consultation said that they thought it would affect those areas’ identities. That is clearly an extremely small sample, and the argument will always be that those who take part in a central Government consultation of such a technical nature will be those who are against it; people who are happy with it generally get on with life and do not make representations or submissions.
We are yet to see what the Government intend to do about really engaging the English in the necessary debate on a new settlement for devolution in England. We heard the cries to take back control during the debate on Brexit. Let us be honest: people were not really talking about ending the relationship with Europe; they were saying that they want to control things that affect them and their families. They want to know that if they want decent housing, they can get it, that if their school is not performing, they can change that, and that if they want good quality health care, they can get it—and if it does not work, they can do something about it. They were asking for the mechanism and levers to effect change in their lives. The Opposition believe that that happens through devolution and empowering communities with more control over their lives. It is therefore disappointing that, as we negotiate our exit from the European Union, more is not being done with the power of devolution to hand people the power they demanded in the Brexit vote.
The Government have a unique opportunity to offer a new settlement on how the country is governed and where power sits, and a way for people to have genuine power over matters that concern them and their families. The Minister has a significant weight of responsibility to bring forward a compelling vision for the devolved settlement and, more than that, a programme of activity that will engage the public in the process.
If what happens is another example of a centralising state that believes it knows best, and does things to people whether they like it or not, not only will we face a backlash at the ballot box when people stay at home instead of voting but, post-Brexit, people will feel that they have no more power than they had before.
Andrew Percy
The shadow Minister generally makes reasonably positive contributions in such statutory instrument debates. I enjoyed his comments about public engagement, in which he seemed to criticise us for having so few people engaging in the process, and then he suggested—I am not sure how this sits with the first comment—that we should perhaps listen to the seven people he highlighted.
There were 1,911 responses to the consultation, of which 74.46% agreed that a partnership approach was important. That suggests that those who took part generally believed that bringing the five authorities together was important. Nearly 65% of respondents agreed that the Tees Valley should strengthen its partnership approach through a new combined authority, so there was clearly strong support for that, and 86.4% agreed that economic development was an important area for—
Andrew Percy
The hon. Gentleman must stop doing this when I am halfway through a sentence. Just let me finish my point and I may give way in a moment.
More than 90% agreed that employment skills were an important area of economic growth for the Tees Valley. There was therefore strong support generally for the content of the order and, among those who took part in the consultation, for partnership working and the construction of a combined authority. I have now finished my point and would be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Jim McMahon
I interrupted the Minister in mid-sentence to try to save him from the cul-de-sac of a point that he was making by conflating two separate consultations. A consultation was carried out by the local enterprise partnership at local level, and the Minister is right to say that it had a significantly higher response rate than the Government consultation did. However, the consultation on the order before the Committee today received 28 responses—that is what the Government paper says. It was a separate process and a separate consultation. Let us not conflate the two in an attempt to demonstrate that the Government have done better than they have.
Andrew Percy
I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman’s point, because consultations have been undertaken at various stages and I was referring him to the responses, which clearly show that a majority of people in the area understand the need for the local authorities to work more closely together. That is why they have shown support in the consultation.
We have of course debated the public engagement element before. I note that the shadow Minister said that he did not want to repeat his previous comments, and then promptly went on to repeat some of them. When we have discussed such matters before, we have of course traded arguments across the Committee, and I have repeatedly made the point that, as I think he accepts, we must not pretend that the formation of a combined mayoral authority is the talk of the Dog and Duck. It is not necessarily something that many people will get involved in, in a practical sense. That does not mean that they do not understand or agree about the need for and importance of local partnership working; I think that they do.
The example I have used previously is the London mayoralty. There was a lot of scepticism about the position when it was first created, but now Londoners would not wish to be without it. It is difficult to say to somebody in an area, “This is what it will look like.” Once this is actually in place and people see—hopefully, depending on who is elected and how good a job they do—the combined authority and the Mayor working together for the good of the area, with additional money from Government and additional powers, people will be engaged in that.
The Department for Communities and Local Government has put significant amounts of money aside in the run-up to the mayoral elections in May—they will be held in a number of places across the country—to promote them and encourage people to go out and vote. These are new structures that will take time to bed in, but I am sure it is something the public will follow with interest in their localities.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned English devolution. I will take no lectures from the Opposition, having spent 10 years as a local government councillor in the 13 years of a Labour Government—
Andrew Percy
They were hardly the good old days. I do not remember a great deal being devolved to us other than responsibility with no money.
The hon. Gentleman tempted me down the Brexit route. I am always fascinated to hear those people who were on the losing side of the campaign, and who did not understand the people who voted for Brexit, try to interpret why people voted to leave. They now stand up in this place and repeatedly tell me, somebody who did campaign and who represents an area that voted strongly for Brexit, why people voted to leave. It is amazing how they seem to be the only people capable of interpreting the votes of those they did not understand in the referendum campaign. But I am not going to go down that route, Ms Buck, because I can see that you are looking at me to bring me back to order.
As I said in my opening speech, this is an important step in getting the devolution deal implemented and the new money out the door and to the Tees Valley, where I am sure it will be spent for the benefit of the local economy and local people.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jane Ellison
As well as offering some kind words about me relating to my previous role, the right hon. Member for Leicester East rightly drew our attention to the Government’s work on prevention. I shall not be drawn into talking about that too much—as a former public health Minister, I could talk on that for some time—but I remind him of the national diabetes prevention fund and the related work, and the £16 billion a year from the public health budget that we give to local government.
[Official Report, 9 March 2017, Vol. 622, c. 1043.]
Letter of correction from Jane Ellison:
An error has been identified in my closing speech during the Budget Resolutions debate on 9 March 2017.
The correct response should have been:
Jane Ellison
As well as offering some kind words about me relating to my previous role, the right hon. Member for Leicester East rightly drew our attention to the Government’s work on prevention. I shall not be drawn into talking about that too much—as a former public health Minister, I could talk on that for some time—but I remind him of the national diabetes prevention fund and the related work, and the £16 billion over the settlement period from the public health budget that we give to local government.
Westminster Hall
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
Child Abuse Offences (Sentencing)
(7 years, 1 month 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
Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)
Before I call Catherine McKinnell to move the motion, I remind Members that the House’s sub judice rule precludes reference in debate to cases before the courts. In criminal cases, that means from the time when charges are brought until the verdict and, if applicable, the sentence. The resolution also applies to active appeal proceedings. I call Catherine McKinnell.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 166711 relating to sentencing for child abuse offences.
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, although the subject that we are discussing is possibly one of the most difficult that I have ever held a debate on or spoken about in Parliament. Entitled “April’s Law” and signed by over 126,500 people, the e-petition reads:
“We the undersigned call on the prime minister to make all sex offenders remain on the register for life no matter the crime, for service providers and search engines to be better policed regarding child abuse images and harder sentences on those caught with indecent images of children.”
Before I consider that, I want to reflect for a moment on the tragic and appalling events that led to Jazmin Jones, April’s sister, setting up the online petition. I imagine that all of us here remember watching the story of April Jones’s death unravel on the news. Only five years old at the time, she was abducted in October 2012 outside her mid-Wales home and later murdered by Mark Bridger in a crime that deeply affected people up and down the country. As a parent of three young children, I cannot even begin to comprehend the heartbreak of losing a child in such terrible and violent circumstances. What made the crime even more horrifying was that Mark Bridger had been looking at indecent images of children on the day he committed the murder, and he had at least 100—but it is thought that there were nearer 500—indecent images saved on his laptop. That is where the April’s law petition comes in.
I particularly want to recognise the efforts of Jazmin Jones, along with the rest of her family. They all deserve to be commended for their efforts in seeking to ensure that what happened to April does not happen to anybody else. The petition that April’s family established calls for all sex offenders to remain on the sex offenders register for life, for service providers and search engines to be better policed regarding child abuse images, and for harsher sentences for those caught with indecent images of children. All of us here understand the absolute depravity of indecent images of children and those who produce or look at them, as well as the severity of the crimes that we are talking about and their lifelong impact on those affected. I will start by addressing the issue of sex offenders remaining on the list for life.
As many right hon. and hon. Members are aware, part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides various measures that enable the police in England and Wales to monitor and manage sex offenders living in the local area. Certain sex offenders, including those convicted of rape, assault by penetration, serious sexual assault, sexual assault of a child under 13 and other child sex offences, are automatically required to notify the police of personal information such as their name and address and to update the police whenever that information changes. Those notification requirements are commonly referred to as signing or being on the sex offenders register. As well as applying automatically to a number of sex offences committed in the UK, the notification requirements can also be imposed on sex offenders who have been convicted overseas. They are imposed for a fixed or an indefinite period, depending on the severity of the sentence received.
Controversially, sex offenders who are subject to an indefinite notification period can apply to the police for a determination that they no longer pose a risk and should therefore no longer be subject to notification requirements. However, the earliest point at which they can do so is 15 years after the date of their first notification —or eight years in the cases of those aged under 18 when they were convicted.
I completely understand the fear about the fact that dangerous men, and indeed women, who could pose a risk to our children and society at large are able to come off the sex offenders register. I particularly understand the concern that those convicted of the gravest offences may be able to overturn a previous decision that they should be on the register for life, following the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that indefinite sex offender registration without the right for review was incompatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. However, as I am sure the Minister will explain, the latter group of offenders must go through an extensive process before they are removed, with anyone deemed to remain a threat remaining subject to ongoing notification requirements.
Having implemented the Supreme Court ruling that a review mechanism of indefinite notification requirements must be in place, the Government have strengthened reporting measures by making it mandatory for all registered sex offenders to notify the police of all foreign travel; their whereabouts on a weekly basis when registered as having no fixed abode; when they are living in a household with a child under the age of 18; and their bank account and credit card details, as well as information about their passports or other identity documents. Yet I also understand the need for the public to be reassured that those who have possessed indecent images of children, or who have been involved in sexual offences against children, will remain on the sex offenders register for life.
I would therefore appreciate it, as would those following the debate, if the Minister clarified the circumstances that allow someone to be taken off the register and whether any monitoring of activity is undertaken for those who are no longer subject to notification requirements. Is she aware of the number of people who have left the sex offenders register who have gone on to commit further sex crimes? Indeed, just how many sex offenders have had their indefinite notification requirements overturned on review following the Supreme Court ruling? What certainty can she provide to April’s family— indeed, to all the families up and down the country whose lives have been torn apart by sex offenders—that the Government are doing everything in their power to stop those criminals from posing a danger to society?
E-petition 166711 also calls for search engines and internet service providers to be better policed on child abuse images. We have seen some progress in recent years with Google, for example, reporting an eightfold reduction in child sexual abuse image searches since it changed its algorithms to ensure that indecent images and videos do not appear in results. However, we can clearly do more to pressure organisations to avoid becoming complacent.
An organisation that works tirelessly on this issue is the Internet Watch Foundation, set up in the UK in 1996. It is world-leading in its work to eliminate child sexual abuse imagery online and to ensure that we continue to make progress. Europol has stated:
“IWF is one of the most active and effective European hotlines fighting against child sexual exploitation. The work developed by IWF in the process of notice and takedown, in close cooperation with Law Enforcement, is an example to follow.”
IWF’s work has meant that only 0.2% of child sexual abuse content is hosted in the UK, that 100,000 reports of sexual abuse images or videos have been processed and that an international reporting hotline has been set up. One of the most impressive IWF advances has been an “image hash list”, which allows companies automatically to find indecent images or even to prevent them from being uploaded. In a world now dominated by social media, it is somewhat reassuring that Twitter is also using the technology. Twitter has commented that the hash list system
“has added significant capacity to our ability to detect, remove and report”
child sexual abuse images.
I strongly believe that we should commend the Internet Watch Foundation for working tirelessly to make our internet safer. However, more can undoubtedly be done, as was highlighted only recently when the BBC reported that it had alerted Facebook to 100 images on its website that appeared to break the social media site’s guidelines, including: pages explicitly for men with a sexual interest in children; images of under-16s in highly sexualised poses with obscene comments posted beside them; Facebook groups with names such as “Hot XXX Schoolgirls” containing stolen images of real children; and an image that appeared to be a still from a video of child abuse, with a request below it to share child pornography.
Facebook’s initial response was to report the BBC journalists involved to the police and, most disturbingly, to remove only 18 of the 100 images because the other 82 apparently did not breach its “community standards”. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children said:
“Facebook’s failure to remove illegal content from its website is appalling and violates the agreements they have in place to protect children. It also raises the question of what content they consider to be inappropriate and dangerous to children”.
I agree, and I believe that the case raises a number of troubling questions. How easily can adults access and share images of child sexual abuse via social media and other sites? How easily can our children be groomed on that site, given that children as young as 13 years old can create a Facebook account? Finally, how easily can our children stumble across indecent images of other children being sexually abused—and perhaps even think that that is somehow normal or acceptable behaviour? Facebook executives must take the issue more seriously, and UK law enforcement needs to clamp down when companies do not remove content. What engagement have the Government had with large companies to ensure that indecent images of children are proactively policed and taken down by the companies themselves, especially given that those on Facebook had to be reported to Facebook by the BBC?
As I outlined earlier, the UK hosts 0.2% of sexual abuse content. That is, of course, 0.2% too much, but it also means that more than 99% is hosted internationally. In 2014, the UK held the first WeProtect summit, which brought together representatives from more than 50 countries, 26 leading technology companies and 10 non-governmental organisations. At the summit, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, pledged to donate £50 million over five years to the UNICEF global protection fund, saying:
“This is money that will help put those lives back together again and I’m proud that Britain is pledging it and once again leading the way.”
Can the Minister confirm that Britain is still leading the way and is continuing to contribute to UNICEF’s global protection fund? I ask not least because child sexual abuse images and videos created abroad are viewed by paedophiles in the UK. We owe protection to children, regardless of where they are from, from such appalling crimes. We must not turn a blind eye to vulnerable children around the world.
We must also not turn a blind eye to people accessing indecent images of children that are produced in Britain. The Marie Collins Foundation said:
“All too frequently, we hear the people who view images of child sexual abuse defending themselves by saying: ‘I only looked at pictures, I didn’t actually hurt anyone.’…Every time an abusive image is viewed it means that the victim in the image is re-abused. No victim should have to suffer in this way.”
The National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for child protection, Chief Constable Simon Bailey, commented recently that paedophiles accessing such images should not be charged or prosecuted, and therefore not imprisoned, unless they pose a physical threat to children. Such comments massively threaten to downgrade the impact on the victims in those images. The case of Mark Bridger clearly demonstrates that people who look at images of child sexual abuse can be an enormous risk to our children.
What is more worrying is that one of Britain’s most senior police officers cannot identify a feasible solution to the growing numbers of people accessing such images online. Chief Constable Bailey made his comments in the context of an 80% increase in the number of child abuse reports over the last three years, and 400 men arrested by the police and the National Crime Agency every month for viewing indecent images of children. He states that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Estimates also suggest that there are around 500,000 people sharing indecent images of children, but I believe that we cannot remove the threat of prison without devaluing the crime, even though our prison population now stands at more than 85,000.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that it is wrong that the prosecution cannot appeal sentences imposed by the courts for creating or distributing images of child sexual abuse, no matter how lenient they are, because those offences do not fall under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman raises a valid concern. I am keen to hear from the Minister what the Government’s view is. It may be a matter to take up with the Law Officers and the Solicitor General, who I know takes up unduly lenient sentences on behalf of the Government. We must consider how to increase understanding of the severity of the crime and the ability to appeal unduly lenient sentences if appropriate.
We must remember that every indecent image of a child means a child suffering sexual abuse. We cannot allow police funding restraints to leave our children at risk. I call on our Government to ensure that our police forces and judicial system are adequately funded to deal with the influx of cases from Operation Hydrant. That is not to say that we do not need to focus on rehabilitation as well, but it is hard to ascertain how we can offer the rehabilitative services that Chief Constable Bailey is asking for when our current attempts at rehabilitation are chronically underfunded. There is only one place where paedophiles can receive treatment on the NHS in England: the Portman clinic in north London. Due to funding cuts, the clinic can now treat only paedophiles who have committed offences, which signals a massive lack of commitment to well-funded rehabilitative services.
In the charity sector, StopSO provides counselling to both non-offenders and offenders and believes that it can help paedophiles to manage their feelings towards children so as not to offend. However, to ensure that it can continue to offer services, StopSO charges £40 to £120 an hour, which obviously leaves thousands of people without access. Given that 500,000 people are currently looking at indecent images of children, we need a system that considers rehabilitation as a core part of prison life. At the same time, we also need to look further into the future and fund more services that can assist paedophiles before they offend. If we do not have a system that provides adequate rehabilitative services while the Government try to imprison fewer people, we run the risk of paedophiles falling through the cracks. Surely that would only perpetuate the idea that there will be no consequences for abusers and potential abusers watching child sexual abuse. We cannot allow that to happen.
The April’s law petition calls for increased sentencing for those caught with indecent images of children. The independent Sentencing Council is responsible for issuing guidelines to the courts, and updated guidelines on sexual offences have been in force since 2014. Although Parliament could legislate to increase the maximum terms, I argue that the existing Sentencing Council is the best body to determine the duration of sentences. However, I would welcome the Minister’s views on whether the Government are likely to legislate further in this area, not least in the light of the concerns about the criminal justice system’s inability to cope with the current volume of offenders and the concerns about unduly lenient sentences mentioned by the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). I would be grateful if the Minister provided some feedback on that issue.
Before I conclude, I will touch briefly on another campaign that I know April’s family support. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is seeking to pass the Unlawful Killing (Recovery of Remains) Bill, also known as Helen’s law, which would ensure that murderers are ineligible for parole if they do not reveal the location of their victims’ remains. That is particularly relevant as Mark Bridger has never revealed to the police how he disposed of April’s body. Coral Jones has said:
“As her mum I would love to know where she is, the rest of her, and family and friends, we would all love to know. No mum or family would want their child’s remains somewhere else. They would like to put them all to rest.”
Families who are already living through absolute hell are denied even the slightest amount of closure if they are not able to properly bury their loved ones. I urge Members across the House to support my hon. Friend’s Bill to ensure that murderers who refuse to reveal the location of their victims’ remains are not allowed to walk free.
I conclude by commending the family of April Jones for being so proactive in trying to stop what has happened to their daughter and sister from happening to anyone else. Through the efforts of the Jones family and their vast number of supporters, this petition has allowed us this valuable time in Parliament to discuss how we can keep our children safe. For that, I would like to thank them.
I am pleased to have been able to highlight the commendable work of the Internet Watch Foundation and call for the UK to remain outward-looking and ready to support international efforts to combat child sexual abuse, especially regarding indecent images. I also strongly urge the Government to review the funding received by the police and the wider criminal justice system to properly deal with those who produce or access indecent images of children and who are involved with wider child sexual abuse. They must ensure that that funding is adequate to deal with the current influx of cases.
I hope that this debate will highlight to Members across the House the fact that we cannot afford to become complacent about indecent images of children, because April’s case shows just how significant a risk those who access such images can pose to our children and our society.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mrs Moon. We have worked together on many other issues and it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I also thank the representative of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), for comprehensively outlining all the issues that surround this very complex case. There are all sorts of arguments for and against virtually every aspect of it—it is not straightforward.
I will contribute a constituency perspective and, of course, a family perspective. On 1 October 2012, I was at home working on my iPad when I read a tweet that a five-year-old girl had disappeared after being seen climbing into a vehicle on the Bryn-y-Gôg housing estate in Machynlleth in Montgomeryshire. It is not unusual to get tweets like that, but there was something about that tweet that immediately gave me the sense that this was something serious. Within hours, the people of Machynlleth and the surrounding area had joined the search for five-year-old April, the daughter of Coral and Paul Jones, who live on the Bryn-y-Gôg estate. Over the following days, a huge number of volunteers and local and national organisations, as well as the police, formed the most intensive, widespread search for anybody or anything that I have ever seen in my life—it was just amazing. Five days later, a local man, Mark Bridger, was charged with abduction, murder and perverting the course of justice. In May 2013, Bridger was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. The sentencing judge, rightly in my opinion, pronounced that he should never again be released from prison.
The death of April was an absolute tragedy for her family and friends, but it touched the entire nation. It was something that the whole of Britain became engaged with. There was a national focus on the town of Machynlleth. The search for April and the truly amazing response of the people of that small market town brought what seemed like the world’s media to Machynlleth. I spent several days there myself. Like everybody else, I found it really difficult to comprehend just what had happened and what April’s family would have been going through.
I pay tribute to April’s parents and her sister Jazz, who are with us in this Chamber today. They have made huge efforts to raise awareness of the widespread availability of pornographic and sexual images of children. They want to do everything they can to prevent other families from facing a similar tragedy and from going through the same pain that they have gone through and, no doubt, are still going through today. Their efforts have culminated in this debate in the House of Commons, after a petition raised by April’s family reached more than 100,000 signatures. For completeness, I will read out that petition, which is quite short:
“We the undersigned call on the prime minister to make all sex offenders remain on the register for life no matter the crime, for service providers and search engines to be better policed regarding child abuse images and harder sentences on those caught with indecent images of children.”
The petition can be divided into three calls for action. In preparation for this debate, I met Coral and Jazz Jones in Machynlleth 10 days ago. We talked through what they expected from the debate and what form an “April’s law” might take. The petition calls for legislation to be based on three objectives. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North addressed them all in her speech but, for myself and my constituency, I will repeat some of what she said.
The first objective, which is perhaps the most difficult to achieve, is cleaning up the internet. It should be our ambition to remove all sexual images of children from the internet. We know that the presence of those images is damaging, but removing them is not an easy or straightforward process, because the internet is technologically fast-moving and is not easy to control through legislation. However, the Government have a responsibility, which I think they take seriously—indeed, all Governments throughout the world have a responsibility —to do everything within their power to clean up the internet as far as is humanly possible.
Last week, we learned of a disturbing report, which has already been mentioned but certainly had a very big impact on me, that involved Facebook, a giant of the social media world. A BBC investigative team used the report button, the purpose of which is to highlight to Facebook any improper sexual images on its platforms. The BBC found that 80% of such images were not removed after being reported. There was simply an automated response, stating that the images did not breach community standards—whatever that means. Included were images of children in sexualised poses, pages aimed at paedophiles, and one image that appeared to be taken from a child abuse video. Astonishingly, instead of taking down all those images, Facebook reported the BBC for sharing them.
I cannot be certain of the precise detail of what happened in that case, but it seems beyond all belief. I understand that the images have now been removed, but what we want is for Facebook and every other social network operator, whether small or large, to be under a legal obligation always to take down such images, constantly to survey what appears on their social network platforms and, as far as possible, to report whoever puts them there to the police. We need a law that bans indecent and dangerous content and that ensures that action is taken against whoever instigates or permits it. It must make no difference whether the offender is a small company or is among the biggest companies in the world.
The second aim for what an “April’s law” should include is a stronger process for removing the names of sex offenders from the sex offenders register. I fear that an absolute ban would probably fall foul of human rights legislation, but as far as we possibly can, we must always put the protection of the public first. I do not consider myself to be sufficiently qualified to outline precisely what a process of deregistration might look like in order to satisfy human rights legislation and keep the public safe. However, it must always ensure that no name should ever be removed from the sex offenders list until and unless there is total certainty that the offender has reformed and will not repeat offend.
I ask the Minister whether it is possible to introduce rigour and certainty into the system to a greater extent even than now by establishing some sort of structure similar to a magistrates court structure to judge each individual case. The basis on which we should judge the suitability of a sex offender seeking removal from a sex offenders list is that we must always put first the safety of the public and of children.
The third policy is the importance of always putting sex offenders on the sex offenders list, or at least bringing them to court if the offence justifies it. This has already been covered in this debate, but we cannot have a position whereby police resources or pressure on the criminal court system result in offenders not being prosecuted. Sex offenders should always be prosecuted.
Two weeks ago, there was a report in The Guardian—again, this has already been referred to—on comments by Simon Bailey, the chief constable of Norfolk constabulary and the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for child protection. He said that the police were struggling to cope with the huge number of criminals looking at indecent images of children online, and that they should focus their resources on high-risk offenders. That is not good enough. All offenders must be looked, not just high-risk offenders. How do we judge between a high-risk offender and a low-risk offender? They are all offenders.
I agreed with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who wrote in response to the chief constable:
“As you will know, for many decades institutions have put children at risk because it was seen as too difficult, not a priority or resources were insufficient to keep them safe. I would not want to see the same happen over online child abuse.”
I absolutely agree with that. She also said:
“This raises some very serious concerns about the scale of online child abuse, about the level of resourcing the police have available for it, about the systems the police has in place to deal with this new and increasing crime and also about the priority being given to it by police forces.”
We regard child abuse as a hugely serious crime and I believe that it is still under-reported. Police forces throughout the country should make dealing with it an absolute priority. Anybody who is deemed to be a sex offender—albeit they might be described as a low-level offender—should be prosecuted.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
On the exploitation of children and police resource, I had reason to talk to Facebook not that long ago about an online bullying problem. Facebook made the not unreasonable point that a lot of this stuff is not necessarily on social media that is within UK control, but on foreign websites in jurisdictions about which we might have limited knowledge and over which we might have limited control. Would my hon. Friend comment on that point and whether he thinks we are suitably focusing on that source of imagery? It is a crime to look for child pornography on the internet, including for employees of the very platforms that we hope will rectify this matter. Does the law give them the power they need to police it themselves?
Glyn Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I agree with him. The point I am trying to emphasise—I think it is something that most Members in this House believe—is that this is a growing crime. We are also becoming more aware of it, and it has probably been under-reported forever. We are starting to realise just how awful things have been.
This crime destroys young people’s lives forever and it destroys families. We all know what has happened in Machynlleth and the damage it has done at a personal level to the family concerned, but this crime is happening in other places in Britain at a different level. We cannot ever say that the resources are not there to prosecute; we cannot ever knowingly allow somebody to come off a sex offenders register until we are absolutely certain that they are no longer a threat; and we cannot ever allow a major company—no matter how big, how rich or how powerful it is—to adopt an approach to dealing with sex offenders that is different to anybody else’s approach.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mrs Moon; it is an honour to serve with you in the Chair. It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and of course the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who is my constituency neighbour.
Looking back to that time, the loss of April Jones hit rural Welsh communities hard. It shattered our comfortable belief that such horrors could never happen in Wales—that such monsters could not live among us and would not be greeting us daily on our high streets, buying a round in our pubs and quite possibly loitering outside our schools and where children play. I speak also as the mother of girls, and we were secure in our illusion—our delusion—that such things always happened elsewhere, to other families and in other places.
The revulsion was reflected in the outpouring of support for April’s family; in the thousands of people signing this petition, many of them in Meirionnydd; in the hundreds of people who turned out to assist the police in their search across mile upon mile of forested hill country, in rivers and even down disused mine shafts; and in the feelings among the police themselves—Dyfed Powys police, and officers from North Wales police and, of course, other forces who came in to help with the search. They persevered through the winter months, in the biggest search ever organised in Britain. I am sure that many of us will remember the pink ribbons on gate posts and fences across Wales.
Evidence against April’s murderer was found on his computer. In discussions with North Wales police, with whom I participated in the police service parliamentary scheme last year, I have heard a number of concerns about the increasing number of digital devices seized by officers and also real questions about consistency of sentencing. Many of these issues have been raised already, but there are a couple that I would like to raise. In particular, I would like the Minister to consider including as a penalty the forfeiture of all digital devices and data owned by a child sex offender when illegal images are found on any of those devices. Ironically, that would be quite similar to the penalty for poaching. Indeed, it is a surprise to me that we have not done that already with devices, given their sheer multiplication.
Although we are aware that the child abuse image database exists to help police forces—I draw hon. Members’ attention to North Wales police’s bespoke digital imagery facility at St Asaph—this issue is none the less putting an increasing burden upon police. I saw police in action last summer, carrying out a warrant from the paedophile and online investigation team, but when I spoke to them in preparation for this debate, they were at pains that I should emphasise how heavy the workload is. To a degree, the number of cases that they are bringing to court and conviction is very much dependent on how they can actually cope with the sheer number of devices.
I have heard instances of court orders from judges that required police to return data from seized devices to convicted offenders. In one case, a former teacher who had been found guilty of keeping these sorts of images successfully argued that he needed teaching material from the computer on which he had stored illegal images—a request granted to a man who in all likelihood would never teach again. This seems to be a waste of police time, taking them away from dealing with other cases that could lead to convictions. Surely the time has come for all seized digital devices that are the personal property of a convicted paedophile to be confiscated as part of the penalty. Surely the onus should be on the offender to prove that they have a genuine need for the data on seized devices to be returned, and this should only happen in very exceptional cases. Of course, this is not a political matter; it is one of pragmatic policy making, and I hope that the Minister will respond in due course.
The second issue I would like to raise is the consistency and appropriateness of sentencing. Again from North Wales police, I heard of a case of attempted grooming of a 13-year-old child for sex. The defendant had travelled from London to north Wales with that very intention, but had unknowingly actually been communicating with an undercover officer. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to only 21 months. In a similar incident, between Lancashire and North Wales police, and where the undercover operation led to arrest in the offender’s home, the sentence was 24 months, suspended.
Sentencing guidelines are complex in the area of attempted sexual offences against children, but there is no doubt whatsoever that both those individuals had every intention of arranging and carrying out a sexual offence against a child. They had meticulously planned their route and how to commit the offence. Only the saving grace of the undercover officers’ interventions prevented them from carrying out those plans. Surely sentencing should reflect that, bearing in mind that an actual sexual offence against a child would be in category 1A and receive in the range of four to 10 years, depending on aggravating features. Even with a guilty plea, surely the evidence of determined intention should warrant more robust sentencing—certainly more than 24 months, suspended.
To close, I want to pay credit to April’s family, because in the midst of the unfathomable horror of their experiences over the last five years they have succeeded in ensuring that while April’s murderer will see out the rest of his whole-life tariff in obscurity, her name will be remembered and cherished. Her legacy should be that other children are better protected in law.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and to respond to the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said, it gives no one pleasure to talk about this issue, but so many children have, regrettably, been sexually abused, and are being abused even now. I pay tribute to the family of April Jones for their strength and bravery in bringing to the attention of the House, and indeed of society generally, the challenges we face in combating sexual abuse and offences against children. In particular, I thank Jazmin Jones for her efforts in securing the success of the petition.
Today’s debate has particular significance for me. As a very new lawyer, I joined the Crown Prosecution Service as a prosecutor and within a year had to deal with the case of a six-month-old baby who had been sexually abused and then, a year later, that of a woman who had held her three-year-old daughter down while her boyfriend raped the child. Such things are horrific. Everyone will agree that those who commit sexual offences must be held accountable for their crimes, and it is right that in dealing with perpetrators of sexual offences, especially those against children, terms of imprisonment follow.
In this country we have some of the toughest powers for dealing with this type of offence. In fact, many years ago, our Government recognised that such offences were occurring abroad and for the first time introduced legislation that meant that individuals could be prosecuted in this country for sexual offences in relation to children, and put on the register. Even now, there are many people —sadly, mainly men—who go out to poorer parts of the world and abuse young girls and boys. It is a big pattern.
We have also seen an increase in victims of child abuse summoning up the courage to identify their abusers and inform the police. When I started practising law more than 20 years ago, it was difficult to get children to come forward and give evidence of what had happened to them. That increase is therefore to be welcomed, but we must ensure that the increased media coverage of such offences does not result in complacency or the mistaken belief that they are commonplace. Any offence against a child is an affront to our society and a personal tragedy for the victim and their family, and the courts must respond appropriately.
In addition, it is right that the police have the power and the capacity to monitor offenders when their custodial sentence comes to an end. That, too, is crucial for the safety of our children. The basket of information that those convicted of serious sexual crimes are required to submit is commonly referred to as the sex offenders register. Together with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, the register is vital for police forces charged with monitoring those who pose a risk of committing sexual offences. As of 2011, the child sex offender disclosure scheme, widely referred to as Sarah’s law, has allowed parents to apply for information on registered sex offenders living in their area. It is right that the police should have that information available, so that they can act as its gatekeepers.
The length of time offenders are required to remain on the register varies. One of the major concerns that informs the petition is the right granted to those who have been placed on the register for an indefinite period to seek a review of the decision. As has been mentioned, that was the result of a Supreme Court ruling that said that there had to be a right of review, because otherwise article 8 of the European convention on human rights would be contravened.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) rightly said that the rights of children come before the rights of any perpetrators, and I would like to reassure him about what the court is trying to do. It is settled jurisprudence across the world that, when someone has either been convicted of an imprisonable offence or is on something like the register, there is normally recourse to some sort of appeal. All the Supreme Court was saying was that domestic legislation should have that right to appeal, not that those people should be released, after 15 years or eight years. It is obviously for the police officers and courts to decide in each case whether that happens. I wanted to reassure the hon. Gentleman, because sometimes these things get caught up emotionally with the Human Rights Act. However, for many people the potential for reoffending is clearly so great that, while an offence is perhaps not deserving of lifelong imprisonment, lifelong surveillance and tracking is required. It is quite proper that the police have the initial say regarding who is and who is not to remain on the register indefinitely, but it is also in accord with the principle of the rule of law that there is recourse to the judicial system.
I should also stress that, if the register and the associated orders are to be effective, they must be maintained and those subjected to them monitored sufficiently. In order to do that, the police must be given the resources they need, and a significant threat to child safety is posed by funding cuts to our police services.
Although I am sure that everyone abhors the crimes referred to in the petition, it remains the case that most of those who commit them will at some point have to live in society, albeit subject to some oversight. To protect our children, we must do all we can to reduce the risk of reoffending. Accordingly, more work must be done with offenders, both inside and outside prison, to enable them to function without committing further acts against our children. That must inevitably involve the National Probation Service, which has recently become stretched, and also psychiatric services. Just recently, the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned that its members felt unable to work in prisons.
The petition also calls on internet service providers and search engines to be better policed regarding child abuse images—an ambition we all must endorse. Each case must be judged on its own merit, but we must never forget that every image of abuse created is an image of actual abuse of a child, and that viewing such images only encourages their further production. Moreover, for an individual to have a visual record of a crime committed against them, for future viewing by other offenders, must outrage any sense of decency and provoke the fiercest compassion for victims.
We must also remember that not only abusive images, but forms of communication opened up by social media, are a potential source of danger to children. Law and legislation protecting children must be designed for a 21st century context where technology is constantly advancing. Technological answers alone can never suffice, however. The disturbing normalisation of highly sexualised language and images that children may produce and share among themselves via instant messaging poses a deep cultural challenge for our society. At the very least, it normalises the sexualised way in which children can perceive themselves. At worst, those types of communication provide weak points through which adult abusers can co-opt networks of younger people. If we are to counter that disturbing trend, teachers, parents, politicians and popular culture all have a role to play.
There are more immediate responses, however. In addition to greater cultural awareness and improved policing, it is not unreasonable to expect technology companies to do more to counter the availability of child pornography online. Doubtless the technological challenge is large, but they have a responsibility not to aid predators who view images of abuse. Moreover, internet service providers must do more to provide information to the police in a timely fashion when called upon. If the police are to use that information to the full in identifying and detaining offenders, they must have sufficient resources.
I ask the Minister to consider a number of things. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North mentioned what Chief Constable Simon Bailey said about having to make decisions on whether to pursue offences where someone is actively dangerous, as opposed to offences where someone may be dangerous because they are viewing things online. Due to the lack of resources, the police cannot give sufficient attention to the latter. The Government need to consider providing additional officers and resources—possibly ring-fenced—specifically to deal not only with sexual abuse, but with online abuse, online pornographic images and online sexual images of children. They also need more resources to train more police officers to carry out undercover operations of the type referred to by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). She referred to examples of undercover police officers effectively managing to stop abuses and predators, and prevent offences from being committed. They constantly do that. We need to resource those types of operations more so that there are more officers able to deal with the dangers of the internet.
We also need to think seriously about how the internet operates in relation to pornography and sexual images. As has been referred to, when an image on the internet is reported, it can take months and months for it to be removed. Sometimes nothing happens. The process needs to be strengthened so that internet providers have to deal with reported images immediately. If they fail to do that, criminal penalties should be considered. Will the Government relook at how the internet and internet providers work and allow so much indecent material to be on the internet? I hope the Minister can deal with that in her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I am sure you will agree that this has been a well-informed debate, and I very much appreciate the spirit in which all Members have made sincere and thoughtful contributions.
This is an incredibly important issue, and I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for leading the debate and bringing the issue to our attention today. It has allowed us to have such a thorough discussion. Other Members have said this, but this issue is not really something that any of us wants to debate. It is horrendous to think that such appalling acts of depravity and crime are happening in our country in the 21st century.
Before I address all the very thoughtful questions that have been put to me, I want to speak directly to the family of April Jones—to her parents Coral and Paul, and to Jazmin—who are here today. I cannot imagine the horror of what you have had to experience. You are an inspiration to us all. You have managed to take such grief and the worst imaginable situation and use those feelings so constructively to campaign for changes to ensure that no other family or community has to experience what you had to experience. I thank you sincerely for your bravery and persistence in bringing this matter to the attention of the people of Great Britain and us here today. It is not a problem that any one of us will deal with alone; it requires a whole society approach, and each and every one of us has an important role to play. I thank you very much for everything you are doing.
I also commend the family’s excellent MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). He has given the family a lot of support and gave voice to their concerns today. What a powerful advocate he is for the family—and he is well supported by his neighbouring MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). As others have said, the issue transcends all party politics. Members of Parliament representing all parties work together constructively to ensure that the Government are doing everything we can to prevent, detect and prosecute these horrendous crimes.
I want to answer some of the questions that have been asked. The first set of questions were about what we are doing about who is on the sex offenders register. I understand why people think that anyone who has committed any such crime should go on the register and stay there for life without any reconsideration. I understand that strong sentiment, but the Supreme Court ruling in 2010 has been mentioned, and I want to go into a bit more detail about it. It prevented us from not giving sex offenders the opportunity to be removed from the register: we were told that there must be opportunities for that to be reconsidered. There was an objection about human rights and the offenders being denied the right to a family life. At the time, the Government were disappointed by the ruling, and we remain disappointed today. I am sympathetic to the demands of the petition and the concerns of the Jones family. I understand why they feel that the petition is necessary.
It is precisely because we are determined to do everything we can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders that we made the minimum possible changes to the law to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, while ensuring that the police and others can protect the public from the serious and appalling sorts of crime that have been committed by individuals on the register. That means that no offender comes off the register automatically. The most dangerous offenders—those we cannot afford to leave unmonitored in this country—will stay on the register for life; they do not have a right to request reconsideration of their status on the register.
We have provided for a review carried out by the police, but no more than that. Offenders have the right to ask the police to reconsider, but they have no recourse to appeal. We believe that approach complies with the Supreme Court ruling, but it also ensures maximum public protection, which remains at the heart of managing sex offenders. They can seek a review of their indefinite notification requirements only once they have completed 15 years. For juveniles, it is eight years. People have to wait a long time before they can even request a review.
The review takes a range of considerations into account. Information is provided from a wide range of agencies operating within the multi-agency public protection arrangements framework. This ensures an individual assessment of the risk before any offender is considered for removal. As I have said, the most serious offenders are never even considered for that. The process has proven robust and workable and puts public protection at the heart of sex offender management, while at the same time preventing sex offenders from being able to waste public money by repeatedly challenging decisions in the courts.
We want to make sure that victims are also engaged in the process. We want to ensure that the feelings of victims’ families—for example, in the tragic case of the Jones family—are taken into consideration. Victims’ needs and safety are absolutely fundamental in the process. It is important to remember that many victims who have undergone appalling acts against them want to move on with their lives. They have had therapeutic interventions and they want to put it behind them. We need to bear in mind their views as well. The police look at cases to make sure that victims’ voices are heard in a sensitive way. They are not necessarily publicly forced into anything; they are treated according to their needs.
When we made the changes in 2012, we also introduced additional safeguards to tighten the notification arrangements even further, making it compulsory for sex offenders to report to the authorities before travelling abroad, whenever they are living in a household containing a child under the age of 18, and when they have no fixed abode. It is important that we always know where they are. Collectively, the safeguards ensure that the public continue to be protected from the sex offenders who continue to pose a risk.
We have continued to work with the police and other law enforcement agencies to ensure that the right powers are available for the authorities to tackle sexual crimes and bring perpetrators to justice. For example, we have introduced new civil orders that capture a range of risky behaviours and allow the police to further restrict the behaviour of those who pose a risk, preventing them from escalating to contact abuse. I want to be absolutely clear that victims and survivors of sexual and other forms of violence against women and girls are at the heart of all our policy making. Over the spending review period, we will spend more than £100 million to make sure that victims get the help they need when they need it and to ensure that no victim is turned away.
The petition that we are debating today also calls for better policing of search engines and internet service providers. I agree that that is absolutely critical. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is illegal to take or distribute an indecent photograph of a child under 16. The penalty can be up to 10 years’ imprisonment. Possessing indecent photographs of children is an offence with a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. However, we know that more can be done.
Through the campaigning of Paul and Coral Jones, major search engines have tried to address the abuse of technology. Since 2014, both Google and Microsoft have introduced changes that make it significantly harder to find child sexual abuse material online. Using new technology, they have experienced an eightfold reduction in search engine attempts over an 18-month period. The message is clear: when industry works together with law enforcement to take action, it really can deliver results.
The Government’s response has been significant, with law enforcement agencies taking action against online offenders, developing new capabilities to find and safeguard victims, and working with the industry here and overseas to make sure that we remove as many images as possible. All UK police forces and the National Crime Agency are connected to the child abuse image database, which was launched in 2014. CAID provides law enforcement agencies with effective tools to search seized devices for indecent images of children, reducing the time taken to identify such images and increasing the ability to identify victims.
Recently, the NCA was able to use CAID to review one of its largest ever seizures within six weeks. Based on the case size, that would have taken six months to review before CAID. Collaboration and use of the new tools that are available are dramatically reducing the time it takes to search, find victims and secure prosecutions. That has resulted in around 400 arrests each month for online CSE offences, and we estimate that it is safeguarding around 500 children each month.
Child sexual exploitation and abuse is one of the national priorities in the strategic policing requirement. The threat will be more visible and there will be more consistent understanding, prioritisation and planning of capabilities to tackle child sexual abuse. The strategic policing requirement enables forces to collaborate and to share resources, intelligence and best practice, and provides improved access to specialist capabilities.
Some Members have asked whether we are giving the police enough money to do the work. I absolutely want to reassure everyone here that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, the main specialist agency within the National Crime Agency, has had its resources nearly doubled. We have committed an additional £20 million over the spending review period. It also gets a significant amount of help from specialists within GCHQ, so our top intelligence community, which is there to keep the nation safe, is now deployed to help CEOP. I regularly meet police officers in CEOP. Every time I visit, I ask them, “Do you have the resources you need to tackle this crime?”, and they all say yes. The amount of investment that we put in is something we keep under constant review.
One Member asked whether we were investing in WeProtect. The need to work internationally has rightly been raised today because the threat is global. I can confirm that the £40 million commitment that the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, made to WeProtect over this spending period is absolutely secure and is being spent. The UK leads the world in this effort, and we will continue that work. As has been rightly said by many people here today and outside this Chamber, all companies have a responsibility to ensure that they do everything they can to make sure that their platforms and services do not allow the exploitation and victimisation of children. They must address the abuse of what is otherwise legitimate technology. It is really important that they step up to the plate and do everything they can.
The Prime Minster, the Home Secretary and I have regular meetings with all the internet providers—the Prime Minister herself chairs a meeting—to make sure they do everything they can. In the light of the revelations reported by the BBC about Facebook, the Home Secretary will have an urgent meeting with Facebook to ask why the images were not taken down after being reported. We must be satisfied that lessons are learnt by Facebook. We must not leave any stone unturned.
There has been quite a bit of discussion about sentencing. Although it is a matter for our courts, in December 2013, as a result of a lot of pressure, the Sentencing Council issued revised guidelines on sentencing for sexual offences, which came into force three years ago. They include guidance on assessing offender behaviour and the appropriate sentence level in proceedings relating to indecent images of children. The Sentencing Council keeps the maximum penalties under review to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to deal with offences effectively and proportionately, while taking into account the circumstances of the offences and any mitigating and aggravating factors.
More adult sex offenders are being imprisoned and they are being imprisoned for longer. The number of prisoners serving immediate custodial sentences for sexual offences is at its highest since 2002. At the end of last year, more than 13,000 adult sex offenders were in prison. That is a rise of 9% on the preceding 12 months, and is up by more than 5,000 since 2010.
Gareth Johnson
The Minister will recall that the manifesto that she and I stood on at the last general election included a commitment to extend the scope of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Even after the Budget, our manifesto must mean something. Does she therefore agree that it is time to extend the scope of the unduly lenient sentence scheme to include the distribution and creation of indecent pictures of children?
Sarah Newton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. He must have read my mind, because I was coming to it. The manifesto we stood on does mean something, and I am pleased to confirm that the Attorney General is undertaking that work as we speak. The scope of unduly lenient sentences is being reviewed at the moment. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the satisfaction for which he rightly asks.
I was asked by other hon. Members to look at other aspects of the criminal justice system. Although they are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, I will do so. I agree that it is important that, if perpetrators who are arrested have a range of digital devices, they should be forfeited and searched for inappropriate images. As we have heard, that puts a lot of demand on the police, but new digital tools, such as CAID and fingerprinting, enable much faster recognition of images and should enable the police to manage the increased demand.
Simon Hart
In the Minister’s representations to the MOJ, will she commit to raising the issue of whether the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority reflects the 21st century? It has been put to me that it treats the crimes of sexual assault by penetration and rape entirely differently. Any victim of those crimes would find that an extraordinary distinction.
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course I will speak to my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.
I want to finish my point on perpetrators time-wasting, demanding things of the police and extracting information from forfeited devices. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) gave an example of a teacher who undoubtedly, as they were going on the sex offenders register, would never be a teacher again. They did not need the teaching plans and resources that they wanted to extract from their computer. That was a dreadful waste of police time. I will certainly take that up to see what more we can do to clamp down on it.
The Prime Minister recently said that she is minded to introduce a new Bill in the next Session to look at what more we can do about domestic abuse and domestic violence. This debate is specifically about child sexual violence and abuse, but that Bill will enable us to look at what more we can do legally. The Home Secretary will chair a group of experts to look at what more we can do to support victims in the criminal justice system to ensure their experience is as positive as possible. The evidence that we get will secure the best possible outcomes. As that Bill is developed, there will be opportunities to look at some of the issues that have been raised today.
A question was asked about what is called Helen’s law. We heard about the absolutely horrendous situation of families who want to know where the bodies of their loved ones have been put by the horrendous criminals who perpetrated those acts. I am a mother myself, so I understand that families want to know exactly where their children’s remains are so they can be reunited with them, lay them to rest and have a place to visit them. The Justice Minister made it clear that he is looking at options to encourage offenders to say where the remains are, including making their release conditional on declaring that information. The Ministry of Justice is doing good work to ensure that happens.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister is giving a very thorough response to many of the issues that were raised, but one issue that she has not touched upon, which does not always seem a priority but could go a long way to protecting children in the future, is rehabilitation. Does she have a response to the questions I asked about funding for the rehabilitation of offenders or potential offenders?
Sarah Newton
I am very happy to talk about that. We are undertaking a comprehensive piece of work in the Home Office with experts, academics, law enforcement officers and some particularly good charities that have a good track record, to ensure that young people understand what consent is, what good relationships are and what the law of the land is. We have seen reports about the amount of sex offending committed by young people against other young people. The very tragic case that we are talking about today involved an older person who perpetrated a terrible crime against a child, but there is a growing category of younger people who commit appalling abuse—even rape—against children younger than themselves. We are doing a lot of work to educate young people that that is simply wrong and about what good relationships look like. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, the association for personal, social and health and economic education—the PSHE Association—and the Department for Education have developed extremely good tools to enable teachers, parents and youth workers to engage young people.
I expect that people have seen Disrespect NoBody, a large campaign that the Home Office funds every year. It uses material developed by children that they can see online on their phones and iPads to get those messages across. We work with young people to develop age-appropriate messages, and campaigns are thoroughly evaluated to ensure that they are having the right effect. Now that sex and relationship education and PSHE are to be compulsory, there will be even further opportunity to send that message to everyone.
We know that a lot of young men view images of young girls online, but that they do not realise that what they are doing is illegal. They seem to think that it is a victimless crime. They do not appreciate that a girl is being abused to make those images, that every time someone watches them she is being re-abused, and how devastating that is. We have worked with experts in the field to make hard-hitting little films that are put out on the internet to communicate to young men—I am afraid that it is young men—who might be tempted to view that material or who might inadvertently come across it. The films are to educate them about the harm and to prevent them from becoming criminals—if they were caught, they would be convicted of a criminal offence and go on the sex offenders register, which would have a devastating effect on their life.
We are working with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. Where we know perpetrators are watching images, we want to send out clear messages that they are illegal, and about the harm they are doing. We want to give them access to helplines where they can get advice on how to wean themselves off their addiction—it is an addiction. We also fund care and support services for the perpetrators, enabling them to say, “I want to stop this behaviour but I need help to do it.”
That is all new and emerging work. It is important to build up the evidence base on its effectiveness, so that we understand what works, what does not, the risk profile of the perpetrators, and who can be diverted or prevented from behaviour escalating into contact abuse. We take that seriously and invest in it, and we want to leave no stone unturned in preventing people from watching those dreadful images and all the abuse that goes with them. I hope that that is a full answer for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North.
Some hon. Members mentioned the comments of Chief Constable Simon Bailey. As politicians, none of us is a stranger to being misquoted, or having our quotes being taken out of context so that we do not say everything we would want. That is what happened to the chief constable in this case. It was helpful for the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee to write to ask him about some of the comments he made and the media published. My understanding is that he has written back a full response, which will be published on the Select Committee’s website. The chief constable does not need me to speak for him—he is more than capable of speaking for himself—and it is important for Members to read what he has to say. He might be appearing before the Select Committee, when Committee members will have further opportunity to ask him about what he said so that there is absolute clarity.
I can assure the House, however, that the Government’s policy has not changed. As we have discussed today, issues to do with sex offenders are complicated and contentious, but our position is crystal clear and unequivocal: we will reduce the harm to children and other vulnerable people; we will continue to protect the public; and we will keep dangerous people on the sex offenders register for as long as they are a risk. I am proud of the progress we are making to tackle all aspects of violence against women and girls and to protect all victims, but the truly terrible murder of April Jones highlights how much all of us need to do to protect victims. In my time as Minister, I am determined to do absolutely everything I can to protect people in our country and to bring those perpetrators to justice.
Catherine McKinnell
I do not have much more to add to the debate, because the Minister has given a thorough reply to all the questions asked. Many of her responses have been reassuring, and some have clarified areas on which we all need to work together in future. The Minister was absolutely right when she said that this is an issue that transcends party politics. We have representatives present from all parts of the House, and we have a common interest to ensure that we all work together to protect children in the best way possible.
I want to add a final, sincere word to thank the Jones family for the way in which they have turned the most unimaginable horror into an opportunity to make our legal and parliamentary processes and procedures more responsive to the clear need to protect our children better from those horrendous crimes. I thank the Jones family for everything they have done. I also thank Members for their contributions to today’s debate. This is not the end of the conversation. I feel that it is very much the beginning of work that needs to go on.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 166711 relating to sentencing for child abuse offences.
Written Statements
ECOFIN: 21 February 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Brussels on 21 February 2017. EU Finance Ministers discussed the following items:
Early morning session
Ministers were briefed on the outcomes of the 20 February meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission presented an update on the current economic situation following the publication of the Commission’s winter forecasts on 13 February. Ministers also discussed points of clarification in relation to the intergovernmental agreement on the single resolution fund.
Anti-tax avoidance directive
Ministers reached a general approach to the second anti-tax avoidance directive (ATAD2).
Current financial service legislative proposals
The Council presidency provided an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
Criteria and process leading to the establishment of the EU list of non-co-operative jurisdictions for tax purposes
Following the Council conclusions agreed at ECOFIN on 8 November 2016, Council endorsed a state of play report by the Council secretariat.
Preparation of the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and central bank governors on 17-18 March 2017 in Baden-Baden
Ministers mandated the Economic and Finance Committee (EFC) to finalise the EU terms of reference for the next meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and central bank governors.
Discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for 2015
On the basis of a report from the European Court of Auditors, Ministers approved a Council recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the 2015 budget.
Budget guidelines for 2018
Ministers adopted Council conclusions on the guidelines for the 2018 budget, which will serve as a point of reference in the forthcoming budgetary cycle.
[HCWS526]
National Crime Agency: Contingencies Fund Advance
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
The National Crime Agency (NCA) is seeking an advance from the Contingencies Fund under category D of the supply estimates guidance manual to meet its cash funding obligations in advance of Royal Assent to the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill. Contingencies Fund advances are sometimes used by Government Departments to manage cash flows, and in this case will be repaid to HM Treasury before the end of the financial year.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £14,971,000 and cash of £22,029,000 has been sought in a supplementary estimate for the National Crime Agency. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £37,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS527]
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council: 3 March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 3 March 2017 in Brussels. I represented the UK.
The Council held an orientation debate on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending regulation 883 on the co-ordination of social security systems, and regulation 987 laying down the procedure for implementing regulation 883. The Council also held a policy debate on the European semester, including on the implementation of country-specific recommendations.
The Council adopted Council conclusions on the 2017 annual growth survey and joint employment report, and adopted the joint employment reports. As part of this, the Commission presented the 2017 country reports, which had been published on 22 February 2017. The Council adopted Council conclusions on enhancing the skills of women and men in the EU labour market. The Commission and the presidency gave a joint presentation on the tripartite social summit.
Under any other business, the Commission presented a communication on modernisation of the EU occupational safety and health legislation and policy, and information in follow-up to their recent communication on investing in Europe’s youth. The presidency presented the state of play of the legislative proposal on posting of workers and a number of member states intervened to set out their views on the proposal.
The Chairs of the Employment Committee (EMCO) and the Social Protection Committee (SPC) detailed their respective work programmes for 2017. The European Institute for Gender Equality set out the key findings of their study titled “Economic benefits of gender equality in the EU”. Finally, the Portuguese delegation gave information on the upcoming UNECE International Conference “A sustainable society for all ages: Realising the potential of living longer”, which will take place in Lisbon on 21-22 September 2017.
[HCWS525]
Universal Credit
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
Universal credit full service for all types of claimants continues to roll out to plan. It is now being delivered in 50 jobcentres and is the Department’s first fully digital service.
We have been exploring how this technology can, for the first time, offer a simple system of explicit consent (to protect the large amounts of claimant personal information held under universal credit) but which is easy to use and takes advantage of the opportunities a digital service can offer. Such a system can be used by third parties and stakeholders representing claimants’ interests, enhancing the service that they can provide for the most vulnerable.
However, it is clear MPs engaging on their constituents’ behalf need constant access to such a system through which they can help their constituents. Today, I have agreed that the implicit consent approach which operates well for all other DWP benefits can be extended to MPs representing the interests of their constituents who are engaging with or directly claiming universal credit. We can offer this because of our pre-existing relationships between MPs’ offices, district managers and their teams. This is something which cannot pertain for inquiries from other sources.
This means any correspondence—letter, email, or telephone inquiries—from MPs on behalf of a constituent relating to universal credit will be answered directly, without a requirement to seek explicit consent from their constituent. This will ensure consistency and clarity for MP offices, no matter what benefit the inquiry is about.
Extending this support for MPs and their constituents will continue to help enable the successful delivery of this key welfare reform programme.
[HCWS528]
House of Lords
Women: Domestic and Sexual Violence Services
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the need for women’s domestic violence and sexual violence services in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy sets out our assessment of the need for women’s domestic and sexual violence services. It pledges increased funding of £80 million over this spending review period to support refuges, rape support centres and FGM and forced marriage units, helping local areas to ensure that no woman is turned away from the support that she needs.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. She will know that on a typical day 155 women and 103 children are turned away from refuges because of a lack of suitable space. How will the Government guarantee the special status and address the desperate need for refuges and for sustainable funding in the light of the proposed new funding model for supported housing?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a valid point about the demand for services. That is why the Government have taken a whole-picture look at the services for domestic violence—in other words, freeing up spaces within refuges by moving on accommodation, preventive services and of course some of the services within the woman’s own home, such as the domestic violence prevention orders, to try to keep the perpetrators of violence away from the home.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I recently met a young lawyer who told me she was aware of 36 cases in Pakistan where women had been abandoned by men who were UK residents. What is being done to eradicate this appalling state of affairs?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend highlights a truly terrible state of affairs—in fact one step worse than for some of those women who actually make it to this country, because women in other countries who have no leave to remain and have no rights in that country really are the most vulnerable women in the world. Of course the women who come here and experience domestic violence may also have no leave to remain here and may have their passports taken away from them. This is something that the Government are not just mindful of but doing something about.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, Women’s Aid’s most recent annual survey found that more than a third of women’s abuse organisations were running a service with no dedicated funding. Will some of the £20 million announced in the Budget last week to tackle domestic abuse be used to support those organisations and, if so, how will it be allocated? If the Minister is unable to give precise details in her answer today, please will she write to me?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness will know that the funding of £20 million she refers to has only just been announced and it is for victims of domestic violence. The tampon tax fund for 2017-18 of £15 million will most definitely focus on improving the lives of disadvantaged women and girls, including the organisations supporting women and girls affected by violence and abuse.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
Although I very much welcome the Government’s announcement of the money that the Minister just mentioned, which I assume is in addition to the £20 million in the Budget to which she also referred, how will their commitment transpire in local government politics and priorities? Many local authorities are not choosing to prioritise domestic violence in the same way as the Government. For example, Tower Hamlets Council has just closed some of the longest-serving women’s organisations, which supported vulnerable women, just as she described. What will she do to ensure that local authorities make that as much of a priority as the Government seem to?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness will know that the Government set out a national statement of expectations, which placed an expectation on all local authorities to provide the services that those women—they are mostly women—need. Local authorities can bid into the VAWG transformation fund. The whole point of doing things the way we are now is that one concern previously was that women were dealt with only in the local authority from which they came. If you are a victim of domestic violence, you are not usually going to stay in that local authority, so the whole strategy of expectations and the whole new model of providing services recognises that.
Lord Laming (CB)
I am sure the Minister will agree that violence is always dreadful but particularly when it happens in the home and when there are children in the home. Will she use her good offices to ensure that when the police are called to incidents of domestic violence, they do not simply treat the needs of the adults but do whatever they can to protect the well-being of the children caught up in these dreadful situations?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right. He will know all too well the effects that domestic violence has on children. He talks about how the police deal with these situations. They have had an awful lot more training in what to do when they encounter such situations. A child involved in even one domestic violence incident will carry that episode with them and it may affect them in future. As I explained to the noble Baroness earlier, domestic violence prevention orders keep the perpetrator from the home for 28 days. Also, perpetrator services are now being developed to give men some insight to change their behaviour.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend update the House on her assessment of UK services which educate and support women and girls who have suffered abuse such as FGM and breast ironing, or other gender-based violent crimes carried out in the name of religion or cultural tradition, but which are nothing short of the abuse of young British women and girls?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for that question. We now have FGM prevention orders. FGM has always been a crime, but we are dealing with it. Any of those things is a crime against women and girls. Last week, we talked about how multiagency work can help to tackle some of these problems. If a doctor notices symptoms of violence or abuse—breast ironing or FGM, as my noble friend mentioned—the whole model of multiagency working is now set up to allow information sharing so that perpetrators can be brought to justice.
Brexit: Commonwealth, Trade and Migration
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of future trade and migration from and to Commonwealth countries after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Lord Price) (Con)
Our links with the Commonwealth are extremely important. We enjoy excellent trading relationships with Commonwealth partners and are committed to strengthening these further. As we leave the EU, openness to international talent will remain one of this country’s most distinctive assets. The process will be managed properly so that our immigration system serves the national interest. The precise arrangements are yet to be determined.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. Within the trade that was outlined, there are many British citizens of Commonwealth heritage who run businesses that trade incredibly effectively with those countries of heritage. Many want to see renewed opportunities for migration between the United Kingdom and those Commonwealth countries as free movement within the EU comes to an end. Can my noble friend confirm that there is or will be a strategic plan for engagement with the Commonwealth diaspora in the Foreign Office?
Lord Price
My noble friend asks an excellent Question and clearly one that many in the House want to rise quickly to ask further questions on. I am delighted to say that trade with the Commonwealth has grown sharply over recent years, in fact by about 10% a year since 1995. Trade with the Commonwealth stood at almost $700 billion last year and is projected to hit $1 trillion by 2020. Last week I am delighted to say that we had the inaugural meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers here in London, co-hosted between the UK and Malta. One thing that we talked about was the need to continue to have the very best movement of the brightest between Commonwealth countries to continue to build that trade. It is a point that the Secretary-General and the Commonwealth Secretariat will take away to work on with all 52 members of the Commonwealth.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I apologise for my enthusiasm earlier for this topic. I am sure that the whole House recognises and congratulates the noble Lord, Lord Marland, on his excellent work to organise the Commonwealth Trade Ministers’ meeting. When will the Government reply to his letter with an apology for claiming credit for organising it, as was outlined in the White Paper, when it was the Commonwealth that did so? Furthermore, do the Government understand that our chances of success in trade with the Commonwealth will be enhanced if we treat it as the modern free association of nations that it is, rather than as a British possession, as the incorrect claim seems to suggest to other Commonwealth nations?
Lord Price
I am delighted to put on record our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marland, for organising the first day of the two-day conference. I think the White Paper said that the conference was going to be held in the UK rather than it being organised by the UK. If it did not make that clear, my apologies once again. My noble friend did a wonderful job in bringing together 37 Trade Ministers from across the Commonwealth and we had very fruitful meetings.
On the noble Lord’s second point, the meeting drew out the fact that there are a wide range of economic opportunities and challenges across those 52 countries. Some are subject at the moment to GSP schemes from the EU, others have economic partnership arrangements, and a number have free trade agreements. All need to be treated differently so that we can achieve the best outcome for all 52 countries.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is certainly a role for government, not least to create the environment to allow the private sector to thrive? However, UK industry and multipliers should be looking to partnership with their peers across the Commonwealth for corporate opportunities.
Lord Price
I very much agree with the noble Viscount that this is best handled on a business-to-business level. However, the Government have a role to ensure that we have the very best framework to allow businesses to prosper by trading with each other.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the United Kingdom currently enjoys free trade agreements with 32 out of the 52 Commonwealth countries by virtue of our membership of the European Union customs union. The Commonwealth Secretariat has said that if we leave that union and revert to World Trade Organization rules, such positive trading relations with those countries cannot be guaranteed, and not only that; the secretariat has also calculated that, on 2015 figures, the least developed Commonwealth countries would have faced $800 million of increased tariff payments to export to the United Kingdom if we were on WTO rules. Which part of that does the Minister agree would be, to quote the Foreign Secretary, “perfectly OK”?
Lord Price
The main point of our meeting last week with Trade Ministers from around the Commonwealth was to agree a smooth transition, whether there will be an association agreement, a GSP scheme, an EPA or even an FTA. As the noble Lord pointed out, there are a number of countries in the Commonwealth with which we currently do not have FTAs, or any agreement other than WTO. At the moment, we are on WTO terms with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India and many others. We believe that in the new world all those can be improved to the benefit of the UK and the Commonwealth as a whole.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, we will hear from the UKIP representative.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, do the Government agree that the EU single market will continue in long-term and irreversible decline, whereas the Commonwealth contains many of the markets of the future?
Lord Price
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am not able to predict the future of any part of the world, but I can say that the UK’s trade outside the EU has grown more quickly in recent years. Over the last five years or so it has grown by 6% inside the EU but by more than 14% outside it. We therefore feel very optimistic that in a new world of trading more powerfully individually outside the EU we can boost UK exports.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, New Zealand, for example, is currently negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union. If, after Brexit, which will be at least two years hence, we also seek to have a separate free trade agreement with New Zealand, in what way will we benefit more than if we had remained a member of the European Union?
Lord Price
It is incredibly difficult to answer that question, because we do not know the shape of the EU agreement with New Zealand and what it will agree nor whether in fact it can do it within two years or whether it will take much longer. Equally, I cannot say today what the deal will be with New Zealand. The Prime Minister has announced a working group, which will begin in due time. I am confident that the UK will be in a position to strike comprehensive and beneficial trade deals for the United Kingdom.
Council Housing
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the role of council housing in addressing the issues raised in the White Paper Fixing our broken housing market (Cm 9352).
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I refer the House to my interests; I am an elected councillor and vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the key role that local authorities play in the provision of housing and we welcome their views on the development of the Government’s policy. The recent housing White Paper makes it clear that we are keen to hear about innovative options and ideas from the sector.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, with their renewed focus on the provision of sheltered housing, the Government will be able to provide well-designed housing suitable for the needs of older people while releasing much-needed council homes for families. Why are the Government not doing more in this area? Does the Minister agree that the ridiculous plans to force councils to sell off their most expensive family homes will, if implemented, be a barrier to this aim and should be scrapped?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in answer to the first point, we are open to looking at bespoke deals. Several local authorities—Sheffield and Stoke-on- Trent are examples—are already engaged with us to discuss that, in terms of the housing White Paper, which is recognised by many for its boldness in looking at these issues. In relation to the higher-value assets, the noble Lord will be aware that we will shortly be announcing a pilot in relation to that.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that back in 1979 I wrote a pamphlet entitled The Disaster of Direct Labour? Will he confirm that, while every encouragement will be given to local authorities to commission building, they will not be allowed to build any homes themselves? In addition, will he confirm that the sheltered housing dimension to which the noble Lord opposite referred is a vitally important area? I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will look very seriously at that element of council housing.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as my noble friend says, sheltered housing is absolutely vital. I am very pleased to say that. I do not think there is any suggestion of bringing back direct labour. I am told that he was a byword in relation to direct labour in the 1970s. However, we recognise the importance of council housing. He will know that in the last five years we have built more council housing than was built in the previous 13 years, from 1997 to 2010.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in reminding the House that I, too, am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that 10 days ago the Chartered Institute of Housing said:
“The government’s ambition to solve the housing crisis will not be possible if an imbalance in housing funding continues … as new figures reveal just £8 billion of the £51 billion earmarked for housing up to 2021 will directly fund affordable homes”.?
Does the Minister agree that we need many more homes for social rent?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Housing White Paper talks about boldness and the fact that we are looking at a mix of housing. That is very welcome and has certainly been welcomed by many people across political parties—for example, the London mayor. It is absolutely right that we should do that, and, of course, social housing is an important part of that. I was unaware of the quote that the noble Lord mentioned. However, he will know that a range of people across many parties and professional organisations have welcomed the Housing White Paper as initiating a very valuable debate on housing right across the board.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, as the White Paper consultation specifically excludes Chapter 4, will the Minister confirm that DCLG would nevertheless welcome informed commentary around its wider implications as it relates to housing, particularly for older people, as that is the only type of housing with care which will release pressures on both the health service and social care?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am very pleased to acknowledge the role that the noble Baroness has played in relation to that sector, which is, of course, vital. Given that she has pushed hard on this, and correctly so, she will know that we have made provision for this type of housing for older people, particularly in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. I am happy to acknowledge how important this area is.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, how many government initiatives on this issue have failed in the past?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am not sure to what issue the noble Lord refers but I am very happy to agree that since the war housing has been a challenge for all political parties. We are simply not building enough. However, there is no reason to give up. If we gave up because past initiatives had failed or had not totally succeeded, that would not be valuable to anybody. The Housing White Paper and this Government’s determination are clear. I welcome the noble Lord doing his best to ensure that he holds our feet to the fire in delivering.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, when does the Minister expect to get back from the 2015-16 figure of fewer than 1,000 new starter homes in the social sector to the 40,000 started in 2009-10? I declare my interest in that I got into local government in the 1970s in Preston, when we had people coming across from Northern Ireland to escape the violence. In those days, we had housing available to help people when they arrived. Now, given the dreadful government figures, local authorities will not be able to help such people.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I acknowledge the role that the noble Baroness had in relation to the dreadful position in Northern Ireland and I hope that we never go back to that sort of awful situation. In relation to the general point that she made, I have already acknowledged to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, the importance of the social sector. As the noble Baroness knows, we have a target of building 400,000 affordable homes up to 2020. Obviously it is important that we get to the sort of figure that is required to meet the housing needs of the country across a whole range of sectors, certainly including the social sector.
Illegal Imports: Dangerous Materials
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the physical and human resources available to Border Force, Her Majesty’s Coastguard, the National Crime Agency and police forces in 2017–18 to combat illegal import of firearms, drugs and other dangerous materials into the United Kingdom.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as recorded in the register and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, securing the UK is about active law enforcement, using and sharing intelligence to ensure that resources are effectively utilised in line with threats and pressures. Law enforcement partners work to prevent dangerous items ever reaching our shores, and at the border a combination of law enforcement officers and officials, targeting and technology is used to make our already secure borders even stronger.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, which I interpret as meaning that there is no plan to increase the resources available to protect our borders. In September last year, the outgoing Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said that the rapid increase in gun crime was a result of more illegal arms coming into the country. Last month, dog walkers on the Suffolk and Norfolk coasts stumbled across packages containing cocaine with a street value of more than £50 million. I am told that the weight of this was 360 kilograms. To put that in context, it is about three times my body weight, so we are not talking about a small amount here. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the Government are being complacent about the arrival of drugs and guns in this country or whether they will increase the resources to patrol our borders and make them effective?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government take the issue of guns and drugs arriving in this country very seriously. The noble Lord and the House will have heard me talking previously about Operation Dragon Root last October, in which 800 potentially lethal weapons were seized and 282 suspects were arrested. In addition, 80 kilograms of illegal drugs were seized. I do not know how that compares with the noble Lord’s weight, but that is a lot of drugs.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, currently at UK airports EU citizens use automatic gates, which check only that the person seeking entry is the passport holder. Once we leave the European Union, EU citizens will have to be questioned about the purpose of their visit, as there will be no automatic right of entry. How will the Border Force cope without a massive increase in resources, particularly when it is already failing to meet its own targets in terms of delays?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord has asked me a bit of a hypothetical question in terms of numbers. However, he asked about e-gates, which have provided a very efficient way of handling people at passport control. Not only are they very efficient but, in terms of the facial recognition service that they provide, they are very accurate. Just to give the noble Lord an example, one officer can deal with five e-gates.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, there are, as we speak, naval reservists from HMS “President” serving on board border patrol vessels but, unfortunately, they do not have the resources. Last year, I suggested that it would be very good for the reservists if we had about a dozen boats equivalent to the old-style MTB fast torpedo boat grade, with marine reservists on board, stationed at various small ports up and down the coast. The advantages would be that the populace would see that they were being protected and it would provide a role for the reservists. I am sure that the subject will come up in a major debate next week led by my noble friend Lord Howe, but does the Minister feel that this is worth pursuing?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can tell my noble friend that we take a very robust approach to maritime security. Border Force and partner agencies use a combination of cutters, radar, onshore assets and area surveillance to detect and stop small craft. We also work closely with domestic and international enforcement colleagues on an intelligence-led approach, allowing us to tackle the criminals involved before they leave for the UK. We have more cutters on order.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, 260 years ago tomorrow, Admiral Byng was shot for upsetting the Government. At the risk of falling into the same danger, the co-ordination of the very limited assets around our inshore waters—seven craft for the Border Force—is a complete and utter dog’s dinner. Does the Minister not agree that that there is a crying need to establish a command and control centre to co-ordinate action that the National Maritime Intelligence Centre provides, so that we can actually protect our inshore waters, because at the moment we are absolutely not doing that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can assure the noble Lord that I am not going to shoot him. The NMIC brings together 14 maritime security stakeholders to provide the UK with a unified picture of maritime threat around the UK and globally. As I think I pointed out in previous Questions, a multi-agency, multi-effort approach to intelligence and security and control of our borders is the way forward.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am sure that the Minister is aware that wildlife crime is another international illegal activity that feeds into all sorts of crimes here in the UK. The wildlife crime unit is always under pressure. Interpol takes it incredibly seriously: it has 30 officers. Are the British Government going to take it seriously as well, and not cut its budget?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The British Government do take it very seriously; in fact, I was watching last night, as I am sure that the noble Baroness was, the programme that is on at teatime on Sunday, which I think is called “Countryfile”. It was about the death of wildlife and some of the wildlife crime that goes on. Yes, the Government do take it very seriously indeed.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
During Oral Questions just over a month ago, I suggested that figures on the number of firearms illegally imported into the United Kingdom that are seized each year were not very meaningful without an estimate of the percentage of firearms illegally imported into the UK that are seized each year. I also asked whether we were seizing most firearms that are illegally imported, or only a very small percentage. On behalf of the Government, the Minister has since written to me to say that the information that I was seeking was,
“operationally sensitive and not suitable for release”.
Why is it operationally sensitive? I hope that it is not operationally sensitive because of the low percentage of firearms illegally imported into the UK that are seized each year. Certainly, withholding information is very helpful to the Government, since it means that they cannot easily be held to account for their failures, which were identified by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner last September, and to which my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey has already made reference. Will the Minister look again at the figures and information that the Government can provide on this issue? Governments should be able to be held to account.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Lord that Governments should be held to account, but I cannot give him the figures. I hope that he will understand that I simply cannot give him the figures. I was going to suggest that we meet, at some point, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, given his sustained interest in this subject. Perhaps we could talk through some of the issues that he is concerned about.
Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 16 January and 6 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft order laid before the House on 2 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Monday 13th March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 97-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report (PDF, 89KB) - (13 Mar 2017)
15:46 - Division on Amendment 144 - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 227 - Amendment 144 disagreed.
16:15 - Division on Amendment 145 - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 248 - Amendment 145 disagreed.
18:32 - Division on Amendment 150 - Ayes: 313 / Noes: 219 - Amendment 150 agreed.
Lord Sharkey
“Sharia-compliant student finance: progress reports
(1) The Secretary of State must publish on the Department for Education’s website, and must bring to the attention of schools in England and Wales as appropriate, a report which—(a) sets out progress towards the introduction of a scheme of Sharia-compliant student finance; and(b) provides an estimate of when such a scheme will be available for students entering tertiary education.(2) A report under subsection (1) must be published within one month of this section coming into force and must be updated quarterly thereafter. (3) Where any update provided under subsection (2) varies an estimate of when a scheme will be available, the Secretary of State must provide an explanation.”
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, Islamic law forbids interest-bearing loans and that prohibition can be a barrier to Muslim students going on to attend our universities. I first became aware of this when I visited the Preston Muslim Girls High School as part of the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme. I talked about the work of the House and I tried to answer the girls’ questions. There was one question that I could not answer: why was there no sharia-compliant system of student finance? Many of the girls came from very religious backgrounds and some would not be able to accept interest-bearing loans. This meant that they could not go to university. They were certainly qualified to go—Ofsted rates their school as outstanding on every measure. The headmaster explained to me that when tuition fees were low, many Muslim students were able to attend university, financed by family and friends. However, since 2012, this has become much more difficult given the current level of fees and the real rate of interest now payable on student loans. As the excellent impact assessment to the Bill notes, the situation worsened in 2016-17 when maintenance grants were replaced by interest-bearing loans. The Muslim community is disadvantaged by all this. The impact assessment says that:
“The unmet demand for student finance consistent with the principles of Islamic finance might mean that some would-be students may be prevented from participating in higher education on the basis of their religious beliefs”.
The coalition Government took this problem seriously. In 2014, a BIS consultation had an astounding 20,000 responses. In their response to the consultation, the Government’s conclusion was clear, saying that,
“the Government supports the introduction of a Sharia-compliant Takaful Alternative Finance product available to everyone”.
However, they added that:
“Given the complexity of these issues and the time needed to resolve them, it is unlikely that any Alternative Finance product could be available before academic year 2016/17”.
That was in September 2014. We are already into academic year 2016-17, and too far into it for any scheme to be available for academic year 2017-18. Worse, I have been told privately that the scheme will not be ready until academic year 2019-20. That is seven years after the problem was recognised, five years after a solution was agreed and two academic years from now. Muslim communities have been disadvantaged for five years and face the prospect of another two years of it.
In Committee, I tried to persuade the Government to accept a deadline of 2018-19 for the introduction of a sharia-compliant system. I chose that date because Islamic finance experts assured me that a Takaful system could be put in place from a standing start within eight to 12 months. Some of these experts had advised the Government on the introduction of a Takaful system and knew what it would take to get it up and running. The Government rejected the idea of a deadline without even hinting at what they thought might be an introductory date. However, the Minister was kind enough to meet me to discuss the situation. He and his officials made it clear that the Government were not prepared to accept any kind of deadline, nor did they give an estimate of when a sharia-compliant system might arrive. I repeated that I had been told that the problems with the Student Loans Company and HMRC were causing the delay and uncertainty, and that they had not assigned the scheme sufficient priority or sufficient resource. I explained again that prominent Islamic finance experts believe it should take no longer than eight to 12 months to put a system in place. These experts also point out that establishing the sharia-compliant help-to-buy guarantee scheme took only five or six months to develop and launch.
I also asked whether the department had told schools, and through them Muslim families, about the work going on around the Takaful system. The answer was no. The reason given was the desire to avoid raising expectations. I thought this was precisely the wrong answer. If the department had been in better touch with the Muslim community, it would have known that expectations had already been raised by David Cameron as long ago as 2013 when he spoke to the World Islamic Economic Forum in London and announced the arrangement of student finance on a sharia-compliant basis. That was four years ago. I thought that Muslim students, their families and communities had a right to know what progress was being made and when to expect a solution. That is why my amendment would require the Secretary of State to tell all relevant schools about the progress being made and to give an estimate of the likely date of availability.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I am in favour of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamic Finance. The APPG has recently reformed and is now an active body. I am also a volunteer patron of the Islamic Finance Council. I have long-standing experience of financial services and a strong connection with the City of London. I have promoted Islamic finance and attended numerous conferences in this country and abroad. I also used to be a visiting lecturer at various colleges and thus have a deep interest in the education and well-being of students.
Sharia-compliant student finance is one of many issues that fall within the scope of Islamic finance. The United Kingdom has the largest Islamic finance market outside the Muslim world. Its assets now exceed $20 billion. Worldwide, the Islamic finance sector is now valued at more than $2 trillion, with an annual growth rate of over 15%. We have in this country very competent accountants, solicitors, consultants and other professionals who can help foreign countries develop their Islamic financial structures. I have made this point twice in your Lordships’ House recently, including in the debate tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on the subject only last week. It is, however, incumbent on the UK to look at its own structures and address deficiencies wherever they may arise. Otherwise we will not be seen as a model for others to follow.
This brings me to the matter at hand. In 2013, the UK hosted the ninth World Islamic Economic Forum. It was the first time that the forum had been held outside the Islamic world, for which the UK drew great praise and admiration. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, spoke at the forum and stated that he would like London to be a great capital of Islamic finance in the western world. He made the further point that London proudly possesses the virtues of openness and innovation. Indeed, we need to be innovative to be a market leader in Islamic finance.
At the conference, Mr Cameron made three commitments on behalf of the Government: to issue a sovereign sukuk for around £200 million, to provide a sharia-compliant student loan scheme, and to arrange start-up loans for new businesses based on sharia principles. In the light of the first commitment, a sukuk for £200 million was issued. It was very successful and was oversubscribed by 10 times. It is important that we now deliver the second commitment: the arrangement of a sharia-compliant student loan.
It is four years since the commitment was made, so it is most overdue. David Cameron said:
“Never again should a Muslim in Britain feel unable to go to university because they cannot get a Student Loan—simply because of their religion”.
The Government continued to illustrate their commitment to this. In 2014, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills held a consultation on sharia-compliant student financing. In their response, the Government stated that they acknowledged its importance and supported the introduction of such a scheme. It is important that we now push ahead and make it available to students as soon as possible.
Increasingly, I find that many young Muslims wish to reconnect with their Islamic principles. With there being more than 300,000 full-time Muslim students today, it seems clear that this wish remains unfulfilled for some students without a sharia-compliant student finance scheme. The diversity of modern Britain must be reflected in all spheres of life in order to integrate the next generation of Muslims and other minorities with the rest of the population.
For the past four years, I have been asked by the high commissioner for Bangladesh to present awards to British Bangladeshi school leavers. The performance of these children has improved dramatically in recent years and this community is now performing exceptionally well at school. More of these children now wish to move on to higher education, thus increasing the number of Muslim students at our universities.
Today, funding a degree in the UK requires significant expenditure. Tuition fees combined with living expenses mean costs of at least £22,000 a year for the average student. Of course, studying in London will undoubtedly cost more. A student loan is therefore the only route to education for many people.
Let us be frank: a bright, young potential Muslim student may be forced to make an unfair choice—forgo their principles or opt out of going to university altogether. The lack of sharia-compliant loans therefore has a direct impact on the potentially life-changing decision for parents and potential students whether to continue into higher education. They simply do not want to get involved in interest-based loans that go against their faith-based principles. This can have wider implications. For example, as someone who has been involved in combating radicalisation, it is clear to me that education is a key tool to better integrate our communities and further enhance social cohesion.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure our world-class higher education sector remains financially sustainable, with an ability to invest in the excellent teaching that students expect. However, we must also give all young people, irrespective of their religious belief or racial origins, the opportunities to succeed and to study. By doing so we will encourage all communities to take an effective role in the advancement and well-being of our country. We want religious minority groups to be given the same chances as others so that they become valuable members of our society.
I add that sharia-compliant financing appeals beyond the Muslim community to those who simply desire a more ethical form of financing. In my experience, a number of non-Muslims have opted to take up Islamic financial products as a matter of principle. I have received letters and emails from leading Muslim organisations and community leaders who would like the Government to introduce sharia-compliant student finance arrangements. These letters have been received from the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain, the East London Mosque & London Muslim Centre, the London Central Mosque Trust Ltd & the Islamic Cultural Centre, Muslim Engagement and Development, and from the honourable Jaffer Kapasi OBE. I have passed copies of this correspondence to my noble friend the Minister.
Additionally, I have received a letter from Mr Mohammed Amin MBE, who is currently the chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum. He is a chartered accountant specialising in Islamic finance. Until his retirement, he was a partner and head of UK Islamic finance at PricewaterhouseCoopers. He is firmly of the view that it is possible for sharia-compliant arrangements for students to be introduced by autumn 2018. I also forwarded a copy of this letter to my noble friend the Minister.
While I fully support the development of a publicly available and regularly updated progress report as outlined in the amendments, I would prefer to get a commitment that a sharia-compliant student loan scheme will be available in the UK by autumn 2018. I very much appreciate that the Department for Education has opened a tender for consultants to bid to assist in the development of a sharia-compliant scheme for students. This tender was opened on 21 February and the closing date was 7 March 2017. While we welcome this step, we ask for a commitment that the scheme will be operational by autumn 2018. I and others are of the opinion that this is possible if there is a will to prioritise the project. On our side, we are very happy to provide any help and support that may be needed.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment and the powerful speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Sheikh. I am staggered to be reminded how long this has been going on for and the difficulty with which Government seem to be approaching this issue. Nothing should stand between the young and their education. I fear that the lack of a sharia-compliant scheme may bear particularly hard on young women. It is not unknown in communities such as my own Scots family for the men to get first crack at the money and the women to follow. It would not surprise me, I fear, were the same still the case.
The real point is that we can do sharia-compliant finance. Twenty years ago, when I was in the City, we did sharia-compliant finance and made money out of it. It strikes me as staggeringly ungracious of us not to have made the student loans scheme work when we have profited from similar schemes as a country. I support the amendment.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I also support the amendment. In doing so, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the recently set up APPG on Islamic Finance. As we all know from the 2011 census, it is recognised that more than 2 million Muslims live in this country and many of them would like sharia-compliant finances. Many of us must make compromises when such finances are not available and take interest-based finances. Particularly with student finances, where a scheme has in many ways already been agreed to go ahead, it is beyond my understanding why it has taken so long for the Government to complete the legislative process for it to be introduced.
The case for the amendment was made very well by my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen. I add only that when this sharia-supported Takaful scheme is introduced we need to make sure that it is available easily and to all Muslim and non-Muslim students who want to benefit from it. I am mindful of one other thing and ask the Government to bear it in mind: that the scheme does not become more expensive to students in any way. I have seen in some countries zero-interest-based finances which, in the small print, have built in various administration and handling charges and fees. At the end of the day, they become more or just as expensive as the interest-based schemes. I hope that the Government will at least make sure that this scheme does not become more expensive to students. With that, I urge the Government to complete the legislative process as quickly as possible to make the scheme available to students by the beginning of the next academic year, in 2018.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I was speaking to a Muslim friend this morning who has six young children. She and her husband take education extremely seriously; the children go to extra tuition. Families such as that will find it very difficult if a scheme is not put in place soon as far as choices are concerned for the children’s education. She was very excited to see such an amendment on the Marshalled List today. I hope it will be supported this afternoon.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support this amendment. I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Islamic Finance. I want simply to ask the Minister to reflect on what his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said in Committee as to why the Government could not give a timescale for this. She said:
“This careful, sensitive and important work cannot be rushed towards a deadline that is simply chosen and written into legislation. Our timeframes must be grounded in the realities of the work necessary to deliver a workable system”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 171.]
What are these realities which mean that not only is there inordinate delay but we do not even know how long the delay is likely to be? As we have heard, this is a relatively modest proposal. There is a lot of expertise which would enable it to take place. Can the Minister assure us that the real reason for the delay is not simply that there is such a shortage of staff in the relevant departments and so many other priorities, not least with Brexit, that the Government are not prepared to put Civil Service resources into getting this scheme off the ground?
If you were in a Muslim community it would be very easy to believe that the Government were not taking their commitments seriously in this respect because there is so little action to show. If the Minister is not prepared today to give a firm date for when the Government expect the scheme to be introduced, will he at least give his support to my noble friend Lord Sharkey’s amendment, which would bring some degree of limited certainty into the process?
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, I too will speak very briefly in favour of the amendment. It seems that there is no ideological objection to the proposal from the Government. What has happened is that it has lost priority. That loss of priority may be for perfectly innocent reasons but surely everyone recognises that it is capable of being misinterpreted adversely from the point of view of good relations in the United Kingdom. I simply urge the Government to restore it to the priority it had when it was first announced.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I have been encouraged to do so. First, I remind your Lordships of my interests as declared in the register: I am chairman of a sharia-compliant bank in London and therefore have some knowledge of the problems, but I have also spent my professional lifetime in sharia banking.
I encourage the Government to move ahead as rapidly as possible in providing these loans. Clearly, there are no real problems in doing so from a sharia point of view. All those problems are well understood and are easily addressed by conventional techniques in sharia banking. There are problems, however, in the way that the Bank of England treats those types of loans and in the way that the Treasury looks at them. I suggest that the Government really need to move ahead to resolve those issues as quickly as possible because the benefit to the Muslim community of providing these types of loans outweighs any difficulties I can see that the Government could face.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, with all the voices in accord around the Chamber it seems almost otiose for me to join in and add my support. I had a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, just after he had tabled his amendment; I suggested that it was a rather weak amendment and he ought to sharpen it up because I thought there would be a lot of interest around the House. I have been proved right in that, to the point where a vote would perhaps be sensible. I am sure his intention in speaking today is not to force a Division on the House because the arguments are so all-encompassing and completely unanswerable.
I hope the Minister will be able to make a firm commitment, as previously suggested: first, that he supports the intention of introducing this measure as quickly as possible; and, secondly, that he will not allow the apparent problems with the supply line to hold up the provision of sharia-compliant loans. After all, a touch of competition from those experts in the field who might be able to step in might be a way for the Government to get themselves out of the hole. But it is a very sorry tale. The idea that students who could benefit from these loans cannot because of a conflict between faith and their ability to operate within the system that is currently available seems so utterly shocking that it just needs the Government to say that it will change.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is to be commended for his continued work to emphasise the importance of the Government’s plans to put in place a viable system of alternative student finance. I know that he has had a useful discussion with the Minister, my honourable friend Jo Johnson, and my noble friend Lord Younger.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sheikh, who reminded us of the history of this commitment and the objectives of further opening access to higher education to more people who might be unable to access it at the moment. His points on the importance of Islamic finance in this country, particularly on the potential benefits of alternative student finance, are well made. We will consider carefully the correspondence that he has sent on to us. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, for reminding us of the adverse impact of the current regime on women, and to other noble Lords who came in on this debate.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, who is worried that this might be more expensive, I have looked quickly at page 53. Clause 82(7) would insert new subsection (11), which says that,
“the person making the regulations concerned, achieves a similar effect to a loan under this section”,
so the idea is that it should be neither more nor less expensive than the equivalent finance under a conventional student loan.
During debate in Committee, my noble friend sought to assure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to delivering alternative student finance. We are the first Government to legislate to make such alternative finance possible, and have legislated at the first opportunity. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has just reminded us there is no disagreement at all about the policy and the objective. Introducing alternative student finance is one of our priorities for the student finance system. We are working to expedite its delivery. We want this new alternative system to be available to students as soon as practicable. In response to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and other noble Lords, I can inform the House that subject to parliamentary processes, we are currently working towards it being open to applications from the first students within this Parliament.
I can see that there is interest in more information on our progress but I am afraid that a quarterly report, as required in the amendment, would be an unusual and unwarranted step. It would be onerous and, I suspect, of limited value to the people we are trying to support. The Bill is not the place to set out administrative processes around policy development; it is about the legislative framework needed to bring in alternative student finance. I am very happy to give an update on our progress here today, in the light of the clear interest shown. I have detected a note of impatience in the speeches we have heard this afternoon. Noble Lords will of course have an opportunity to hold the Government to account through the usual processes, whether by tabling questions or scrutinising the regulations that we intend to bring forward using the powers within the Bill.
Officials in the department are co-operating closely with counterparts in delivery partner organisations. Together, they are working through the requirements for the new alternative student finance system. We have started the process to engage dedicated experts in Islamic finance to work for the Government and support the detailed implementation of alternative student finance. We are also commissioning research that will explore the views of Muslim prospective students, and their non-Muslim peers, to help ensure that alternative student finance will meet their needs. I also assure noble Lords that we are actively considering how best to bring alternative student finance to the attention of prospective students in England in the run-up to its launch. We will want to ensure that we reach prospective students studying in a variety of settings, or indeed not currently studying at all.
It is only by working hard to develop and deliver complex and detailed plans that we will be able to meet our policy objective—a shared policy objective—of supporting participation in education. This careful, sensitive and important work has to be done properly first time. It takes time but I reassure all noble Lords who have spoken that it is one of our top priorities.
As a final point of reassurance, I note that in Amendment 208 the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has sought to ensure that his proposed new clause in Amendment 144 would be commenced on Royal Assent. I assure noble Lords that although the Government’s clauses enabling alternative student finance are to be commenced by regulations and not directly on Royal Assent, this is consistent with the rest of the Bill and should not in any way be considered as an impediment to the Government’s commitment to making alternative student finance available as soon as practical.
In light of the progress that I have set out here, and of the commitment that we have given about the timing of the introduction of this important new initiative, I hope that noble Lords will feel that a reporting clause in this legislation is not required. I therefore ask respectfully whether the noble Lord might withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. I am astonished by some of the Government’s response. The Minister said that this scheme will be open for applications before the end of the Parliament, but this Parliament ends in 2020. On the whole, the Government’s response takes insufficient account of the worries caused in the Muslim community by the uncertainty about the date of availability and of the perfectly understandable desire of the Muslim community to know what progress is being made. It gives no substantive explanation for the very long delay to date or the inability to get this work done in a reasonable time. The Government have offered no rebuttal of the Islamic finance experts’ view that with political will and proper resource we could have sharia-compliant student finance available for students going up to university in April 2018.
This is all extremely disappointing. We should do better. My amendment will at least let the Muslim community know what progress is being made and when to expect a solution to a problem that continues to disadvantage them and their children. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Financial support: loans
(1) In section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, after subsection (5) insert—“(5A) No provision may be made relating to the repayment of a loan that has been made available under this section which would change the repayment conditions of that loan once the first payment has been made to the borrower or directly to the institution to whom the borrower is liable to make payments.(5B) No provision may be made relating to the repayment of a loan that has been made available under this section, and under which any payments have been made prior to the commencement of section (financial support: loans) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, which would make any further changes to the repayment conditions of that loan after the commencement of that section.”(2) In section 8 of the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008 (consumer credit), for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) Loans made in accordance with regulations under section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 are to be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.””
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 145 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. Students beginning their university courses after 2012 were told that if they took out a student loan, they would be required to repay it at the rate of 9% of future earnings above £21,000 a year. The Government repeatedly promised that the £21,000 would be uprated each year from April 2017 in line with average earnings. Indeed, that was confirmed in a letter to parents by the then Minister for Universities and Science, who is now the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. That letter contained no caveats, so students and their families knew where they stood on repayment of their loans—at least, they thought they did until the 2015 Autumn Statement, when the then Chancellor announced that the repayment threshold for student loans was to be frozen at £21,000 from April 2017, instead of being uprated in line with average earnings.
This is fundamentally a question of broken faith: of trusting what the Government say proving ill founded. Quite apart from the substantive issue in the amendment, that question of trust is, we believe, far from insignificant.
This issue is being revisited following debate in Committee, when the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, used his ministerial experience to explain that when the decision was taken in 2011 to freeze the repayment threshold, the figure was based on 75% of projected average earnings in 2017. Earnings in the intervening period having risen by less than anticipated, the noble Lord told us that,
“as a result … the repayment threshold has become significantly more generous relative to earnings than we expected when we set it”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 729.]
Unfortunately, that possibility was not mentioned in his aforementioned letter to parents.
By the logic of that argument, had earnings risen more than anticipated, students would be facing an increased threshold next month. Noble Lords will forgive me if I cast some doubt on that being allowed to occur. Nor should it, because an agreement is an agreement and should be respected as such by both sides. The Government’s action amounts to breach of a contract, with one party unilaterally changing the terms of the student loan. In any other context, it would be open to legal action to have the contract enforced and that action would succeed.
When the Bill was considered in the other place, the Minister for Universities and Science, Mr Johnson, called on universities to redouble their efforts to boost social mobility. He was right in his exhortation, although wrong to suggest it was solely the responsibility of institutions. When Labour left office in 2010, 71% of state educated pupils went to university. By 2014, that figure had fallen to 62%. This change will have a disproportionate impact on graduates on modest incomes and will act as a disincentive to young people from less well-off backgrounds to take up a place at university, because they will know that a previous cohort of students were misled by the Government over the repayment term of their loans. The parents of that cohort were also misled, and some of the financial impact may well follow them.
Amendment 145 would prevent any changes to the repayment of a student loan, irrespective of whether that benefited students, after the terms and conditions of repayment had been agreed. This would apply to existing loans after the commencement of the Act and ensure that such a situation would not recur by bringing loans under the regulation of the Consumer Credit Act 1974—which, many people were surprised to learn, does not apply at the moment.
Some regulation of the student loan market is needed to provide the protection that students need. In replying for the Government in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, told noble Lords:
“On the matter of student loan terms and conditions, I share your Lordships’ desire to ensure that students are protected ... However, it is important that … the Government retain the power to adjust terms and conditions”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 732.]
How are those two statements capable of reconciliation? They are not, because only the Government are protected, not students—the very people that the Minister has consistently said throughout our deliberations are at the heart of this legislation. The unilateral reneging on loan agreements demonstrates that in fact, students’ interests can be dispensed with whenever the Government deem it necessary. That is unacceptable and is one more reason why the amendment should be adopted as a new clause. I beg to move.
Lord Willetts (Con)
I shall very briefly comment, as I have had my arguments referred to by the noble Lord opposite. The graduate repayment scheme is neither conventional public spending, nor is it a commercial loan. All three parties, when faced with the question of how you finance higher education, have concluded that the best way forward is through such an arrangement. If it is public spending, it will be a low priority, and the funding of universities will suffer. If it is a commercial loan, which now appears to be what the Labour Opposition are calling for, and if we really were to have it regulated under the terms of the convention on private loans, one of the first requirements would be the requirement to know your customer—to make an assessment of an individual recipient to see whether they have the capacity to repay a student loan. The agencies would have to decide whether to lend to any one individual or not, and disadvantaged students would certainly lose out from such an assessment. That is why this scheme is a midway house between two unpalatable alternatives, and why all three parties have backed it.
As part of that arrangement, it seems legitimate that Governments should be able to decide—I have always thought every five years, in an explicit public review—the balance between repayments by graduates and the remaining burden being borne by the generality of taxpayers, as the loans are paid off. That seems a sensible arrangement, bringing necessary flexibility into the system, and it is why it has always been made clear to students that Governments have the right to change the repayment terms as they wish. That seems a sensible feature—and if we go down the route of treating it like a private contract and repayment, it will have consequences which all of us in this House, particularly the party opposite, will come to regret.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that students should be entitled to protection when they take out student loans. Protections are already available in law and take account of the particular nature of these loans. Student loans are not like the commercial loans of the sort regulated under the Consumer Credit Act; they are not for profit and are universally accessible. Repayments depend on the borrower’s income, not on the amount borrowed, and the interest rate is limited by legislation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willetts for summarising the excellent speech that he made on this subject in Committee, and putting forward powerful reasons for not treating these as commercial loans.
I turn first to the issue of the threshold freeze. To put higher education funding on to a more sustainable footing, we had to ask those who benefit from university to meet more of the costs of their studies. This enabled us to remove the cap on student numbers, enabling more people to get the benefit of a university education. When the current system was first introduced, the threshold of £21,000 would have been around 75% of the projected average earnings in 2016. Since then, updated calculations, based on ONS figures for earnings, show that figure is now 83%, reflecting weaker than expected earnings growth since 2012. Uprating the repayment threshold in line with average earnings would cost around £5 billion in total by April 2021 compared with the current system. The total cost of uprating by CPI would be around £4 billion over the same period. The proportion of borrowers liable to repay when the £21,000 threshold took effect in April is therefore significantly lower than could have been envisaged when the policy was originally introduced. The threshold would now be set at around £19,000 if it were to reflect the same ratio of average earnings. The current £21,000 threshold remains higher than the £17,495 threshold that applies to loans taken out under the system left behind by Labour in 2010. Low earners remain protected. Borrowers who earn less than £21,000 a year repay nothing, while borrowers earning more than this repay 9% of their earnings above the threshold, irrespective of how much they borrowed. Any outstanding balance on the loans is written off after 30 years with no detriment to the borrower and no effect on their credit rating. This Bill makes no changes to any of these arrangements.
It is important that, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the Government retain the power to adjust the terms and conditions of student loans. As I said a moment ago, I fully share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that students are protected and that is why the loan terms are set out in legislation.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
If the situation had been reversed, and earnings had risen by more than had been anticipated, would the Government’s ability to vary the loans have been carried out in a manner which benefited students, rather than as has happened on this occasion?
Lord Young of Cookham
Perversely, the noble Lord’s amendment would prevent the Government making any changes to the loan agreement that would favour the borrower. In other words, one of the effects of the amendment would be that we would not be able to alter the terms to the advantage of the borrower if the situation changed.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
As I said earlier, that is what the amendment is designed to do. The point is, when you reach an agreement you stick by it; you do not vary it either way. I am certainly not advocating that it should be varied the other way. My question was whether the noble Lord and his Government would be prepared to vary it the other way, had earnings risen by more than had been anticipated.
Lord Young of Cookham
My response was that we would not be allowed to under the terms of the amendment. We have flexibility, which the noble Lord would deny us. The amendment would mean that future cohorts of students and taxpayers would have to bear the risks of the scheme, because it would insulate current students from any change. Perhaps that is why the Labour Party did not legislate to prohibit changes to the terms and conditions of existing loans when they introduced the system of income-contingent loans in the late 1990s. As I said, his amendment would prevent the Government making any change to the loan agreement that would favour the borrower, were this ever to be necessary.
It is also important that the Government should continue to be able to make necessary administrative amendments to the terms and conditions to ensure that the loans can continue to be collected efficiently. An example of this was the repayment regulations having to be amended in 2012 to accommodate HMRC moving to an electronic system to collect PAYE income tax through employers. Not being able to make this type of technical change to the regulations would eventually affect our ability to collect repayments through the tax system.
Having reflected on the question that the noble Lord asked me twice, the best answer is that I am reluctant to comment on a hypothetical question.
I turn to the regulation of student loans. The current student loan system is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, and is universally accessible to all eligible students regardless of their financial circumstances. As my noble friend has just reminded us, taking out a student loan is in no way the same as taking out a commercial loan, and it should not be regulated as if it was. This fact was recognised by Labour when it legislated to confirm this exemption in 2008.
The key terms and conditions are set out in legislation and are subject to the scrutiny and oversight of Parliament. Extending a system of regulation designed to regulate a competitive market in personal finance to a system of subsidised loans whose terms are set by Parliament would be impractical, expensive and fundamentally ill conceived. The additional costs of the regulation would need to borne by borrowers and taxpayers and would not be in their interests.
I return to the point that this is a heavily subsidised government loan scheme, and it remains right that Parliament should continue to have the final say on the loan terms and conditions, as it is best placed to balance the interests of taxpayers, borrowers and students. We are committed to a sustainable and fair student funding system. Our system allows the Government, through these subsidised loans, to make a conscious investment in the skills of our citizens. We are seeing more young people going to university than ever before, and record numbers of 18 year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our funding system has enabled us to lift the cap on student numbers and, with it, the cap on aspiration.
I hope that this addresses the concerns raised by the noble Lord, and I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 145.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Some of his comments about the Government’s commitment to student loans would have carried more weight had they extended as far as sharia-compliant loans; we know from the previous debate that that is not the case. Although I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, he did not address the major point of this amendment: challenging the fact that the Government have changed the rules of the game after the game has begun, leaving a huge number of students worse off financially as a result of their actions. That is not acceptable. I have heard nothing from the Minister that suggests that the Government regret the move that they have made. In fact, they have said quite clearly that it was done for financial reasons. Those financial reasons are impacting on students. We believe that is unacceptable, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Unincorporated higher education providers: financial support
Students enrolled on a course provided by a higher education provider that is not incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom do not qualify for publicly funded student support.”
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to try to help to ensure that higher education providers, including new ones, have adequate standards of governance, and in particular standards that support the integrity of the student loans scheme. The intention of the Bill is to permit a wider range of higher education providers to offer university education in England.
The novel term “English higher education provider” has a capricious definition: it is simply an organisation that offers higher education in England. It could be a public body, a charitable body, a company limited by guarantee or a for-profit company. It could also be an organisation with a single proprietor. In our debates so far, we have tended to speak of such providers as having governing bodies. This can sound reassuring and familiar, but there is nothing yet in the Bill that requires an English higher education provider to have a governing body that meets specified standards, let alone UK standards. The term “English higher education provider” is therefore somewhat misleading. We would not, I think, speak of a Chinese textile company that sells cotton t-shirts and socks here as an English cotton clothing provider. However, the English higher education providers that the Bill envisages are to count as English merely if this is a market for which they provide something.
We all hope the new entrants that the Bill when enacted may attract will offer high-quality university courses—ideally, courses that are not sufficiently available in the current spectrum of UK university offerings. For example, we might hope that some new providers would offer the quality of undergraduate education that the best American liberal arts colleges or the best technical universities in Germany or Switzerland offer. However, I think that that is very unlikely. The cost base for these institutions is extremely high. The US liberal arts colleges—I have in my time taught on five well-known undergraduate programmes of that type—require a four-year degree and charge extremely high fees. These institutions are typically part-supported by endowment funding and could not function without it. The cost of STEM provision, such as that offered by technical universities in Germany or Switzerland, is evidently also high, as it is for their counterparts here. Such institutions are not likely to see a ready market for their standard offering here, particularly as there would be very high competition from the best existing UK institutions.
At most, such institutions might offer a restricted, downmarket set of courses only in subjects that are cheap to teach but whose graduates are assumed to be well paid—typically law, business, accountancy or subfields of these. That approach to their franchised overseas provision has been taken in other jurisdictions by some prestigious US institutions. However, I am not going to name names, because I think that that would be unfair.
The major risk is that institutions of quite other sorts would seek to enter the market to provide higher education in England, lured by the prospect that their students might have access to publicly funded tuition loans. At present, somewhat surprisingly, there is nothing to ensure that those who seek to provide higher education will have even adequate, let alone high, standards of governance. We have talked rather cosily about the governing bodies of higher education providers, but that need not be the situation. Noble Lords who followed the story of the collapse of Trump University and the compensation settlement that was reached a few months ago will recognise the sort of risk that I am talking about. Noble Lords who have not yet had the enjoyment of following the gory story might start with Wikipedia. It is not an edifying tale.
The amendment seeks to address this problem by requiring incorporation under UK law for any English higher education provider whose students may gain access to publicly funded tuition loans. This requirement would allow the Office for Students to discover something about the governance, and therefore the finances, of any would-be English higher education provider that hopes to franchise its offerings in the UK. The OfS might even be minded to set a fit-and-proper person standard for members of such governing bodies and university leaders. We do this for banks; should we do less for universities? I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this is a golden thread in our debate that has been pursued with considerable vigour by the noble Baroness, who has on every occasion, I think, asked difficult questions. In fact, she has been quite free with her favours, asking questions of me and of other noble Lords around the whole Chamber when we have failed to measure up to her high standards of accuracy and precision when mentioning the words “English”, “higher” and “education” in sequence.
Here we are at the crunch point. The noble Baroness has put down a very specific amendment that would have quite strong repercussions for any body attempting to recruit English higher education students, because along with students comes public money. The main argument as I take it—and we look forward to hearing about it from the Minister—is that we are risking public money on bodies when we have no certain knowledge about where and how they are incorporated and what rights and responsibilities they have to the students. She could have mentioned several other areas and it is important to get them on the record. Under the Consumer Rights Act, students are owed a duty of care by the providers of their course. Specific issues must be supplied by the institutions and remedies for students lie in legal protections, which would be exercised in court. If the bodies are not incorporated in the UK, how are they going to manage that? I think the Minister should respond to that in a positive way.
We are also concerned with insolvency issues. It is quite interesting and instructive that most of the Technical and Further Education Bill—which is accompanying this Bill through Parliament—is taken up with measures that apply if a college of further education goes into insolvency or is wound up. There is a special education administration regime with particular powers for the insolvency practitioner appointed to ensure that students rank above all other creditors and that their courses will continue, if possible, or be transferred to a similar institution if not. Creditors, who in insolvency law—as I am sure your Lordships’ House is well aware—are normally given primacy, are relegated to second place. We have no such system for higher education institutions in the UK. There is therefore no provision for what happens when a private company, in particular, decides it no longer wishes to teach its students. Where will the students seek redress? The cases mentioned by the noble Baroness are relevant in this jurisdiction as well as abroad. It will be very interesting to see how students will recover their loans and their opportunities if there is no incorporation which allows them to do so.
We are discussing this when there has been a change of ownership of a very distinguished private provider, BPP. That situation is not nearly so dire as the one I have been discussing but nevertheless reflects a very major arrangement. The ownership has changed. The senior management have decided to not continue and there is still uncertainty about how the overall firm will be run. This is a real situation involving large numbers of students, lots of money and very difficult legal and jurisprudential positions.
The Government are taking this seriously. I had a letter delivered to my hand as I walked into the Chamber. It deals in four pages with some of the issues that the noble Baroness raised. I am not in any sense wanting to make slight of the letter because it is useful to have it on the record, but the Government seem to be broadly of the view that the existing arrangements under which the Office for Students—surely we will be shortly be calling it the Office for Higher Education, as we prefer—will have responsibilities under the registration and degree-awarding powers will make sure that nothing untoward happens. That is not sufficient. We need greater certainty about what institutions are responsible for our students, how they are responsible, in what way they are incorporated and what the legal position is.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, but I do not think that he will be able to measure up to some of the very strong critiques that have been made so far.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has pointed out, we are in the strange position where one has far greater protection if one is studying for a higher education qualification in a further education college than if one is in a university, because there are very clear requirements, now going through this House, for what should happen if that institution becomes insolvent.
This issue has been raised on a number of occasions in this Chamber, where it has been argued that, although the Government have committed to a protection regime for students in higher education, it is not very clear or demanding, as far as we can tell. The amendment goes a step further, because it draws attention, as have my noble friend Lady O’Neill and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to a situation in which, over and above issues relating to the institution delivering the education, there is an issue of ownership. It may mean that, in extreme situations, it is unclear where students would seek redress, never mind how.
The Government are aware of the new issues that have come about as a result of creating a sector in which providers can be bought and sold. In 2015, they asked HEFCE to look at this issue and, as a result, there are now some new regulations about the treatment of degree-awarding powers in the event of a change of ownership or legal status. In that situation, HEFCE must discuss the potential implications for degree-awarding powers, including continued eligibility to hold them, and must be assured that the original institution that was awarded the powers is in substance the same institution in spite of the change of ownership. That is what is happening with BPP at the moment and there is no reason to suppose that the institution will not continue to be a distinguished provider of higher education.
I think that everybody in the sector who is providing good-quality education, whether they are private or not for profit, would agree with that. However, what the regulations do not get to the heart of is how, if an institution is owned by a company or body overseas—it may be somebody who has taken the entire institution into private ownership—the OfS will be confident that it can make sure that the institution complies with the conditions of registration. An institution may change hands regularly—I give the example of the University of Law, which in the three years after it moved from being not for profit to being a for-profit company changed hands twice. How in that situation will we operate if we find that students are in effect left without not only the institution in which they enrolled but any clearly identifiable body to which they can have recourse and which the OfS can—bluntly—bring to court and demand that it do what it should do?
This is a major issue. The amendment would make sure that there was a body to which students and the Government could address themselves if a catastrophic event, which I am sure would be extremely rare, occurred. Setting up a subsidiary company in this country is generally not a very complicated or time-consuming affair. It cannot be beyond the power of the Government and it would not distort the underlying objective of the Bill to ensure that any institution offering higher education to students receiving loans subsidised by the taxpayer is clearly identifiable in the case of students being left without an education and creditors being left without obvious recourse.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
My Lords, I support the amendment. That may come as a faint surprise as I am chancellor of BPP University, the ownership of which is sort of changing—our old owners have become our new owners. We do not expect it to lead to instability. Our vice-chancellor will be replaced by a new vice-chancellor who has been there for a very long time. I am staying as chancellor and the chairman of the academic council is also staying. Above all, this is why I support the amendment with perfect confidence: we are a regulated university. We are a for-profit university, but what we may do with our profits is strictly limited.
We are limited as to what fees we can charge and we expect it to stay that way. We may charge only £5,000 a year for an undergraduate degree, unless it is a two-year degree, in which case we are allowed to charge £6,000. None of that is expected to change, nor could we change it unilaterally. This is because the present regime for those of us registered in England is extremely secure. I support any amendment that would keep the regime as secure as it currently is. This amendment is right—we fall into it and will continue to fall into it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I wonder to what extent this amendment focuses on the general questions that have been raised. As I understand it, the amendment focuses on whether students at a particular institution should be eligible for loans. If an American university, or some other foreign university, set up a campus here, would the amendment provide that students at such a campus will not be eligible for student loans? I am not certain whether they would be.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Government want to provide students with options and choice, and to enable them to pursue the path through higher education that is best for them. We want a globally competitive market that supports diversity, where providers that demonstrate that they have the potential to offer excellent teaching and can clear our high quality bar can compete on a level playing field. To deliver that competitive market, we are introducing through the Bill a single, simple regulatory system appropriate for all providers, with a single route to entry and, for the first time, a risk-based approach to regulation.
It is through imposing conditions of registration that are directly linked to risks that we are able to improve and strengthen regulation of the sector. The Bill will enable us to go further than ever before and protect against the very issues that I know noble Lords are concerned about, in that, for the first time, we can focus attention where it is needed, rather than having the current one-size-fits-all approach. This means we do not have to take such a blanket approach as proposed by the amendment, which would automatically exclude potentially excellent providers.
Let me be absolutely clear: we are talking about providers which are carrying out their activities principally in England, so inevitably there will be a presence of some kind in England. Although each case will depend on its own facts, in determining where a provider carries out its activities, questions such as where the provider’s management activities take place, where its courses are designed, where course material is prepared, and where supervision, marking or other evaluation takes place, will need to be considered. It is not simply a matter of where students are studying.
Clauses 4 and 79 are clear that only those providers which carry on, or intend to carry on, their activities wholly or principally in England can successfully apply for registration. Only registered higher education providers can benefit from their students having access to student support. While there is no requirement in the Bill that providers must be incorporated in the United Kingdom, this does not mean that the Bill has inadequate safeguards in respect of foreign-established registered providers. If, following its assessment of risk, the OfS considers that particular risks arising from the fact that a provider is incorporated outside the United Kingdom need to be addressed, these will be mitigated through the imposition of specific registration conditions.
I can commit today that the Government will give clear guidance to the OfS about carrying out its risk assessment in the case of providers that are not incorporated in the UK, and outlining factors for the OfS to consider and address when it decides what registration conditions to apply to these providers. As an example, the OfS will need a clear understanding of how it can effectively regulate this sort of provider, backed up through registration conditions where appropriate. This will include understanding how the necessary verifications on matters such as quality and financial sustainability can take place before a provider can be granted entry to the register, as well as how effective enforcement action can be brought by the OfS and how students’ complaints can be dealt with.
To provide some specifics, it will be open to the OfS to seek financial guarantees from parent or holding companies so that it may have sufficient confidence that the provider can deliver ongoing high-quality provision. As happens now, we would expect the designated quality body to have in place arrangements with overseas quality assurance bodies to share information about higher education providers operating in their respective jurisdictions. It is also open to the OfS, through Clause 15, to impose a public interest governance condition on registered higher education providers that requires the provider’s governing documents to be consistent with public interest principles listed by the OfS. The list must include, but is not limited to, the principle that all academic staff have the freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves at risk of losing their jobs or privileges.
Furthermore, it is clear that in respect of a registered higher education provider’s activities in England and Wales, the applicable law will be that in the Higher Education and Research Bill, and other relevant English and Welsh law. For example, its activities in England will be subject to the relevant applicable law as it applies in England, such as tax and equalities legislation. It is not necessary for a provider to be incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom for English courts to have jurisdiction. It is worth noting that English higher education providers operating overseas are not subject to restrictions that relate to where they are incorporated. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, hinted at this in his speech. If we were to unilaterally impose such restrictions this could be seen as a barrier to free trade and consequently there is a real risk that other countries might retaliate. This risks damaging a valuable export industry for the UK.
We must also be mindful that until we exit the EU we should not legislate in a way that conflicts with EU law. A requirement that a provider is incorporated in the UK may breach EU law on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. As such, we do not believe that there is any benefit to be gained from insisting on a requirement that registered higher education providers are incorporated in England and Wales or another part of the United Kingdom.
I hope the House will bear with me while I speak briefly about a slightly different issue before I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn. We have been looking again at Clause 114, on the pre-commencement consultation. Noble Lords will recall that this enables the Office for Students to rely on consultations carried out by the Secretary of State, the Director of Fair Access or HEFCE before the OfS has the power or duty to do so. Where the power or duty would, once it exists, require the OfS to consult registered higher education providers, we want it to be as clear as possible that the Secretary of State, the Director of Fair Access or HEFCE may satisfy this requirement by consulting an appropriate range of English higher education providers before any such providers have been registered. To this end, the Government undertake to bring forward at Third Reading a minor and technical amendment to provide that clarity. I hope that Amendment 146 will therefore be withdrawn.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and I thank the Minister for taking the time to give a detailed and, I think, useful reply. The issue may not be just incorporation. However, some franchise operations will leave the student in the other jurisdiction with remarkably slender forms of redress. That is the fundamental issue.
I will withdraw the amendment at this stage but I hope to bring back an improved amendment at Third Reading and, if possible, to have conversations with the Minister before then. This is a problem that I am sure we would all wish to get right and it is not clear to me that the elastic definition of “English higher education provider” plus great faith in the regulatory competence of the OfS are sufficient. We have all known the happy thought that a free market provided with a capacious regulator will deliver everything that is desired. The experience of the past 30 years has not borne that out so we need to take due care. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Access to support for students recognised as needing protection
(1) Within six months from the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for financial support for higher education courses to be offered to students with certain immigration statuses.(2) The regulations specified in subsection (1) must include, but need not be restricted to, provision for—(a) persons granted humanitarian protection and their family members; and(b) persons who have been brought to the United Kingdom under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme, or any equivalent scheme, and their family members to be eligible for the support set out in subsection (3).(3) The support set out in this subsection is—(a) home fees for a higher education course, if they have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom since being granted leave, and(b) student loans for a higher education course, if they have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom since being granted leave, and are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of the first academic term of that course.(4) In this section—“home fees” means fees for a higher education course charged to persons considered as “qualifying persons” under regulations made under the Higher Education Act 2004;“student loans” means loans made to students in connection with their undertaking of a higher education course under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998.”
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, an amendment on this topic was put before the House in Committee. I have now had it reworded to take account of the Minister’s objections on that occasion. Essentially, the amendment concerns access to student support for higher education for people who are either refugees or have humanitarian status.
In fact, people with refugee status are eligible for this support and they do not have to wait three years to receive it. The anomaly concerns people who have come here under what is called humanitarian protection—mainly, but not all, Syrians who have come under the vulnerable persons scheme—and if they wish to get student support for access to higher education they have to wait three years. That is a pretty long time for people whose education may already have been harmed by what happened in their lives before they got to this country.
In every other respect, those with humanitarian protection have the same rights as those who have refugee status. Refugee status comes under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, whereas, as I understand it, humanitarian protection comes under domestic and EU law. But it is only in not having to wait three years if you have refugee status that there is a difference between the two. That is surely an anomaly. To make things even worse, the position in Scotland is better than it is here. I am not sure that this is a day when I should refer to Scotland in glowing terms, but certainly they do better there.
I hope the Government will look at this. I think it requires a statutory instrument to put this right. I am concerned both about people who are already here and are waiting to get access to higher education and about people who will come here in the future. In the year to September 2016, there were nearly 2,000 decisions about Syrian nationals but only three grants of humanitarian protection; virtually all the rest got refugee status. So we are talking about people who are suffering from a couple of anomalies. One is that if they come with humanitarian protection they have difficulty getting access to higher education. If they can only get refugee status, that will all be sorted out.
I am optimistic that the Government will move. I had a meeting with the Home Secretary, at her request, earlier this afternoon. I was left with a feeling of hope and optimism. I did check that it was all right for me to mention the meeting. I hope I am not excessively optimistic about this, but if the Government speak with one voice I hope to hear that voice reflected in what the Minister says in response to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to say how much I appreciate the fact that my noble friend has moved this amendment. He referred to the anomaly. In view of what he says about his meeting with the Home Secretary, I hesitate to make this point, but I disagree with him—I say that it is unworthy rather than an anomaly. He says he hopes the Government will look at it. It seems the Government are looking at it, and I congratulate my noble friend on having got it this far.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I will not repeat what I said in Committee other than to emphasise the importance of the amendment for promoting the integration of young people who have been granted humanitarian protection.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, responded that this issue,
“is already addressed within the student support regulations”—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 725]
in that, as we have heard, this group is eligible to obtain student support and have home fee status after three years’ residence. But he then acknowledged that those with refugee status are allowed to access student support immediately, and the implication seemed to be that three years is really not that long to wait. Three years may not be very long for us older people, but for a young person it is a lifetime. As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, to a young person in this situation three years is absolutely crucial.
The Minister also said that people with humanitarian protection under the Syrian resettlement scheme,
“are not precluded from applying for refugee status if they consider they meet the criteria”,—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 725.]
as if this was a straightforward thing for a young person to do. Neither the noble Viscount nor the Minister in the Commons would provide us with a satisfactory explanation for denying this group of young people access to higher education without a three-year wait, which, as I said, could feel like a lifetime.
I am encouraged by what my noble friend Lord Dubs said about what the Home Secretary has said. I would like once more to press the Government, through the Minister, to look again at the issue more generally, and I hope that part of the conversation with the Home Secretary was about this. There are one or two other ways in which humanitarian protection does not provide the same rights as refugee status. I know that this is being looked at in government, as I have been having a go at it in a number of ways. In answer to an Oral Question of mine a while ago, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, pointed out that the reason for humanitarian protection for the Syrian resettlement scheme is to enable them to move very quickly. I can understand that but, once they are here, surely it would be possible to review the situation and see whether full refugee status can be granted once the paperwork and everything can be looked at.
I hope that the Government will look at this. They say that they are looking at it, but nothing ever seems to happen. In the meantime, this amendment is the very least we can do to help this vulnerable group of young people to fulfil their potential and build a future in our country.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, having checked with my noble friend Lady Garden, I can say from these Benches that we support this amendment. The Minister referred at the last stage to keeping the issue under active review. I was going to ask what that meant and whether there had been any activation since.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has to be optimistic. We all do, because it would be very depressing if one could not be optimistic on this subject; one would so rapidly go downhill on it. He referred to the situation as an anomaly. Indeed it is, as well as being intrinsically important. Only very small numbers of people must be affected by this, given the numbers who have humanitarian protection and those who might seek university education. I am quite puzzled as to what three years’ residence proves and what relevance it should have to an entitlement to that education or the ability to profit from a course.
As so often when we talk about higher education, the Bill has been a basis for our referring to the soft power of international links through higher education and so on, and to the contribution to the UK’s economy as a result of people benefiting from higher education. This cohort of people would contribute to the UK in just the same way as a result of it, and be one of those further links in good international relations. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has brought the matter back, and I look forward to some good news.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I think that we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for bringing back this amendment in an amended form. We should also credit the Minister for arranging a meeting with his counterpart in the Home Office, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, which was extremely helpful in identifying two things that allowed us to make progress. One was that the original drafting seemed to imply a much larger number and a much larger problem than could have been resolved within the scope of the clause as originally proposed and amended. After a very good discussion, we were able to get that down to a very narrow point. It seemed to be a point of considerable unfairness in relation to the people whom my noble friend mentioned. I also thank the Home Secretary, to whom reference has been made, for taking the trouble to see my noble friend Lord Dubs today to make sure that he understood the context within which the decision, which we hope to hear shortly, has been made.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for bringing forward this amendment and, with others, I commend him for his tireless campaign on behalf of a group of vulnerable people. This is an important issue and our short debate today, coupled with our debate in Committee, have demonstrated wide support and compassion for those who seek our protection. The UK has a long and proud history of offering sanctuary to those who genuinely need it. The Government take our responsibility in asylum cases very seriously.
Those who come to this country and obtain international protection are able to access student support and home fee status. Uniquely, those who have been granted refugee status and their family members are allowed access to immediate and full support. This includes access to tuition fee loans, living costs support and home fee status at higher education institutions. This is a privilege not extended to others, including UK nationals who have lived overseas for a few years or EEA nationals, all of whom need to have lawfully resided within the EEA for at least three years prior to commencing study.
The requirement for three years’ lawful residence was put before the Supreme Court only two years ago, in the case of Tigere. The Supreme Court upheld as fully justified the Government’s policy of requiring three years’ ordinary residence in the UK prior to starting a course. The Supreme Court also upheld the Government’s case that it was legitimate to target substantial taxpayer subsidy of student loans on those who are likely to remain in this country indefinitely so that the general public benefits of their tertiary education will benefit the country.
Noble Lords have expressed sympathy and compassion for people who have entered the UK under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme who are currently granted humanitarian protection. The Government share that sympathy and have taken a number of actions to support those on the scheme. The Government are not persuaded of the need to treat persons given humanitarian protection more favourably than UK nationals for the purpose of student support. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised some wider issues, and I confirm that we are looking at them in the round.
UK nationals arriving from overseas must wait three years before accessing student support, regardless of their personal circumstances, and so must nationals of British Overseas Territories. That is not a lack of compassion but a fair, objective and non-discriminatory rule to demonstrate the lasting connection to the UK upheld by the Supreme Court in the Tigere case.
Turning to the specific group whose cause the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has championed, I know that the Home Secretary has met him to discuss how we can progress the issue of access to higher education and that she shares my sympathy for the matters presented by the noble Lord. The Government understand the importance of accessing higher education as soon as possible for those on the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme and are looking very carefully at this issue. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot say more than that today. I know that he will continue to engage with the Home Office on this issue over the coming weeks to resolve some of the complexities in the determination of refugee status to safeguard the UK’s proud history of offering sanctuary to those who genuinely need it.
I was not at the meeting which the noble Lord attended earlier today, but if he came away from that meeting with a spirit of hope and optimism, it is no purpose of mine to do anything to take away from that. In the light of the ongoing discussions that are under way with the Home Office, and against a background of the spirit of hope and optimism mentioned by noble Lords, I hope that the noble Lord might feel that this is not an amendment that should be pressed to a Division at this stage.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I hope I have not gone over the top in my sense of optimism. It is not something I normally do in relation to this Government, and I have had experience to the contrary on other, related issues. However, I take a little bit of comfort from what the Minister said. I took more comfort in my earlier meeting today, but that is not on the record for our debate now. However, the Government speak with one voice, both privately and publicly, and I am hopeful that they will be able to deal before too long with what is an acknowledged anomaly.
It is unfair that if people who have missed out on education and had enormous difficulties in their life want to make some sense of their life, they have to wait three years to access higher education. It is an appallingly long time. What are they supposed to do in those three years—sit at home and watch television? It is a real indictment when these people want to move forward. I accept that other groups are also penalised in this way—they should be looked at in the same way—but if people are going to make a positive contribution to this country, it is right that we should not withhold higher education from them. That way, they can make a much bigger and more positive contribution to this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment—but on the understanding that, at intervals, the Government will let us know how they are getting on with looking at this.
“Students and academic staff at higher education providers
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to encourage international students to attend higher education providers covered by this Act, and UKRI must take every possible opportunity to encourage and facilitate the maximum co-operation between British higher education and research establishments and those based outside the UK, in particular with projects and programmes funded by the European Union.(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that no student, either undergraduate or postgraduate, who has received an offer to study at such a higher education provider, be treated for public policy purposes as a long term migrant to the UK, for the duration of their studies at such an establishment.(3) Persons, who are not British citizens, who receive an offer to study as an undergraduate or postgraduate, or who receive an offer of employment as a member of academic staff at a higher education provider, shall not, in respect of that course of study, or that employment, be subject to more restrictive immigration controls or conditions than were in force for a person in their position on the day on which this Act was passed.”
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 150 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Garden of Frognal, and of the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, whose absence from the Chamber today, due to a health problem, both he and I deeply regret. When we debated these issues relating to overseas students, academic staff and global research co-operation in Committee, there were four amendments in my name. It has now been possible to telescope them into one, Amendment 150, which we are discussing now.
In summary, the amendment, first, places a duty on the Secretary of State to encourage overseas students to come here for their higher education. Secondly, it urges UKRI, the new organisation co-ordinating research, to encourage and facilitate the maximum international research co-operation, in particular with EU projects and programmes, which may be less easy to do after Brexit than it has been as a full member—which we still are. Thirdly, it seeks to put an end to the policy of treating students for public policy purposes as long-term economic migrants. This subject has been debated many times in the House without anyone, except the lonely person on the ministerial Bench, expressing a contrary view. Fourthly, it seeks to ensure that no further restrictive immigration rules, beyond those that currently exist, are placed on undergraduate and postgraduate students with the offer of a place to study here, or on academic staff with an offer of employment. I underline the word “offer” because it is not intended that they should have free movement rights to come here and look for these things; they would need to have the offer.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to have added my name to the hugely important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I, too, regret that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, cannot be here due to ill-health, and we of course wish him well.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, gave a powerful and comprehensive introduction to the amendment, the content of which we have discussed many times in your Lordships’ House with agreement from all parts of the Chamber. The Bill presents us with a great opportunity to address the concerns expressed in debate and in various Select Committees of both Houses. For example, in recent years, six parliamentary committees have recommended the removal of students from the net migration target.
Apart from the Government, I have spoken to no one who is against the measures in the amendment: quite the contrary, there is strong support. I have spoken to overseas and UK students, academics, administrative staff of higher education institutions, people working for the bodies responsible for standards and quality, and many of our citizens from all backgrounds in different parts of the country. They understand, as my noble friend Lord Darzi said at Second Reading, that we must secure and sustain our ability to excite, attract and retain the world’s greatest minds. This is fundamental to the excellence of the UK university system.
Like the polling undertaken by UUK, my conversations provide clear evidence that even those people who are anxious about immigration welcome foreign students and do not think they should be included in the migration figures. They do not want immigration rules that are any more restrictive than the current ones placed on undergraduate and postgraduate students and academics: not now nor in future, when our immigration policy is revised to deal with Brexit. To use somewhat unparliamentary language, it is a no-brainer.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the case for the shift in policy set out in the amendment is unanswerable. The problem of bogus students studying at institutions has, thanks to government action, been dealt with. We still await the results of the consultation on the study immigration route and a firm rebuttal of the destabilising statement made by the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party conference, but the statistics on overstaying students are, to say the least, questionable, and new data demonstrate that the number of overstayers is negligible.
Undergraduate and postgraduate students are visitors, not economic migrants. Their contribution to our higher education institutions is enormous: not just the fee income, which enables universities to thrive and innovate, but their economic impact on the wider community; the culture they bring, which enriches the experience of our students; the soft power that lasts a lifetime; and the huge addition to and influence on the invaluable research being undertaken in our universities, which affects the economic and social well-being of our country, our capacity to deliver industrial policy and so much more.
It is absolutely clear that we should and, indeed, must welcome overseas students, especially as we begin life in a brave new global Britain, where collaboration and soft power assume a greater importance. The Minister can say until he is blue in the face that overseas students are welcome, that there is no cap on the figures and that our offer compares favourably with our competitors. The fact is that even if all those things were true, the perception is very different. We can all cite numerous examples of potential students now choosing to study elsewhere. The statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, are clear evidence of this.
If the Government agree to the amendment, this perception will be changed immediately and the flow of Indian students and others now choosing to study elsewhere will be stemmed. I hope the Minister will not rely on the argument about best practice in migration calculations, which requires us to follow the stipulations of the UN. This has always been a weak argument, but post-referendum, when the Government proudly assert their determination to take back control, it is risible—likewise, the Minister’s statement that it would be inappropriate for the Government to seek to influence how statistics are compiled. What are the Government for?
The amendment would provide a strong signal in the increasingly important and competitive higher education market that this country really welcomes international students.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, as I did in Committee. I add my regrets that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is not here and wish him well. My support comes for all the important reasons set out so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—and it was evidence-based persuasion, which is always the very best sort.
Our higher education sector has derived immense benefit from collaboration with European research establishments—not just financial, but benefit in research, scholarship and international understanding and good relations. In this new, uncertain world, those relationships are ever more important.
We have discussed international students at length; they are valued and valuable and should in no way be deterred by any undue immigration categorisations or controls. In the light of the overwhelming view not just of this House but of people around the country in all the messages we have heard, I hope the Minister can assure us that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Lucas (Con)
The purpose of my Amendment 151 is, by collecting data and publishing it, to drive improvement and collaboration. That has been urged on me by several universities. They feel that there is another way—that we do not need to proceed by confrontation if the universities and the Home Office will agree to work together. That is something that we should insist on. Particularly given what we are going to spend the rest of today doing, this is not a time for argument, however hallowed by time that argument is; it is a time for pulling together for the good of the United Kingdom. This is not a one-sided thing; it means that the great universities really have to join in the great campaign that the Government run to support the whole of British education abroad. At the moment, it is really supported only by those who do not have sufficient of a reputation to justify marketing on their own. For this to succeed and for the good of the nation, we need the great universities to join in. There are a few which have and a few more on the periphery, but it has been a shameful show, by and large.
We need universities to recognise that, in their alumni, they have an enormous ability to help us to trade internationally. This is not something that they should seek to keep to themselves for their own commercial interests, although, obviously, that is important. This is a time when they should actively look for ways in which to make this available to the nation. However, as was seen in Committee, this is not the case, and universities really need to recognise that they have a role to play in helping the nation over the next few years.
Universities also have a role to play in supporting the immigration system. It is not there, like some tax-avoiding man in the pub, to be gamed to see how much money you can make out of it by taking the money from overseas students and not shouldering the burdens. I know that universities are better at this than they used to be, but they are by no means perfect. They are at the focus of a lot of people coming into this country. As a House, we are offering Amendment 150, which I shall support wholeheartedly—but there needs to be reciprocation from universities; they need to recognise that cheating on immigration is the same as cheating in examinations. They need, for the good of the country and of themselves, to get wholeheartedly behind supporting that concept.
The Home Office, as we all know, is not set on collaboration. I asked the Home Secretary a question a month ago in a meeting as to whether the Home Office would collaborate with universities, and she said that it would. I wrote her a follow-up letter to which she has not replied. I think that that is pretty typical of the attitude at the moment. It seems to think that it is in a little box and that all it has is its responsibility to keep people out of this country, but it is not true. At this moment, everything is all our responsibility; we must all help the Home Office to do what it has to do, and it must help us to do what we have to do to make a success of leaving the European Union.
The Home Office is, to a substantial extent, at the front sales desk for universities. It talks directly to the customers who universities wish to attract, but it runs an antagonistic website; it has impenetrable documentation and treacle-filled systems in which it can take six months for an appeal to be heard. It refuses visas on the basis of unanswerable questions such as, “What modules do you expect to take?”. Nobody knows that until they have had a bit of experience of the university and the modules may not even be set. There are even some cases where students have been told that they are being refused a visa because the equivalent courses are cheaper in their home country and they ought to be following them. This is not collaboration in any sense of the word.
I hope that we will achieve a notable victory on Amendment 150, but when it comes back to this House we should be looking not for victory at the end but for reconciliation. We need the Home Office and universities to be working together for the good of us and for each other.
Lord Broers (CB)
I will speak on behalf not only of the universities but of our industry. The amendment is extremely important to capture research students where we need them. I cite the nuclear industry: Dame Sue Ion, who chaired the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, recently pointed out that over 20% of PhD students working in that industry, which is moving forward very fast, were from overseas. There is a much higher percentage of the post-doctoral research fellows, who are PhD students in the next stage of life. That is not covered by the amendment but we must address it. The Americans do this all the time. You get very bright overseas students to do PhDs, then you make it easy for them to stay on. They are the life-blood of high-technology industry. If we do not resolve this problem—and the best starting point is this amendment—our industry is going to be in trouble, not just our university research.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
I strongly support Amendment 150, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others. The noble Lord rightly posed the question, “Why should we bother?”. As a former associate vice-president of the University of Manchester and now an honorary special adviser to that university, I am well aware of the huge benefit of international students to it and to the city of Manchester and of why they should not be treated as long-term economic migrants to the UK. As we have heard, there are currently 437,000 international students studying in the United Kingdom, including 125,000 from the EU. There are currently nearly 11,000 international students studying at the University of Manchester and a further 2,500 EU students. As we have heard, the Government’s international education strategy, published in 2013, estimated that international students brought £13.6 billion into the economy in 2011. For Manchester, direct income from international students—for fees alone—will be £200 million in 2016-17. Furthermore, Universities UK estimates that international students lead to the creation of over 170,000 jobs across the United Kingdom. Independent analysis undertaken by Viewforth Consulting found that the University of Manchester’s international students created over 1,100 jobs in the local Manchester economy.
International students allow UK students to appreciate diversity and develop a global perspective. They also act as great ambassadors for Manchester and the United Kingdom when they return to their home countries. Manchester has contact with over 400,000 alumni, of whom 25% are based outside the UK, including many in leading positions in business, government and universities. I have been proud to visit Manchester alumni in Hong Kong, China, South Korea and many other parts of the world. A recent poll before the last general election indicated that 91% of the British public think that international students should be able to stay and work for a period after their graduation. We should do nothing to further undermine the attractiveness of British universities for such international students. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others, the arguments are unanswerable. Please will the Government at last recognise the value of such students to Britain and accept Amendment 150?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I was not able to speak to his amendment in Committee, but I supported a similar one moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas. We have an ideal amendment before the House tonight. I declare an interest as a senior associate member for over 20 years of St Anthony’s College, Oxford. It is a wonderful example of an international postgraduate college, bringing in people from all over the world, many of whom go back to their native countries to occupy positions of influence and leadership. We must do nothing to deter that.
If we want evidence of the fragile state of feeling in our universities and academic circles, we need do no more than pick up this morning’s Times in which there is a letter signed by the vice-chancellor of Oxford University and the heads of 35 colleges. You may say—and you may be right—that some of their fears are exaggerated and misplaced. I sincerely hope they are, but they are nevertheless real. Anything that we can do, at this difficult stage, to reinforce confidence in academic circles must be helpful.
I do not doubt for a moment what my noble friend Lord Younger has often said. I have a high regard for him: he is a man of utter probity and integrity. However, it is not good enough repeatedly to say that there is no bar on students—that they can come as often and in as many numbers as they like—but then say, as other Ministers do, “But of course we have to look at immigration figures”. Those coming to this country as students conflate those two statements and believe that there is a risk. This evening, we can, to coin a phrase, prove at a stroke that there is not a risk by saying that they will be separately counted and not part of the overall figures. We should do no less. I very much hope that we will pass the amendment tonight and indicate to those in another place that we would like them to examine it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, does not claim any exclusive rights to the wording of his amendment but we want to see something, in one form or another, that echoes it to be incorporated in the Bill before it becomes an Act of Parliament.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 150. At Pembroke College, Cambridge, where I have the honour of being Master, some 10% of our undergraduates and 30% of our postgraduates are international students from beyond the EU. They add enormously to the well-being and distinction of the college. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made the financial case very clearly; the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made the soft power case very clearly; the noble Lord, Lord Broers, made the industrial case very clearly. I would add that there is a very strong educational case as well.
Having international students among the mix of students at our university adds enormously to the quality of the students’ educational experience. They share with each other, learn from each other, associate with each other and hear from people of different backgrounds with different experiences and from different parts of the world. The education that comes from the ability to do that and from that richness could not be replicated by the best teaching. It comes only from being among, and sharing with, students from very different national backgrounds. That is an enormously important part of the value of our higher education in this country. Let us make sure that we keep that. This amendment is one way of doing it.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I feel compelled to respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Smith. I am a long-standing governor at the LSE, where I am now an emeritus governor. Recently, we have been rated second in the world as the most prestigious centre of higher education learning in the social sciences, and as the highest rated such place within the United Kingdom. I do not go much on league tables myself but I cannot help being proud of that statistic. The evidence speaks for itself. A very high proportion of our student community comes from overseas. Of course, it is a case not just of the atmosphere of a centre but of the quality of the education which benefits from the input of people with different insights from different parts of the world.
I fervently believe that a centre of higher education worthy of its name should be part of the international community and should recognise that Britain is inseparable from the rest of the world and cannot operate in higher learning without an international community and, indeed, international staff. They are a very important part of the LSE as well. What worries me is that it does not take very long for an impression to grow. We are hearing too much anecdotal evidence that people elsewhere in the world are beginning to wonder whether the UK is the place they want to come and pursue their studies. Indeed, one hears of academics who question whether they want to go on developing their careers in the United Kingdom because they are not certain that it is the sort of place in which they want to live and bring up their families. We have a huge challenge here and we have a great opportunity this evening to put it right.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and, in doing so, declare my interest as set out in the register. When, many years ago, I went from a Midlands comprehensive school to Cambridge University, in many ways I felt that I was a foreign student. That aside, there is no social, economic, political, moral or legal reason not to support this amendment.
I wish to add the following comments to those made by noble Lords, with which I wholeheartedly agree. “You want our trade, you don’t want our children”, said the Prime Minister of India, Mr Modi. If that is the impression being received in India and other nations around the world, how can we possibly expect to attract the brightest and the best to come to study in the United Kingdom? That is what we need and want. Our doors and our arms should be wide open to the brightest and the best to come to study here because there is no downside to that. International students come, pay and study. If they stay, they work and contribute. If they go home, they are the best advocates for soft power. The GREAT campaign is indeed, as its name suggests, great, but it is as nothing compared with the advocacy of international students who have had that experience in the UK. British higher education is the most gleaming jewel in our soft power crown.
There is absolutely no reason not to support Amendment 150. I urge every noble Lord to do so because it is in the interest of international students and of the United Kingdom. We would want this at the best of times, but given what is ahead of us, we should not just want this, we absolutely need it. We should absolutely pass this amendment this evening.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former international student and the third generation of my family in India to be educated in this country. I am chair of the advisory board of the Cambridge Judge Business School, which has just been ranked No. 5 in the FT global MBA rankings. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, our universities are the best in the world along with those of the United States of America.
I wholeheartedly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is not with us. The amendment refers to more than international students and talks about competition from other countries in terms of collaboration as well. That point should not be missed. I have made the point many times that at the University of Birmingham, where I am proud to be chancellor, when we carry out collaborative research with a university such as Harvard—I am proud to be an alumnus of the Harvard Business School—it has three times the impact of our individual research. Therefore, it is essential that we do that, particularly given the European Union referendum and the potential of Brexit coming up.
There are accusations that international students overstay. Can the Minister confirm that a Home Office report has shown that only 1% to 1.5% of international students overstay? If he will not answer that question, will he say why the Government continually refuse to put in visible exit checks at our borders? If we scanned the passport—EU and non-EU—of every person coming into this country, and the passport of every person—EU and non-EU—going out of this country, we would know who was coming in and who was going out, particularly with regard to international students. I urge the Minister to say why the Government are not doing this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the global environment is one in which the international student demand from countries such as India is increasing by 8% year on year. We have no target to increase the number of international students. This amendment very clearly says that the Government need to make that a priority. I go further and say that there should be a target. Countries such as France, for example, have a specific target to double the number of students from India by 2020. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the number of Indian students went up to nearly 40,000 around 2010. It has now dropped by over 50%. Canada, the United States and Australia all have programmes to increase the number of international students. In fact, Australia has a Minister for international students. Last year in India, the Australian high commissioner said to me, “Thank you for your immigration policy on international students. You’re sending them to us instead”. That is ridiculous.
We now face competition from European Union countries. Non-English speaking countries such as Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands—I have already mentioned France—are incentivising international students. Why cannot we accept this amendment once and for all to make international students a priority? Given the backdrop of Brexit, that is even more important. A survey last year said that 82% of EU students and 35% of non-EU students reported that they would find the UK less attractive as a result of Brexit. This means that some 50,000 EU students and 63,000 non-EU students could be at risk. The proof of the pudding comes from the latest indication that fewer EU students have applied to start university courses in the UK. According to UCAS, there was a 9% fall in the number who had applied for courses. At Cambridge, we know that the figure has dropped by 14%.
I am also president of UKCISA, the UK Council for International Student Affairs, which represents the 450,000 international students in this country, of whom 130,000 are from the EU. UKCISA’s response to the EU referendum result was very clear. It said that it sends,
“worrying signals to thousands of EU (and indeed British students hoping to participate in EU mobility programmes) but given the government’s relentless pressure to cut net migration (including curbs on international students) it is … not surprising that this has been the result”.
I am co-chair, along with Paul Blomfield in the House of Commons, of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Students. Our purpose is to recognise the global prominence of UK education, to promote the value of international students, to promote, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, the soft power of international students, to raise awareness of issues that affect international students and, in reference to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Hannay, to provide a platform for collaboration.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may give a specific example. Following the Committee stage, last week at the University of Birmingham I chaired the annual meeting of our annual court, at which we highlighted that not only one-third of our academics, of whom 18% are from the EU, but a quarter of our students, including from the EU, are international. We have just released an independently prepared impact report on our university. It highlights that:
“Eight additional international undergraduate students would add £1m to the economy”.
That is what we are talking about. It is economic illiteracy not to promote international students and to send out signals that they are not welcome here. At Birmingham, according to this impact report, our international students contribute £160 million to the economy, and they are advocates and ambassadors for Birmingham. They are also ambassadors for the UK around the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said.
Just last week—again, since Committee—UUK released a report on international students. It said:
“International students are vital for a successful post-Brexit, industrial strategy fit for a global Britain”.
It also spoke about the element of soft power. At any one time there are 30 world leaders who have been educated at British universities. The report also—this point has not been made so far—spoke about a ComRes public opinion poll for Universities UK which suggests that the public do not view students as immigrants. It said:
“Only 23% of Remain voters and 25% of Leave voters view international students as immigrants. Of those that expressed a view, 75% say they would like to see the same number, or more, of international students in the UK. Of those who expressed a view, 71% would support a policy to help boost growth by increasing overseas students. This polling suggests that current visa policy is not addressing public concerns”.
I would go one step further: this poll suggests that the Government are entirely out of line with public opinion when it comes to international students. I need only mention the current, and first Indian, president of the Royal Society, Sir Venki Ramakrishnan—Nobel laureate and fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Universities UK does not argue that students in the UK should not be counted. I do not think that anyone here is saying that; we are saying that they should not be included in a net migration target. Our direct competitors categorise international students as temporary citizens. In the United States they are classified as non-immigrants alongside tourists, business visitors and those in cultural exchange programmes. In Australia they are classified as temporary migrants alongside tourists and visitors, and in Canada they are classified as temporary residents. These are our direct competitors. If they can do it, why cannot we?
Every time this issue has been brought up in this House, there has been unanimous cross-party support for taking international students out of the net migration figures, but the Government are not listening, the Prime Minister is not listening and the Home Office is not listening. So what option do we have? The only option is legislation and I urge noble Lords to support this amendment. Net migration figures create a perception that has unfortunately become reality in putting off international students. They must be a priority for our universities, for our economy, for our position in the world, for our domestic students and, more importantly with this uncertain future, for our whole country.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, as has been said, Amendment 150 would serve to redress a number of unsatisfactory outcomes. These already threaten to undermine our economic competitiveness, skills, trade, exports; then soft power deriving around the world from our usual reputation for welcome and fair-mindedness. However, adjusting, through this amendment, is perhaps all the more fitting, remaining as we do within the Council of Europe of 47 states, within which affiliation, through good practice such as this amendment promotes, we can therefore continue to assist balance, democracy and common sense.
Lord Watson of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on one specific thing. Given Brexit, we are all very alert to what Britain’s competitive position will be after we leave the European Union. The noble Lord referred to competition from continental European universities—in particular, those in France, where there is a government-backed and very energetic programme to try to attract foreign students. Our advantage is the English language. We share that, of course—although some may dispute it—with the United States, Australia and even Canada, but we do not share it with France, Germany or some of our continental friends. We now really have to bear that in mind: it is an important competitive edge for the United Kingdom.
Finally, we have heard the case for the educational benefit of these students being here, as well as the moral, economic and academic cases. I think there is also an argument for saying that this is the moment to send a signal. It is a moment for the Government to grasp that, instead of so often appearing in some ways negative about our position in the world—certainly our position in Europe—this is a positive outward gesture and we should make it today.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, there are a lot of reasons to support this amendment, quite apart from the general support that it receives in public opinion polls. There is the vital economic argument about the value added to our country and our universities, as numerous speakers have said. There is also the fact that our main competitors, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has just emphasised—the United States, Canada and Australia—do not treat their visiting students as part of their net migration figures. Our Prime Minister has outlined a vision of a post-Brexit Britain as being truly global, and 75% of domestic students, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, touched on, say that studying alongside international students is useful preparation for working in a global environment, which they will have to do. We need them to remain world focused and world class, and we must stop sending out the wrong signals to international students. We must become a truly global Britain and we need a change of emphasis.
However, the main reason I believe we need these students is the long-term effect they will have on the international reputation and prospects of the UK for the length of their lifetime, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, mentioned. Students—undergraduates and graduates—who come to this country are inevitably the future leaders of their countries. They are the future business leaders, scientists, top civil servants, diplomats, politicians, Cabinet Ministers and even Presidents of their countries. A 2015 report by ComRes indicated that 55 current world leaders had studied in the UK.
In sub-Saharan Africa, which I visit regularly, I have met businessmen, leading scientists, ambassadors, MPs, Ministers and deputy Presidents—I am afraid that I do not quite move in presidential circles—all of whom have studied here, and their understanding and respect for the UK exudes from their every pore. This Anglophilia is worth billions to the UK, quite apart from the money that is brought in. Certainly, the whole of the British Council’s budget could be lost and the cost of many of our overseas embassies could be counted as a contra. Maybe even this respect for Britain could be counted as a contra against our overseas aid budget and, in certain future instances, our defence budget.
What is more, they have paid for it themselves. In the process of absorbing their Anglophilia, these students have contributed millions to our economy. Therefore, for the present viability of post-Brexit Britain and, above all, for our long-term reputation and respect as a truly global Britain—to which Theresa May aspires—we must do all we can to encourage international students, academics and researchers to come here. We must stop beaming out the negative signals that are currently driving the future leaders of the world to go elsewhere for their academic experience. Every part of government, from the Department for Education to the FCO, should be beating down the doors of the Home Office to persuade it to accept the principles of Amendment 150. It would be a very short-sighted Government who resisted it.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chancellor of Cranfield University, a truly global university in science and technology, with almost two-thirds of its students coming from outside of the UK. In looking at the Government’s Green Paper on industrial strategy, it is clear that what we want to try to forge for a post-Brexit UK is a vibrant industrial sector that is truly multinational in its businesses. That depends on being truly global in our approach to research and in recruiting the best and brightest students from across the world.
I know that we are in a particularly overheated moment in terms of immigration, and the Government are quite understandably nervous as a kitten in that respect. However, the reality is that we cannot regard international students as people who are coming here as supplicants to us. We are going as supplicants to them, because they have many choices. What international students want is to go somewhere where they will be able to study as an undergraduate, and then potentially as a postgraduate, at the cutting edge of whatever their discipline is, where they feel that their families are welcome to come and stay with them because they might be here for many years, and where they have the opportunity of moving seamlessly into employment with a company or organisation that they might have had contact with during their university years. That is what they want, and that is what we are preventing from happening if we are not careful.
The signal has gone out that Britain is not open for business for international students, whether or not that is true. The time has come, after all of these reports from other committees saying that we should change this very important signal, for the Government to ponder on that. The reality is that we are not going to see any diminution in the heat and steam around immigration in the next few years: we are going to see it getting worse and worse as we exit from Europe. The time has now come to make sure that the by-product of that heat and steam is not that we failed to deliver for our high standards of education, our high standards of research or our place in the global business community.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 150 I declare an interest as having, for many years in the past, led a large research group at Oxford University that was heavily dependent on international students, not just from the European Union but from all over the world, from Argentina to the far eastern corner of what was then the Soviet Union.
I want in particular to refer back to one of the many Select Committee reports. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to the fact that this whole question of overseas students has been examined in recent years by many Select Committees. One such committee was the Science and Technology Select Committee when I was the chair; in 2014 we produced a report on STEM students—science, technology, engineering and mathematics students—in relation to international students and immigration rules. In the summary of our report, we concluded:
“Above all, we are concerned that Government policy is contradictory. The Government are simultaneously committed to reducing net migration and attracting increasing numbers of international students”.
Echoing what my noble friend Lord Bilimoria said, certainly in 2014, the Government had a target of increasing international students by 15% to 20% over the next five years. We went on to say, as other noble Lords have said during this debate:
“This contradiction could be resolved if the Government removed students from the net migration figures”.
Will the Minister, in his reply, tell us whether he recognises this target that the Government certainly had two or three years ago? Does it still exist and, if so, does he recognise that government policy is currently contradictory?
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to oppose Amendment 150. I am sure that noble Lords will listen very carefully to the arguments that have not yet been made. I should make it clear that I speak as someone who is firmly in favour of foreign students. I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Hannay had to say, and it is hard to disagree with most of the contributions that we have heard this afternoon from people who run universities and colleges, who know students and who are absolutely clear about the benefits of foreign students. I agree with that.
However, that is not the issue. The issue is whether there is a problem here in relation to immigration—a massive issue for the public—and, if so, what should be done about it? Is it sensible, viable or feasible to make immigration policy by legislation? I rather doubt that, and if your Lordships look a little more carefully at this amendment, you will see that there are matters in it that do not square up with the reality of how the immigration system works and really go beyond legal matters in terms of trying to suggest what policies should be.
The first, most incredibly obvious, point to make—and it has not been made yet—is that any student who comes here, does his course, maybe works for a while and then goes home, does not contribute to net migration. They are counted in and they are counted out: they do not make any difference to net migration. What is more, all of our competitor countries mentioned today—Canada, the United States, and Australia—include, by the way in which they calculate their immigration figures, their students who stay on. There is no question about that. Therefore, the issue for public policy is, surely, how many do stay on illegally, not how many stay on legally. As my noble friend Lord Bilimoria mentioned, that is a matter, at the moment, of intense scrutiny by the ONS and the Home Office, and rightly so. That issue needs to be resolved. If there is a serious degree of overstaying, that has to be dealt with. If the statistics are weak, then we need to change our tune and perhaps change our policy.
It is not clear to me what, in practice, this amendment is intended to achieve; in the real world, the ONS will continue to use the international passenger survey in order to assess the flow of students in both directions—exactly the same definitions used by all of our competitors. If the amendment is intended to mean that students should be ignored, both on their arrival and on their departure, there is simply no measure whatever of whether they contribute to net migration or not. As international students from outside the EU now contribute 46,000 a year to net migration, it is a significant number. We do not know whether that is accurate, but it is a significant part of the case and needs to be considered.
Therefore, this proposed new clause will not clarify matters: it will only add to confusion over the numbers. If its only purpose is, as some noble Lords have suggested, to require the Government, when all the numbers are put together, to put into a separate paragraph those who are students, that is fine, but that is a political decision, not a matter for legislation. Whoever takes that decision is going to have to say, “Now wait a minute: what happens if we actually do that?”. I can think of one or two newspapers that might add them straight back in and then accuse the Government of fiddling the figures. That needs to be borne in mind.
Lastly, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause seeks to legislate to prevent any tightening of conditions for foreign students. Surely that is a matter for policy and not law. The House will be aware, I hope, that there are very strong pressures on our immigration system and, in particular, that there has been widespread abuse at the college level. The National Audit Office estimated that in one year, to 2010, about 50,000 students from the Indian subcontinent came here to work rather than to study. That largely explains the drop in students from India, which has been referred to once or twice. The House certainly knows that 900 bogus colleges have lost their licence to bring in foreign students. That is a massive number. This has been a scandal that has gone on for years and I very much regret that from the academic lobby, which should be powerful, accurate and on the case, hardly a word have we heard. I sometimes wonder whether some of the stuff put out by Universities UK gives a negative impression of our universities. These are the people who have been complaining and complaining for six years—of course foreign students are going to think that something is up and they are not terribly welcome.
I turn now to the university level, which I think is what most noble Lords have been talking about. We cannot preclude the possibility that there will, in future, be scams that apply to universities. Noble Lords will remember, I hope, that in 2011-12 the highly trusted sponsor licences were suspended from Glasgow Caledonian University, Teesside University and London Metropolitan University. Why? Because they had been on the fiddle. What will happen in the future if this amendment is passed and a raft of smaller, less distinguished universities than those mentioned by my noble friends start fiddling the system, one way or another? The Government’s hands will be bound by law. That cannot possibly make any sense.
In my view, these amendments do not amount to scrutiny nor to holding the Government to account. Rather, they are an attempt to make policy by legislation. I suggest to the House—and I am not in a majority tonight—that that is wrong both in practice and in principle.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I did not intend to speak but when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Green, I understand that what he believes to be fact, others perceive to be opinion. It seems to me that we need to get this straight. We are not talking about bogus colleges in this amendment at all. The noble Lord has drawn attention to the example of 2012. I do not normally go out of my way to defend a Conservative-led Government, but that example actually demonstrated that the toughening-up of the system in higher education was working, albeit there were questions at the edges in relation to the 10% threshold. However, it also demonstrated that the system of inquiry and review was secure.
What we are talking about tonight has to be good for Britain, by common sense, morality and economy. It has to be good for Britain for a psychological reason, which I probably need to try to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Green. It is true that students who come in and go out eventually contribute to the net migration calculation. But if we have a drive to bring people to the United Kingdom, which I think virtually everyone in this House wants, then when those increased numbers come in they show up in the immigration figures as a net increase, but it is down the line that they show up as a net decrease. By driving to bring people here, you negatively affect the psychology of the way in which people perceive net migration. If higher education students are taken out of the figures, it would immediately reduce the perceived totals—the headlines to which the noble Lord referred in the tabloid newspapers for which he has written and for which, from time to time, I have written myself.
It is all about the way people perceive that the Government are failing in their net migration targets because things are included that should not be, specifically higher education students. People see the headline figure and they react to it—understandably so, because they do not have the arguments put in the way that we are debating them tonight. I am sorry to delay your Lordships’ House but when the noble Lord, Lord Green, speaks, my hackles rise and my intellect demands that I at least try to counteract his lifelong drive to reduce the number of people coming to the United Kingdom.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I declare an interest as a visiting professor at LSE and UCL, and my first job was as a lecturer in economics at the University of Glasgow, where I saw at first hand the joys of teaching a diverse group of students. I take all the points that have been made about education and the economy. However, I want to speak as a former Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. Far too rarely in this House do we pass amendments that have the effect of helping the Chancellor and reducing the deficit. Undoubtedly, this will do that, so could the Minister pass on that message to the Chancellor? It is a very good reason for accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which I support.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Follow that. My Lords, this has been a terrific debate. We have rightly taken our time over it, taking perhaps a little longer than we should have done, but it has been worth it. We have explored the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, wished us to and come to a resounding conclusion on all sides of the House—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Green. He stated in parentheses that he was not in a majority on this occasion. My noble friend Lord Blunkett put the case rather well, and I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Green, is never in a majority on this issue. However, I am glad that the arguments have been made so that we can knock them down.
At the heart of this debate are relatively straightforward issues to do with counting, reporting and transparency. The point was made rather well by the noble Lord, Lord Broers—by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rather. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Broers, who also made a very good speech; I am in no sense comparing the two, but it is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that I want to pick up. The Government are in a quandary over this. When introducing his amendment in the previous group, my noble friend Lord Dubs said that he was trusting a single government voice. Perhaps more in hope than experience, he has agreed to go with the Government and trust them on that. This amendment, however, is one on which the Government are speaking with many voices. We are going to get the Government’s view tonight, but I am afraid that it is not going to be the view that many in the Government would like to see. The fact that we got as much support from the Conservative Benches as we did from elsewhere in the House suggests that this is not an argument that the Government can win.
I urge the Government to agree that we have before us a straightforward set of amendments that would solve the problem of students coming here to study being treated as economic migrants when they are not, help with the staffing issues that are going to be so important for our industrial strategy and our future post Brexit, and provide a common sense, no-brainer solution, as so many speakers have said. We have covered the economic, industrial, cultural, educational and local perspectives on why having overseas students here is good for us in every respect. We have been told how much money is involved. However, at the end of the day, as many have said, it is about perception.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, quoted the Prime Minister of India, who said: you want our trade but you do not want our students. It is about the perceptions that have built up. I am sure that when he comes to respond the Minister will say that there is no cap and that every overseas student who is qualified to do so can come. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, the signal being sent out to the world, and which the world believes, is that we do not want students to come here. We have to take a stand and make our case absolutely clear to the world. The fight back can start now. This is a flag that we should all be waving. We must join together, around the House and across the country, to say that this is something that we want to happen. I leave it to the Minister to say that he agrees.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, for the second time I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and to my noble friend Lord Lucas for providing your Lordships with an opportunity to discuss the issue of international students. I also send my best wishes to my noble friend Lord Patten, who cannot be with us today. I say at the outset I am left in no doubt about the passions expressed in this debate by noble Lords around the Chamber. As I have previously indicated—and as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, indicated—we have indeed said this before. But I will say it again so that the House is in no doubt. The Government very much welcome the contribution that international students and academics make to the United Kingdom’s higher education and research sectors and we have sought to nurture and encourage that.
I will deal first with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas. I entirely share its goal of ensuring maximum transparency. I am pleased to say that there is already a wealth of information in the public domain about the contribution of international students. Provisions in the Bill will add to this. As I have previously indicated, the Bill already includes provisions requiring the Office for Students to monitor and report on the financial health of higher education providers. This can be done only if the OfS understands the types of students and the income they bring to the sector. Clause 9(1)(b) requires all registered providers to give the OfS such information as it needs to perform its functions. This will ensure that the OfS has the power to gather the information it considers it requires on international student numbers.
Furthermore, the Higher Education Statistics Agency already publishes detailed information about international student numbers, along with a breakdown of the countries they are travelling from. We envisage that these arrangements will continue. This amendment would also require information about the proportions of visas granted when set against the total number of applications submitted by each institution. The Home Office already publishes a breakdown of tier 4 visa applications, including the number granted and the number refused.
As I explained in Committee, I do not support providing this information broken down by institution. If there is an institution which, for any reason, has seen its visa refusal rate rise, that does not necessarily make it a failing institution. Provided that it passes the Home Office’s basic compliance assessment, and there are no other compliance issues, no action will be taken against it by the Home Office. But I am sure that the institution concerned would want to make any changes to its system that it deemed appropriate out of the public spotlight. I dare say that any institution that finds itself in that position would support the Government’s position on this.
My noble friend and I both support transparency and the publication of as much information as possible. Much of the information that he seeks is already available and published, and the Bill will strengthen those arrangements. There are small elements of his amendment where, for the reasons of practicality or commercial confidentiality that I have given, I would not favour publication of the data in question. However, those cases are very much the exception, and I can assure my noble friend that the information in which he is interested will be collected and published for all to see.
I turn now to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. These topics, as the House will know, were covered at some length in Committee and I do not propose to repeat all that I said then. However, it is important that I put on record again that there is no limit on the number of genuine international students whom educational institutions in the UK can recruit. I make no apology for repeating that. Equally importantly, the Government have no plans to limit any institution’s ability to recruit international students. Likewise, as recently emphasised by the Prime Minister, the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to be one of the best places in the world for science and innovation.
I previously pointed out that the United Kingdom has a very competitive offer when compared to other major recruiters of international students, whether you look at speed of visa processing, proportion of successful applications, work rights during study or post study opportunities. While, of course, there is no room for complacency, the United Kingdom continues to be the world’s second most popular destination for international students and we have welcomed more than 170,000 international students to the UK for the sixth year running.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke eloquently, backed up by statistics, about the importance of overseas students to the UK. We continue to look for ways to promote the UK as an attractive place to come to study and we have a very generous offer for international academics who want to come to work in UK universities. The Chancellor’s recent Budget acknowledged that the continued strength of UK research and innovation depends on access to world-class skills, ideas and talent. It set out how the UK is investing in our industries of the future and that the Government have committed to invest more than £100 million over the next four years to attract the brightest minds to the UK. This will help maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in science and research. It includes £50 million ring-fenced for fellowship programmes to attract global talent and more than £50 million from existing international funds to support fellowships that attract researchers to the UK from emerging research powerhouses such as India, China, Brazil and Mexico.
In the tier 4 visa pilot, four universities are involved in a trial which involves less paperwork surrounding applications and a longer period of post-study leave. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, mentioned a similar issue. This is an excellent example of taking sensible steps to try to ensure that the UK is as welcoming as possible for international students. It covers exactly the ground in the first limb of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I do not believe that a general statutory duty, which would be impossible to measure and bound to give rise to litigation, is the way forward here. The noble Lord, Lord Green, stated that these were not matters appropriate for legislation.
I turn now to the second part of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which seeks to stop students being treated as long-term migrants. Incidentally, I have noticed that the noble Lord has moved from the description of “economic migrant” in his amendment in Committee to “long term migrant” now. However, I fear that, whatever the terminology, the difficulties with what he proposes remain the same.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount, but the reason I changed the wording was because he asked me to in Committee. I think a word of thanks might be in order.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I do not believe that was made clear in the noble Lord’s speech, but of course I thank him for that.
A “long term migrant” is defined by the United Nations and the OECD as someone who moves to another country for a period of more than a year. That is the definition that the Office for National Statistics, the UK’s independent statistical authority, chooses to follow. As such, virtually all of those who come to the UK on work visas are long-term migrants. These are people who, like students, come for a time-limited period and intend to return home at the end of their visa.
I remind your Lordships of the key features of our work visa regime. People are issued with time-limited visas, which specify the terms on which they can come, including their right to work and whether they can bring dependants. On the expiry of their visa, they are expected to return home. All of these are equally important features of the visa regime for international students. As a result of this amendment, we could potentially be unable to apply basic visa checks, such as pre-issue security checks, or impose conditions, such as the right to work or a time limit, on a student visa. I am sure your Lordships will see why this is not a sensible approach.
The final part of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, would prevent any more restrictive conditions being applied to international students and academics than currently exist. I pointed out in Committee the difficulty that could be created if there were changes to Immigration Rules that everybody agreed were desirable but could be seen as more restrictive. The noble Lord’s suggestion was that, in such circumstances, there should be further primary legislation, but I remind your Lordships that Immigration Rules are already laid before Parliament and can be debated, if appropriate. That seems to me the best way to accommodate those minor changes to our immigration system that are, from time to time, required and a more proportionate way of dealing with them than fresh primary legislation.
The effect of this part of the amendment would also mean that no future changes could be made to the rules as they relate to citizens of the European Union and therefore set in stone in perpetuity free movement rights for EU students and academics. As your Lordships know, we have indicated that future arrangements for students and academics will be subject to negotiation with the EU and need to be considered in the round, rather than that a particular approach be written into legislation now.
International students consume services while they are here, so it is right that, in line with international norms, they feature in net migration statistics. I reassure your Lordships that, as I have explained, that has not led, and will not lead, to the Government seeking to cap numbers or restrict institutions’ ability to continue to attract students from around the world. The Government want our world-class institutions to thrive and prosper. International students and academics will always be welcome in the UK. However, I do not believe that we can pass an amendment which would be likely to make operation of the visa system impossible.
Before I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I want to respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who said that a report is held by the Home Office showing that only 1% of students overstay. I am afraid that we do not recognise that 1% figure, which was cited in the media. Over time, the data obtained through exit checks will contribute to the statistical picture and the ONS data on net migration figures, but it is too early to draw conclusions. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate, and I would like to thank all those who participated in it with splendid brevity—I think that we have beaten some of the records for having brisk, clear interventions. I find enormously heartening the support from all quarters of the House for this amendment. It really is a great place to be when one can get a confluence around the House such as we have had today when discussing legislation. That is splendid.
There is of course one exception: the noble Lord, Lord Green, who has to be thanked for being the grit in the oyster which I hope will shortly produce a pearl. I will not bother to take on his arguments, because the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, did it far better than I can, except to say that if he really believes that there is a clear separation between policy and legislation, he has led a very sheltered life. I do not know what we have been doing for the past five weeks if we have not been trying to make policy. I think that it is the Government’s intention to make policy, so here is another bit of policy. The time has come now to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Deech
“Higher education providers: freedom of speech and preventing unlawful speech
(1) All English higher education providers must ensure that their students, staff and invited speakers are able to practise freedom of speech within the law in the provider’s premises, forums and events and must put in place measures to prevent unlawful speech.(2) Subsection (1) extends to the premises, forums and events of the provider's student unions.”
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, this amendment goes to the heart of what the Bill is all about. Let us set aside for a moment the questions of fees, numbers, quangos and validations. The Bill is ostensibly about teaching excellence and academic freedom. We take it as implicit—the league tables confirm it—that our universities are among the very best in the world. Some of them are consistently found in the top 10, alongside American universities. We are united in wanting to preserve our excellence, as the vote of a few moments ago showed. We want to preserve it for its own sake and because it is a valuable, international attraction, embedding our intellectual values in cohort after cohort of future world leaders who come here to study. But you cannot have academic freedom, as now included in the Bill, or teaching excellence without freedom of speech. That, as I have repeatedly warned in this Chamber over the last couple of years, is in danger. Sometimes it is farcical gagging of speech and other times it is very dangerous.
The Bill will rank universities’ teaching skills as gold, silver, bronze and ineligible. There exists another ranking—that of freedom of speech—in our universities, which is, in my opinion, to be taken even more seriously as an indicator of excellence. The free speech university rankings 2017 examine all our universities according to the following criteria: bullying and harassment policies; equal opportunities policies; students unions’ attitude to no-platform policies; safe space; student codes of conduct; bans on controversial speakers and newspapers; and even expulsion of students on the grounds of their controversial views or statements. The sampled universities are then ranked: “red” means a university that is hostile to free speech and free expression; “amber” means a university that chills free speech and free expression by issuing guidance with regards to appropriate speech; and “green” is for the other universities which place no restrictions on free speech and expression, other than where it is unlawful.
Sixty-one universities, or 63%, actively censor speech. The censoring is either by the university administrations or by the students themselves. The examples of censoriousness are well known, whether it is the silencing of a Muslim woman calling for reform of religious attitudes towards women, the playful adoption of foreign dress or cuisine, mentions of transgender, the likelihood of blasphemy, or even complaints about censorship itself. We all remember the suspension of Sir Tim Hunt and the LSE lecturer who was silenced when his views about welfare were found to be likely to be unacceptable. Violence met Israeli peace activists speaking at UCL and KCL.
At the other end of the scale, hate speech is being heard unchallenged. A recent review of people convicted of terrorism found that a significant number were in education at the time of the offence. Student Rights logged 27 speaker events in London in four recent months where speakers referred to homosexuality in the most derogatory and punitive terms, and defended convicted terrorists. That is unlawful speech and universities are not always stopping it. My amendment, if accepted, would incidentally clarify, limit and strengthen the Prevent policy, which is likely to be reviewed because it would single out unlawful speech as a target of prohibition rather than the more woolly “extremism”. In sum, there is no point pursuing teaching excellence and academic freedom, in ranking universities gold, silver and bronze, if at the same time their real freedom and intellectual excellence comes out red or amber. These rankings are known internationally.
The Government maintain that my amendment is unnecessary because the required laws are already in place. I submit that not only are they ineffectual but there is a gap in the Minister’s summing-up letter which relates to enforcement. Students union premises are included in the premises on which a university must afford freedom of speech, but in practice some university authorities claim that union-organised activities taking place on university premises are not covered and the authorities back off, claiming the union is autonomous. Nor do they put a stop to safe-space controls. Or the universities tell students who have been discriminated against by their union that complaints are handled exclusively by the students union, which is wrong in law.
The Universities UK 2016 task force on violence against women, harassment and hate crime set out guidance for a disciplinary code for universities to adopt. The task force found that the evidence also suggested,
“that despite some positive activity, university responses are not as comprehensive, systematic and joined up as they could be. A commitment to addressing these issues is required within every university, from senior leadership down”.
Yet the report’s guidance does not seem to have been widely accepted. Some colleges—for example, SOAS—reject the new definition of anti-Semitism helpfully disseminated by the Government. I say “helpfully” because it distinguishes between lawful, political criticism of a state, which is fine, and race hatred which is not.
I turn now to the other points made in the letter sent to all Peers by the Government. It is stated in that letter that legal proceedings should be brought against universities if the freedom of speech duty is not complied with. That is too slow and the action needs to be against the disruptors in the first place rather than the university. There have been complaints to the Charity Commission about some unions but that, too, is slow and difficult. I respectfully suggest that the basis on which the Government now state that they are confident that students unions are sufficiently controlled by existing law is because I provided them with advice from a QC. Most universities do not know the law and dispute the conclusions. The Office for Students could require freedom-of-speech principles to be included in the public interest governance conditions but there is no requirement at the moment. It ought to be included in the Bill.
As we heard a few moments ago, many of our future leaders, both British and international, are being educated here in our university system. Since the referendum last year, there has been a spotlight on hate incidents, a rising number of unacceptable actions and speech. We are all disgusted by it. Some of us know that this has gone on for years and we are relieved that, finally, the occurrence of hate and intolerance in higher education, the media and society generally is getting the attention and disapprobation necessary. We will be letting down our future leaders if we allow them to receive their education on campuses where censorship is accepted and where hate speech and actions are overlooked. We will be storing up even more trouble for the future.
Accepting my amendment would not only show genuine commitment to excellence and academic freedom but clarify and control the Prevent guidance. It would provide for enforcement and support the UUK task force on hate and harassment. It would help students who have suffered from silencing and worse. To reject the amendment will send yet another message round the world—I am not exaggerating—that the Government and the university system remain passive in the face of a great threat to the future of our young. Our students must not graduate in the belief that there is no real freedom of speech, or that hate is mainstreamed. They must not leave university believing that it is routine to settle debates by silence or violence. For their good, I seek to have this amendment accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and spoke to it in previous stages of the Bill. I will be brief; in any event, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, set out a comprehensive argument as to why this is so important. Who would have thought that it was important in this country to champion freedom of speech? Sadly, obviously that has become necessary. We are living in strange times. We have heard tales of students closing down free speech, and universities have taken remarkably little action over some issues when freedom of speech should have been protected.
It is difficult. There are obviously grey areas between what is lawful and what is not. As the noble Baroness said, we must not in any way encourage hate speech or incitement to violence but university students should be subject to ideas they find uncomfortable and be in a safe place where they can address them without those ideas immediately being shut down. This amendment also includes students unions, so it should help activities and events organised by students to make quite sure that they too encourage freedom of speech. It is a precious and valued part of our national life, and it is currently under threat. This amendment would add powers to ensure that we preserve it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this is a very important debate. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising again with such powerful arguments the point she has been making consistently throughout Second Reading and Committee about the need to focus on this and get it right in the legislation. This issue is at the heart of what we really think about universities and higher education providers more generally. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, it is almost shocking to think that the understanding we have of what constitutes a university does not read across to what actually happens on the ground. The stories are legion and very unpleasant, and in many cases almost too awful to talk about in these circumstances.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and noble Lords for this valuable opportunity to discuss freedom of speech further. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, we all recognise that it is a crucial principle at the heart of higher education. I am particularly grateful for the meetings and discussions I have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my noble friend Lord Polak and Sir Eric Pickles, who have encouraged us to consider even more closely the responsibilities that universities must have, including in relation to their students’ unions.
In response, the Minister for Universities and Science will be writing to the higher education sector shortly, highlighting the importance of the freedom of speech duty and reminding universities of their responsibilities in this respect. The letter will focus particularly on students’ unions—and all students—and will reiterate how freedom of speech codes of practice should be enforced. It will also emphasise the importance and expectation of rapid resolution of any freedom of speech issues. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that speed is of the essence, as she made clear in the meetings we had.
The existing freedom of speech duty requires all those concerned in the government of certain higher education establishments to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students, employees and visiting speakers. This includes an express duty to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that the use of any of the provider’s premises are not denied to anyone on the grounds of their beliefs, views, policy or objectives. In order to help staff, students and visitors understand their obligations, providers within scope must also have in place an active code of practice. This must explain how they should approach events on any of their premises, and the conduct expected of them.
I stress that students’ unions also have a role to play in this. The same duty requires that student members of a students’ union be subject to the code of practice issued by their higher education establishment. Students’ unions established at higher education institutions are typically charities, and the Charity Commission has a statutory function to identify and investigate mismanagement and misconduct in the management and administration of charities. In addition, the freedom of speech duty clearly applies to premises that are occupied by students’ unions, whether or not they are premises of the higher education establishment. I hope that provides clarity on another point the noble Baroness raised.
I completely agree with noble Lords that legal duties and codes of practice take us only so far. We fully expect providers not only to have robust codes of practice in place but to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that they are adhered to. This includes taking disciplinary action where appropriate. In the occasional case where the duty is not complied with, legal proceedings have been brought against providers. In a recent case, the judge found that freedom of expression was alive and well in the university involved.
As part of its monitoring of the Prevent duty, HEFCE found that higher education providers showed a strong understanding of their responsibilities concerning freedom of speech and 93% had already put in place strong policies for assessing and managing the risks associated with any speaker event. We want to ensure that all relevant providers now do this. Therefore, for those that have not yet met this standard, action plans are in place for outstanding issues to be resolved by spring of this year. More generally, HEFCE regularly engages with higher education institutions, both informally and formally, in relation to balancing free speech with Prevent. While I understand the reasons for the noble Baroness’s amendment, unfortunately it is not clear how this additional duty would interact with the existing duty. We believe there is a genuine danger that in practice it would introduce ambiguity in relation to both duties.
However, I fear that to ensure that something happens without reasonable caveats unreasonably and unnecessarily imposes a burden on providers. It may well require them to address matters that are realistically out of their control. For example, it could result in an institution that faced concerns about violence at an event therefore being mandated to spend unreasonably large amounts of money on a significant security presence. Forcing such an event to unreasonably go ahead, or creating a situation where the duty to ensure freedom of speech may override concerns about the security of attendees, cannot be the desired effect. We need to allow institutions to make their own decisions, balancing the requirements of the duty against other responsibilities and enabling them to assess each individual case according to the situation.
We must also not overlook the fact that students, on the whole, do not think there is a problem with free speech. A 2016 survey by the Higher Education Policy Institute of over 1,000 full-time undergraduates at UK higher education institutions found that 83% of students felt free to express their opinions and political views openly at university. Noble Lords will also be reassured that Clause 15 enables the OfS to impose a public interest governance condition on registered providers. Such a condition would require applicable providers to ensure that their governing documents are consistent with a set of public interest principles relating to governance. The OfS will determine the list of principles following consultation. While we cannot prejudge that consultation, a principle underscoring the importance of free speech could be included in the list if the OfS considered it appropriate in light of the consultation.
In Committee I assured noble Lords that we would consider how to make sure that higher education providers continue to be subject to the existing freedom of speech duty under the new definitions created by the Bill. We have now considered this and we propose to extend the vital freedom of speech duty to all registered higher education providers under the Bill. This extends the duty beyond its current application of providers that broadly are eligible to receive HEFCE funding. It means that all providers on the OfS register will need to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that freedom of speech is secured, to issue a freedom of speech code of conduct, and to ensure that it is complied with. We consider that this duty is comprehensive and strikes the right balance between ensuring that the higher education sector remains a vital place for debate and discussion and ensuring that providers are not burdened by a disproportionate and ambiguous requirement. The duty is just as relevant today as it was at its inception more than 30 years ago.
Freedom of speech is vital but must always be within the law. We all stand against illegal hate speech, discrimination, intimidation or harassment against anyone, including on the basis of their race, religion, gender, sexuality or disability. I am sure we all agree that there is no place for anyone who is trying to incite violence or support terrorism. In addition to legislation, there are effective mechanisms for reporting hate speech and other incidents; for example, through university internal complaints procedures, to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, directly to the police, or to organisations including the Community Security Trust, Tell MAMA and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Most providers already have clear policies on discrimination, harassment and hate incidents. Providers subject to the Prevent duty are also required to have due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism, and as part of this to consider the impact of extremist speakers on campus.
Despite the good intentions of this amendment, its introduction adds little to existing legislation and risks confusion in relation to freedom of speech. It is not clear what measures would be required to prevent speech in advance of it happening. Unfortunately, this could lead to providers being too risk averse, with the unacceptable consequence that lawful free speech could be stifled. We believe that government Amendment 204, extending the existing freedom of speech duty to all registered higher education providers, strikes the right balance by requiring providers to do all they can to protect free speech. For unlawful speech, the answer is to continue to work with the sector to implement existing laws instead of creating new legislation. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I greatly appreciate the Government’s involvement in this topic. I support Amendment 204 and am very pleased to see that the Government wish to extend the width of the freedom of speech duty. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has listened, as has his counterpart in the other place. They have taken this topic seriously—indeed, no Government could possibly reject the notion of freedom of speech while passing a higher education Bill.
What I would hope to see in correspondence between the Government and the universities in the next few days or weeks before we come to Third Reading is a clear explanation that students, individually and in their unions, are covered wherever they may speak or block speech, both on university premises and off them. I would hope to see provisions for prompt enforcement. We are all well aware of how brief the university year is: if you are a student, you can commit an offence in April and by June you are history and the university no longer has any control over you and you may well get away with it. I also hope that the letter would support the matter that the Minister mentioned: what could be more simple than to include a freedom of speech condition in the governance conditions to be set down by the OfS? It would be excellent if those conditions were set out and sent to universities.
I have some slight caveats. First, a recent letter from the Minister in the other place disseminating the definition of antisemitism, which I believe was also signed by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, has been ignored and rejected by one of the places that most needed to hear it—namely, the School of Oriental and African Studies. Secondly, we have had provisions about freedom of speech on our statute book for 30 years, yet some universities have still not implemented them or do not know how to. I know for sure that one of them had never heard of them until 2011. Thirdly, it would be a pity if violence is still allowed to close down free speech. I would not wish to see, as I am sure noble Lords would not wish to see, a situation whereby the threat of violence prevents lawful speech and the university says that it simply cannot afford to police it. An atmosphere has to be created in universities and, I am afraid, security put in place so that violence does not close down free speech—whether that is in the university or anywhere else in society. If those conditions are met, as I hope they will be before Third Reading, then I will be content to withdraw the amendment now while reserving my right to revert to this topic.
Lord Storey
“Offence to provide or advertise cheating services
(1) A person commits an offence if the person provides any service specified in subsection (4) with the intention of giving a student enrolled at an English or Welsh higher education provider an unfair advantage over other such students.(2) A person commits an offence if the person advertises any services specified in subsection (4) knowing that the service has or would have the effect of giving such a student an unfair advantage over other such students.(3) A person commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, publishes an advertisement for any service specified in subsection (4).(4) The services referred to in subsections (1) to (3) are—(a) completing an assignment or any other work that a student enrolled at an English or Welsh higher education provider is required to complete as part of a higher education course in their stead without authorisation from those making the requirement;(b) providing or arranging the provision of an assignment that a student enrolled at an English or Welsh higher education provider is required to complete as part of a higher education course in their stead without authorisation from those making the requirement;(c) providing or arranging the provision of answers for an examination that a student enrolled at an English or Welsh higher education provider is required to complete as part of a higher education course before they complete it and without authorisation from those setting the examination;(d) sitting an examination that a student enrolled at an English or Welsh higher education provider is required to sit as part of a higher education course in their stead or providing another person to sit the exam in place of the student, without authorisation from those setting the examination.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, during the course of debates in Committee, and now on Report, we have heard about how our universities are the best in the world and how it is important to preserve their reputation and the reputation of higher education. Yet at the same time, we see the practice of plagiarism and cheating growing and growing. One has only to look at the 18 or so websites which offer not only to do essays but to employ a tutor to write your whole thesis for you.
Interestingly, the QAA has said that at present it has,
“no legal or regulatory powers to take action … against students guilty of plagiarism”,
essay mills or ghost writers. Why are we sitting back and allowing this to happen and the reputation of our universities to be besmirched? How would your Lordships feel if, as a student, you had worked really hard to get your degree or complete an assignment only to find that other students are paying for somebody to write it for them?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I spoke in support of the same amendment in Committee. This is a problem of some seriousness and I think it is understated. We heard in the previous debate that the QAA was not taking it particularly seriously and had no legal or regulatory powers to take action against an individual student who was found to have cheated in whatever way. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, told us at that time that it was rather offhand about the fact that only 17,000 students had been caught cheating. The fact that that was the tip of the iceberg seemed not to be a major issue.
It is a major issue if there is such an amount of this going on that Professor Newton—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has referred in the past—has carried out a survey by interviewing students and those providing such services, which came up with a whole list of how long it took for an essay, a dissertation or whatever. If it is even worthy of academic study, it has to be a problem of some substance. The noble Lord quoted Professor Newton and said that he had been advised that if the word “intent” had been taken out of the amendment it would have strengthened it. I am not quite clear about how it would have strengthened it. I think the noble Lord said it would have given it more power, but that has not been done. Will the noble Lord explain why the amendment has been submitted in the same form?
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is in her place. She was the Minister who responded to this debate in January. As we were together in the Scottish Parliament many years ago, I hoped that she might respond to this debate, but I see that—forgive me—silence is Goldie and the noble Lord, Lord Young, will respond. Will he pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made in her response in January that the Government were on the point of announcing a new initiative on this? The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said it would be with us,
“Within the next few weeks”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 765.]
Seven weeks have ticked by since we last discussed this, so we must be very close to it now. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he has a date for the publication of this new initiative, which I think was to involve the QAA, the NUS, HEFCE and UUK—a whole lot of acronyms. It would helpful and would perhaps deal with this issue, at least in the interim, as I accept that we are short of a position where legislation is required.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his extensive work on this issue. I am grateful for his contribution to the round-table discussions with the QAA and his continued engagement on this matter. He touched on the problem of foreign students. The evidence presented in the QAA’s report on plagiarism indicates that cheating may be more prevalent among international students. However, we recognise that plagiarism is a wider issue, so our approach is to look at the sector as a whole. We will be working with the QAA and other sector bodies to develop a co-ordinated response across all students and providers.
As my noble friend Lady Goldie said in Committee, plagiarism in any form, including the use of custom essay-writing services, or essay mills, is not acceptable and the Government take this issue very seriously. Having said that, I am afraid that I am going to plagiarise much of the speech which my noble friend made in Committee when she dealt with this amendment. My noble friend announced that the Minister, my honourable friend Jo Johnson, would be launching a co-ordinated sector-led initiative to tackle this issue, working with the QAA, UUK, NUS and HEFCE. In response to the question just posed by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, this initiative has now been launched.
The Minister has asked sector bodies to develop guidance with tough new penalties as well as information for students to help combat the use of these websites as well as other forms of plagiarism. This new guidance for providers should ensure that a robust approach with tough penalties can be embedded across the sector. In developing the guidance, the Minister has asked sector bodies to bear in mind that, for any enforcement to be effective, the penalties imposed must relate to both the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of an offence being discovered. The new sector guidance and student information is expected to be in place for the beginning of the 2017-18 academic year.
As part of this initiative, the QAA has also been tasked with taking action against the online advertising of these services and to work with international agencies to deal with the problem. The QAA has already started to progress these actions, including making a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, asking it to investigate the essay mills sector on a project basis.
We believe this sector-led, non-legislative initiative is the best approach to tackling this issue in the first instance. We will, of course, monitor the effectiveness of this approach and we remain open to legislation in the future should the steps we are taking prove insufficient. If legislation does become necessary, it would be crucial that we get the wording of the offence right. In the amendment tabled, it is unclear who would be responsible for prosecuting and how they would demonstrate intent to give an unfair advantage. As currently written, there is also a risk that the offence could capture legitimate services, such as study guides, under the same umbrella as cheating services.
The effectiveness of a legislative offence operating as a deterrent will depend on our ability to execute successful prosecutions and we would need to take care to get it right. This was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in Committee, who said that,
“this should not be rushed and we should get it spot on”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 766.]
We do not believe that legislative action is the best response at this time, and I have outlined the steps that are being taken. Against that background, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply and for the opportunity to talk over the issues with the Minister for Universities. The Minister is right to say that this should not be rushed. It is interesting that this issue started from a very small complaint and has become such an important matter that we now want to deal with. It shows that when we collectively share our thoughts and ideas we can get a result—I hope.
I was quite shocked to see in the QAA’s briefing that a 3,000-word dissertation in law can be done for just £6,750. I am delighted that the Government take this seriously. There is a need for a co-ordinated response. The penalties will be important. It is important that students know what is happening, and I suppose that if students do not wish to have penalties levied against them, the companies will wither on the vine. I look forward to seeing how this develops over the next few years. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that if this joint co-ordinated initiative does not prove effective, the Government will be open to legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Independent review of the Prevent strategy in higher education institutions
(1) Before the end of the period of three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must appoint an independent reviewer to—(a) conduct an independent review of the operation and effectiveness of the Prevent strategy in relevant higher education institutions; and (b) submit a report to the Secretary of State on the findings of the review.(2) The report must address, though may not be limited to, the following matters—(a) the operation and effectiveness of the Prevent strategy in higher education institutions;(b) the interaction of Prevent with—(i) other legal duties on higher education institutions; and(ii) the criminal law as it relates to higher education institutions;(c) existing arrangements for the inspection and monitoring of higher education institutions’ compliance with the Prevent duty; and(d) the nature and extent of training provided to staff working in higher education institutions.(3) The independent reviewer may invite evidence from civil society groups and others with expertise in, or experience of, Prevent.(4) An individual must not be appointed to the role of independent reviewer if that individual—(a) has a close association with Her Majesty’s Government; or(b) has concurrent obligations as a Government appointed reviewer.(5) The reviewer must have access to security sensitive information on the same basis as the reviewer appointed under section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006.(6) In appointing the reviewer, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure the reviewer has the relevant qualifications, including legal qualifications, to carry out his functions.(7) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the independent reviewer, must provide the reviewer with such staff as are sufficient to ensure that the reviewer is able properly to carry out his functions.(8) The Secretary of State must pay to the reviewer—(a) expenses incurred in carrying out his functions under this section; and(b) such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.(9) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report received under subsection (1)(b).(10) In this section, “Prevent” means the Prevent strand of Her Majesty’s Government’s counter-terrorism strategy CONTEST, including the statutory Prevent structure; and “statutory Prevent structure” means the provisions set out at Part 5 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.”
Lord Dubs
My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State for Education to appoint an independent person to review the Prevent strategy in higher education institutions. Such a review would be intended to cover the operation and effectiveness of the strategy—for example, by looking at the training of staff who have to give effect to the strategy—and at the legal obligations of universities, including human rights protection under the Human Rights Act 1998. It is essential that the reviewer of the strategy who would be appointed under the amendment should be quite independent of government.
I appreciate that this is a controversial issue, certainly as regards higher education and our universities. Many eminent bodies—parliamentary bodies and others—have criticised the strategy because of its implications. For example, the Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2014-15 concluded that,
“because of the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom in the context of university education, the entire … framework which rests on the new ‘prevent’ duty is not appropriate for application to universities”.
Government guidance requires higher education providers to entirely mitigate the risk of a speaker drawing an individual into terrorism. That is quite a complicated concept. It came out in a letter from a university in relation to a discussion with the organisers of an event that,
“there is a risk that given the topics to be discussed, it may attract attendees which hold extremist views”.
These are quite far-reaching bits of advice for universities, and it is not totally clear whether they could easily be implemented.
In July 2016, the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded in its look at radicalisation:
“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as ‘toxic’”.
David Anderson QC, the former reviewer of terrorist legislation, thought that there should be an independent review, as did Rights Watch (UK), Liberty, the Open Society Justice Initiative and many Members of Parliament across the political spectrum.
It seems to me fairly clear that there is serious concern about how the strategy should operate. I am arguing not that it should be scrapped but that we should know more about it. It has had long enough now for a proper review to take place. The communities most affected are sensitive to this, and the universities are worried about how to implement the strategy. I would have thought that the request in the amendment that the Government should review the policy is a fairly modest and reasonable one and that the time to do it is pretty soon. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my name is on this amendment as well. As the noble Lord said, this is a modest amendment, seeking only a review as set out in the amendment—although of course, if the Government were to tell your Lordships that they are about to announce an independent reviewer of the whole of Prevent, as David Anderson and others have called for, I do not suppose the noble Lord would object to that.
The UN special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association is among those who has commented on the operation of Prevent in educational institutions. With other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I met the special rapporteur. It is quite a facer to be in a meeting with someone in that position and be told that your own country is not behaving quite as it should and quite as the UN rapporteur thinks it should, given that we are so used to criticising other countries in human rights areas.
I do not want to repeat everything that has been said on this and other occasions; I appreciate we have other things to get through tonight. However, it seems to me that universities are precisely the places not just where views which are not illegal by definition should be challenged, but where there should be the opportunity for those who are confused, interested or whatever, to hear, to listen and to join in the debate. Prevent cannot work without confidence and trust in its reliability and its effectiveness. For these reasons, the proposal to review its operation is entirely sensible.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, as she noted in Committee, joined the Joint Committee on Human Rights just as I left it. In Committee, I reminded noble Lords of the concerns raised across the House during the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill about the application of the Prevent duty to higher education institutions. As we have heard, the present amendment does no more than call for an independent, authoritative review of how the duty now operates in those HE institutions. This would respond to concerns raised more recently by a range of organisations, including, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, the Home Affairs Select Committee. These concerns include: possibly discriminatory impact; the question of the adequacy or otherwise of the training given to academics; and the human rights implications, echoing earlier concerns of the JCHR.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said that,
“we welcome discussion about how to implement Prevent effectively and proportionately, but … we consider blanket opposition to the duty unhelpful”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col.762.]
As we have heard, the amendment no longer proposes blanket opposition. Surely, in order to have a well-informed discussion, as called for by the noble Baroness, it makes sense to have an independent review of how the policy is operating, as called for in the amendment, to inform that very discussion. I can understand why the Minister opposed the original amendment, even though I disagreed with her, but I can see no justification for opposing this much more modest, and I hope helpful, amendment as a basis for the discussion that she said the Government would like to see.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment and for the measured way in which they have put forward the case. I hope we will all agree we cannot ignore the increasing threat to the UK from terrorism. This is currently assessed as severe, meaning an attack is highly likely. We cannot simply wait for attacks to happen. We cannot stand by and do nothing while vulnerable individuals are targeted for radicalisation and drawn into terrorism, so we must have a strong and robust strategy to prevent this.
Prevent was discussed in Committee, and I am particularly grateful for the input at that stage from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who recognised the importance of Prevent in higher education. The Prevent programme is designed to safeguard vulnerable individuals from all forms of radicalisation in a variety of institutions. It is an important safeguard for our domestic students but also for the thousands of international students who choose to study here each year. Setting off to university can be a big transition in the lives of many people, and it is vital that universities safeguard their students during what can sometimes be a very challenging time for vulnerable individuals. The coalition Government introduced a clear legal duty to ensure universities recognise and act on this responsibility.
Preventing people being drawn into terrorism is difficult and challenging work, but Prevent is working and making a positive difference. In 2015, more than 1,000 referrals of vulnerable individuals were made to Channel, which enabled them to access support to try to divert them away from radicalisation. The vast majority of the individuals who choose to participate in Channel leave with no further concerns about their vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism—so as I say, Prevent is working.
Of course, this amendment is aimed at reviewing the operation of Prevent in the higher education sector, but this is already happening. Following consultation with the sector, HEFCE, which I believe to be independent of government, launched its monitoring framework last year and has had 100% engagement. In its report published in January, HEFCE found that the vast majority of institutions are implementing the Prevent duty effectively.
HEFCE has seen higher education providers increasingly improve their awareness of the risks to vulnerable students, and there have been some highly encouraging examples across the sector of how they mitigate these risks in a sensible way. The HEFCE report highlights numerous cases of good practice in the sector, and the steps being taken by institutions, from our oldest institutions through to newer providers. To give just one example, HEFCE found that the University of the West of England hosted a joint consultation with its students’ union on the implementation of the Prevent duty. This included open debate between students and Prevent partners with an opportunity for all students to view and comment on draft policies and procedures. This demonstrated a real understanding of the importance of engaging and collaborating with the student body to effectively implement the duty.
Finally, I know that noble Lords are concerned about the interplay between Prevent and freedom of speech, something the higher education sector rightly holds dear, and which we touched on in an earlier debate. Prevent does not stop lawful debate. In higher education, providers that are subject to the freedom of speech duty are required to have particular regard to this duty when carrying out their Prevent duty. This was explicitly written into the Prevent legislation to underline its importance as a central value of both our higher education system and indeed of our society. HEFCE’s monitoring shows that higher education providers are balancing the need to protect their students and their obligations under Prevent while ensuring that freedom of speech on campus is not undermined.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and those who have taken part in this short debate that the Government are grateful for the opportunity to discuss this vital duty that stops vulnerable individuals being drawn into terrorism. Prevent is being implemented effectively and pragmatically in the higher education sector and we want to maintain this momentum. We know it is both effective and pragmatic from the monitoring that HEFCE does. Against that background, I hope the noble Lord might feel able to withdraw Amendment 154.
Lord Dubs
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to those noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am not quite sure that the HEFCE review the Minister spoke about goes as wide as I would have wished—certainly the amendment would have gone much beyond that—nor am I sufficiently aware of the details of the results to see whether they would meet the concerns that many people have expressed to me. Given that we got something, though, I think we will return to this before too long. I think in the end, the Government will have to do a full and totally independent review of the Prevent strategy in higher education; there is too much at stake, it is too contentious, it is not as easy a situation as the Minister suggested and the concerns are much more widespread. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
“23A (1) Section 78 (financial years of higher education corporations) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, at the end insert “: Wales”.(3) In subsection (1), after “higher education corporations” insert “in Wales”.(4) After subsection (2) insert—“(3) In this section “higher education corporation in Wales” means a higher education corporation established to conduct an institution whose activities are carried on, or principally carried on, in Wales.””
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, as signalled on the annunciator, amendments to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill can be tabled until 7.45 pm.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 13th March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 View all European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reaons (PDF, 72KB) - (13 Mar 2017)
21:06 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 274 - Motion A1 disagreed.
21:58 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 118 / Noes: 274 - Motion B1 disagreed.
Lord Bridges of Headley
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
Commons Reason
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, now we are past the 70th hour of parliamentary debate on these 170 words, I begin by saying this. The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union is obviously one of the most momentous steps that our nation will take in our lifetimes. I believe that significant opportunities lie before us but, as someone who voted to remain, I am not deaf to people’s concerns and I do not dismiss them as somehow portraying a lack of patriotism. However, that decision to leave the European Union has been made, and this very simple Bill delivers on that decision.
The debate has been one of conviction and passion, and displayed some of the very best qualities of your Lordships’ House but, despite my best efforts to convince your Lordships otherwise, this little Bill was amended twice. We all agree that this House is perfectly entitled to ask the other place to think again. The other place has now done that and debated this again. Once again, it has decided to pass the Bill without amendment.
The issue at stake in the amendment is very simple. We all agree that we want to give certainty to those EU nationals who made the United Kingdom their home and to those UK nationals who live in the EU. The disagreement is over how we do that. The Government’s position has been clear from June. We have always said that we want to secure the status of EU citizens here in the UK, as long as we get a similar guarantee for UK citizens in the EU. We believe that this approach is fair, and reflects the duty of care that we have as a Government to the 900,000 UK citizens in the EU.
We need an agreement on this issue quickly, and we have tried to get one. However, a number of EU member states are not willing to discuss it until we have begun formal negotiations. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State confirmed over the weekend that we intend this issue to be one of the first that is dealt with. That is why we want to pass this Bill as soon as possible, so we can start negotiating and set about reaching that agreement.
Given that the other place has done as we asked and thought again, and decided to reject the amendment by a majority of 48, I argue with respect that this evening is not the time nor the place to return to the fray and insert terms and conditions to our negotiating position, still less to force the Government to make a unilateral move on the status of EU nationals in the UK.
The Bill has only one purpose: to implement the outcome of the referendum result in June and respect the judgment of the Supreme Court, nothing more, nothing less. I urge the House to pass the Bill unamended, and I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Oates
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 1”.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I move this Motion for the following reasons. First, despite the large majority that voted for the amendment to the Bill in this House, the Government have failed to make any concessions and not even attempted to address the many issues raised by noble Lords in Committee. Secondly, the profound nature of the issue at stake should make us think very carefully before we concede. This debate is not over some arcane technicality or some petty, partisan disagreement; it is about people’s lives. It is about whether people will be allowed to live in the country that they have made their home with the people for whom they care, whether they can stay in a job or plan a career, and whether their children can remain in the school they know and study with the friends they have made. It is about their futures, their homes and their families, and it is about the fear and misery being caused by every further day of uncertainty.
Thirdly, we should weigh our decision very carefully, because this debate is also about the integrity of our country. It is about whether we will honour the unequivocal commitment made by the official Vote Leave campaign that, if the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, the rights of all EU citizens in the UK would be guaranteed. Unlike most other issues arising from the referendum, there is absolutely no dispute about what was promised to EU citizens. The Vote Leave campaign, which was supported by a number of noble Lords, made the following categorical statement:
“There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present”.
There were no caveats; there was no issue of reciprocity or talk of negotiations—just a categorical commitment unilaterally given.
Finally, this debate is about the role of this House. Precedent indicates that, when the rights of individuals have been threatened, this House has always been robust in its defence of them. I hope that we will live up to that precedent today. The facts are clear: a firm and explicit commitment was made by the Vote Leave campaign that the rights of EU citizens in the UK would be protected. Parliamentary committees of both Houses agree that a unilateral guarantee should be provided now, and all the bodies representing British citizens in the EU who have contacted me and many other Members of this House have supported that position.
It is clear that, if we do not insist on our amendment, there is a real possibility that EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU may not have clarity as to their status for another two years. The House of Commons Exiting the EU Committee rightly described such a situation as unconscionable. I understand the nervousness of some noble Lords about challenging the elected House on this matter, but to those who argue that it is not the right time for us to insist on our amendment, that this Bill is the wrong place for us to insist or that precedent tells us that we should not insist, I respectfully argue the contrary. Your Lordships’ EU Justice Sub-Committee and the House of Commons Exiting the EU Committee unanimously agreed that the UK should act unilaterally and that the time to act was now. This Bill is the only place to act if we are to end the debilitating uncertainty that is causing so much distress.
The Minister says that we have the right to amend the Bill; we also have a right to insist on our amendments, and precedent tells us that we should—that when issues of important principle or individual rights are at stake, your Lordships’ House can and does insist on its position and, if necessary, repeatedly pushes the issue back to the Commons. It did so on the 2014 Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, and on the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. It did so no fewer than three times over the 2007 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill, no fewer than four times over the 2006 Identity Cards Bill and no fewer than five time over the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It has regularly insisted on amendments to Bills when far less was at stake than today: on the powers of the Learning and Skills Council; or the means by which the chairman of the Legal Services Board is appointed; or even on the fitting of retro-reflective tape—whatever that is—on heavy goods vehicles.
How then, when the rights of millions of people are on the line, could this House give up at the first attempt? How, when clear and unequivocal commitments were made to EU citizens in our country, could this House fail to insist that they are upheld? How, when the integrity of our country is at stake, could this House fail to insist that it is upheld? Many people will be watching us tonight: we cannot please them all, but we can show them that no matter what the pressures from the media or the threats from the Government may be, we are prepared to do what we know to be the right thing. I have no doubt that the right thing is to insist on this amendment to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK and, in doing so, to uphold the honour and integrity of this country. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, it is not in any way my intention to repeat the arguments I have used about Brexit in the various debates in this House over the last few weeks. But there is a question I must ask the Minister, the answer to which is very important to all of us. It goes to the heart of the earnest intention of the Government to be quite transparent with the House and the public as the Brexit negotiations, which will presumably start in a few days, continue—as they will for a long time.
I have not been very successful in getting answers to questions I have asked the Minister in previous debates. I console myself by thinking that that may be because I have touched on some rather delicate points that are potentially embarrassing for the Government. But it is not a great consolation: I would rather have full and frank answers and I hope that I will have one tonight—not at all in my interest but in the interest of the issues that I have just raised.
The Minister has just told the House, and the Prime Minister and Minister for Brexit have both said on many occasions, that it was their original hope and intention to negotiate a deal on the future residency rights of EU citizens here and of British citizens in the remaining part of the EU in advance even of giving notice under Article 50. That unfortunately proved impossible because some of the continentals were not willing to do it. The Government would now like to negotiate on that matter and resolve it in advance of negotiations on difficult economic and other subjects, so that those negotiations can start very quickly.
My question is: how can that possibly be? A negotiation on the future residency rights of British citizens in the EU or of EU citizens here is nothing whatever to do with the Commission. It is not a negotiation that can be pursued with Monsieur Barnier; it is not a matter for Mr Verhofstadt or Mr Juncker, either. Residency issues, requirements and regimes throughout the European Union concerning persons who are not citizens of a member state or another member state but citizens of a non-EU state are not a matter for the treaty: they are a matter for each individual member state. Every member state has its own different residency rules. What is more, the arguments and forces which will be brought to bear if there is any suggestion of changing those rules will be different in each country. So if you want to negotiate on that—as the Prime Minister says, and the Minister has said this evening—you will have to conduct separate, bilateral negotiations with 27 different countries.
Eventually, the result of that negotiation will have to be ratified by 27 different countries—28, actually, because it will have to be ratified here, I hope. That is not something that can be done in a few weeks, or even, I think, in a short number of months. If it had been attempted before notice was given under Article 50, it would have delayed by many months the issuing of a notice under Article 50, quite contrary to what the Prime Minister said her intention was. That is something which, if it is undertaken immediately we issue notice under Article 50, will itself delay the procedures for a very long time. How can the Government have thought that this was a way of accelerating progress on the Brexit negotiations? I think that is a question which nobody has asked. I tried to ask it the other day but I was not able to capture your Lordships’ attention. I ask it now because it is absolutely essential if the House is to achieve a complete picture of what is going on in this very important area.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak on an issue tangential to that raised by my noble friend and ask a couple of simple questions. They are essentially the subject of an amendment that I tabled to the Bill last week and which I subsequently withdrew when it became clear that the amendment on these matters moved by my noble friends on the Front Bench was likely to be carried by the House.
First, under a mixed agreement negotiation, does a negotiated settlement in the Council remain valid as far as the rights of United Kingdom citizens living in Europe are concerned even if such an agreement was not supported in either the European Parliament or in the parliaments of the nation states? Does it stand alone? Secondly, in the event that we were to take this whole debate on EU and UK citizens’ rights outside the Article 50 process, which is essentially what my noble friend appeared to be alluding to, whereby the hurdles of qualified majority voting, a European Parliament vote and approval by nation states were to be avoided, if they are required; and, if we hit problems, and in the event that a number of European states outside Article 50 were to indicate their support for upholding the indefinite rights of UK citizens living in the EU, would the Government in those circumstances be prepared to concede the rights of EU citizens from those same states living in the United Kingdom? That would mean that some states which did not agree would be excluded. If the Government were to do that, it would remove the hurdles of QMV, the European Parliament vote or votes in national parliaments, if they are needed. That approach would lead to a far earlier closure of the whole debate, which Members are concerned will be dragged out over years.
It is all right for the Prime Minister to say that UK citizens’ rights will be top of the Euro agenda, but what worries some of us is that a victory—or a so-called victory—in the Council of Ministers may be pyrrhic and not provide the assurances that people want; and that, despite assurances given in private to David Davis, some countries may seek to carry their decisions on citizenship into arguments over the contribution that the United Kingdom must make to wind-up costs. At the end of the day, despite all these assurances, Governments and nation states in Europe may say, “We are going to turn this into an argument about the contributions the British make”. In that light, I wonder whether the Minister might be prepared to give me a response this evening.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I have no doubt whatever that Article 50 must be triggered, and triggered sooner rather than later, but equally I have no doubt about the merits of Motion A1. I supported it before, as did 358 Members of this House—a majority of 102.
Most of the decisions that we take in this House are nicely balanced. This one, I suggest, is perfectly clear and the arguments are compelling. No one doubts the need for the EU nationals who are already lawfully here to remain here for the sake of academia, the health services, the care services, the building industry—note what my noble friend Lord Kerslake said in Committee—and so forth, and no one doubts that those whom we most need to stay are starting to bleed away. We should remember what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said in Committee about the medics, and read the letter in today’s Times from the academics at Oxford.
The Government say that this assurance is unnecessary and that in fact there is no possibility of our ever wanting to deny these people their present rights, let alone deport them. Of course, logically that is indeed so but, as the haemorrhaging of this group shows, the perception among those affected is, perhaps unsurprisingly, different. Then it is said—it was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in Committee—that fairness demands that all expatriate EU nationals are treated identically and that no assurance should be given to those here until reciprocal assurances are given to our citizens in the other member states. I would give three answers to that suggestion.
First, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others pointed out in Committee, those representing UK nationals in other EU states positively support our giving this assurance, and they believe—rightly, I suggest—that their case will be strengthened, not weakened, by our now taking this initiative. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said in Committee,
“a generous gesture, freely given”,—[Official Report, 1/3/17; col. 835.]
will assist in creating a good climate for the start of these negotiations with the other 27 nations, difficult though they will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has again emphasised today.
Secondly, the stronger the Government’s argument that no assurance is necessary because EU nationals here are desperately needed for our economy and health service and so forth, and therefore they face no risk of losing these rights, the weaker the argument that there is an advantage in keeping the future of the EU nationals here in doubt for the purpose of negotiating our nationals’ future abroad. In short, even if other member states chose not to allow our UK nationals to remain there—and we can understand that in some instances the case for that is rather less compelling than our need to keep EU nationals here—we would still want to keep their nationals here.
Thirdly, it is hardly surprising that the other states are refusing to discuss this issue until we trigger Article 50. However, it is the UK’s decision to pursue Brexit—sensible or not, and there are obviously different views on that—that has precipitated this crisis and created the uncertainty and insecurity felt by this group. I suggest that we can and should allay their fears at the same time as we trigger Article 50. This clause would not delay it—
Lord Cormack (Con)
The noble and learned Lord knows that I agree with much of what he is saying but that is not the issue tonight. The issue tonight is whether we recognise our constitutional limitations and whether we fly in the face of what the Commons, having been given the opportunity to reconsider, has now decided emphatically. As a great constitutionalist, which the noble and learned Lord is, I hope he will agree with that.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
In broad terms of course I agree. I have never previously voted against a Government on ping-pong. I do not know how often my noble friend plays ping-pong but is it really so very exceptional to keep a rally going beyond two strokes? I suggest not, and I suggest that we do it here.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support Motion A1. The amendment that was carried in this House a few days ago was passed by a huge majority on a near-record turnout of noble Lords in that Division. It appears to me that very little attempt has been made, if any, to meet the points that were made in this Chamber. It seems that the Government have relied totally on their power to get a whipped vote through and to steamroller this through.
The Government could have accepted that amendment or they could have come to meet us, but they have not done so. In view of what the Minister said about the Government seeking other countries in the European Union to agree the status of UK citizens first, what if they do not? Do we then kick out the European citizens who are here? Is that the logic of the argument? If it is, is that acceptable to this House?
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that this was a debate of conviction and passion. Yes, it is a debate of conviction, and convictions do not change just because they have been beaten by a whipped vote in another place. They do not get kicked into touch. My convictions still stand, and whatever others will do tonight, mine will stand in the Division lobby.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to, spoke in favour of, and voted for the original amendment, and I believe that the arguments advanced in support of that amendment were correct and remain so today. The fact that the Government have chosen to force through the Bill in its unamended form does not change my view on that. It is perhaps worthy of noting, as it was noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that although one of the arguments put forward by the Government was concern about the status of UK citizens living in the rest of the European Union, much of the support for the amendment has come from those UK nationals living in the European Union who felt that it was in their interests.
I only speak now because I feel that I cannot keep silent tonight in view of all of the communications one has received from people asking one to insist on this amendment. I have to say openly and publicly that I cannot support continued insistence which, in different circumstances, I would have been tempted so to do. To do so is possibly to delay the process of invoking Article 50, which would not be in the interests of the European Union or the United Kingdom. If I accept—and, of course I accept—the advice from the Minister, it could delay the start of negotiations to safeguard the interests of EU citizens here and UK citizens in the European Union.
I will, however, make one further comment, which is applicable to the amendment to the second Motion that is to be moved tonight. I hope that the Government and those within it who favour a quick, hard Brexit, appreciate that the referendum, while expressing the will of the people, did not give the Government a blank cheque as to how to implement it. They should also accept that the answer to any question or criticism cannot be an allegation that the questioner is trying to thwart the will of the people and is somehow acting undemocratically. It is neither an answer to the question, nor is it true.
Many of us who, this time at least, will have to accept the inevitability of the referendum and Brexit, want to maintain the closest possible links to the European Union. There are many ways to exit the Palace of Westminster: all take you out into the street. It is perfectly possible to want to be nearer to Millbank or to Westminster Underground. There are valid reasons for choosing either, but there is not much wisdom in choosing to leap out of the nearest first-floor window. Those of us who believe that we were correct in passing this amendment and asking the other place to think again will not be pressured into acquiescence by continued allegations that our actions are undemocratic, ignore the people or are disloyal. From these Benches and from my point of view on the European Union, we do not need lessons in loyalty from some—not all, I accept—whose history on the issues of Europe makes them experts in disloyalty.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I put my name to the amendment that has been rejected by the Commons and which we are now debating another amendment on. My position is identical to that of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I have not resiled in any way from my belief that a unilateral statement by the British Government would be best for the United Kingdom and our citizens in the rest of Europe. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I am not sure that this is the moment to return the ball.
However, I say to the Minister, if I may, that I had many dealings over the years with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, mainly on budgetary issues which were quite stressful. On one occasion when I persuaded her to follow a tactic that I suggested would be best and she was doubtful about, she looked up and said, “Okay, but you better be right”. That is what I say to the Government. Their choice for a transactional approach could end in tears and then, we will be back here.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, may I very briefly intervene? As your Lordships know, I voted for the amendments in Committee. However, for the reasons advanced by my noble friends Lord Bowness and Lord Cormack, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I shall not be supporting this Motion. I think that the time has come to accept the view of the House of Commons.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, there has been a great deal of weeping and gnashing of gums on these issues in recent weeks and months. I do not like the government policy on this either. It appears to be: if we cannot help everyone, we will not help anyone. Nevertheless, we have asked the other place to think again. They have thought again and have not taken our advice, and our role now, I believe, is not to insist.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I have been listening to what people have said and do not want to repeat anything. However, some of us objected to the amendments not because we lacked sympathy, understanding or compassion. We did it simply because we thought there was a confusion of process with substance. The second reason some of us objected, in particular myself, is point 6.2 of the government paper, which says:
“While we are a member of the EU, the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU remain unchanged. As provided for in both the EU Free Movement Directive (Article 16 of 2004/38/EC) and in UK law, those who have lived continuously and lawfully in a country for at least five years automatically have a permanent right to reside”.
If Brexit happens, and I am sure that it will, EU law will be incorporated into British law. It would be quite tough for the Government to then argue that those who have lived here for more than five years do not have a right to reside, and your Lordships’ House and the other place would have to argue the case again.
I approach this issue with deep compassion. I came here while running away from Amin’s torture. For almost 15 years, I was living and travelling on a UK travel document. As a student, I was prevented from working. I know the difficulties. But when I sit in your Lordships’ House and hear Members say that the other side is not the only one that thinks it is right, I think that we should all find a language that talks about people as people. They are being used as a bargaining chip, which is very hurtful to me and others. That cannot be right because it casts aspersions on those who argue the other way.
The time has come for us to decide. If we want a quick resolution for the EU citizens who live in this country, I will find it difficult to continue further delaying the triggering of the article. It should be done as quickly as possible.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his rather unfortunate task of having to bring us the regrettable decision of the Commons on the rights of EU nationals living here. Many of them, of course, are married to Brits and have British-born children but possibly will have no right to remain after Brexit day.
This House by a majority of 102 asked the Commons to do two very easy things. It asked for both pragmatic and ethical reasons. One thing was to make it clear that EU citizens, whether Brits abroad or Europeans here, should not be treated as bargaining chips to be traded against each other. The House felt strongly that these families, who had as a result of our forthcoming exit suddenly found their own lives on hold given the uncertainty over their future, should have their rights secured as soon as possible but without holding one group’s interests hostage to those of another group.
Secondly, we called on the Prime Minister to act unilaterally in the one area under her control and to say to EEA nationals, “We will ensure you continue to have the rights you expected when you arrived, even after we withdraw from the EU”. We did it because of the calls of those affected, and of their employers who fear the loss of valuable colleagues—some 25,000 workers in the health service alone are now thinking of leaving. The Government and the Commons have rejected our call. However, I absolve the Brexit committee, which unanimously felt that the Government should act unilaterally on this. The only reason for the rejection is that it is not a matter that needs to be dealt with in the Bill. Presumably the Government have no other rationale for saying to those here, “You must wait to know about your future until the 27 have agreed how they will treat UK nationals”. That could take months, if not years.
We hear from Brussels that although citizens’ rights will be high on the negotiators’ agenda, it could take years for the final deal, as I believe Liam Fox and David Davis confirmed yesterday, reflecting on the normal practice of “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. We regret this delay and lay the blame for this hiatus fairly and squarely at the door of No. 10. We will also campaign for an early resolution to the plight of those caught up in a legal Neverland not of their making. We will continue to press the Government to move on this and provide the certainty our amendment sought, albeit maybe by other—perhaps I should say imaginative—parliamentary routes, a number of which are already under consideration. The people concerned cannot wait until March 2019 to hear their fate.
I turn now to the Liberal Democrats’ Motion. We do not think this is a responsible move. It is not one we could support. This House’s view by a majority of 102 is clear. The Government should act unilaterally on the position of people already among us. As the mover of the original Motion, no one in this House will doubt my support for that. However, our view has been rejected in the elected House of Commons and it is clear that the Government are not for turning. On behalf of the Opposition I say to the people concerned, we are not giving up on you. We will pursue your interests in other ways.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I will take no lessons from the Liberal Democrats, who confessed to me outside the Chamber that this appeals to their core vote and they are piling on members because of it. So we are here to move a Motion to help them gain members. That may be suitable for them but it is not taking this House as a legislative body seriously. More than that, they are falsely raising people’s hopes, when they know that this Government in the Commons, despite my best endeavours and wants, will not change their mind. They should think hard about what they are doing to those people whose expectations they are raising, which will not be fulfilled.
I worry that they are also making a bit of a mockery of the House if they think that we will vote on this, as we did last week, in the safe knowledge that others will vote the other way and it will not be carried. I also wonder what it does to the decision that we took. The Lords majority of 102 is bound to shrink. As we have heard already, we know that the House does not have the appetite to send this matter back given the majority in the Commons, which was higher than before. Instead of our being able to go out from this on the high level of saying, “By 102, we think that the Government are wrong”, we would have either a lower vote or a lower vote an hour later if it ping-ponged. By the way, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, that the way I play ping-pong I never get it back even once. Instead of saying that we ended up with a majority of 102 on the side of those EU nationals here, we will have a lower vote either now or later on.
On behalf not so much of this side of the Chamber as of the 3 million people who are looking to us for some help, the Government’s position is a matter or enormous regret to me. I do not think that it is correct; I do not think that it is moral or ethical; I do not even think that it is clever negotiations. However, we accept the view of the elected House. We will not rest after tonight. We will be back, urging the Government to allay the fears of people caught in this limbo.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I thank those who have contributed to this short debate. Once again, many of your Lordships have spoken with great passion. After so many hours of debate, I fear that there is very little that I can say without repeating myself and travelling over well-worn ground, so I will be quick and brief.
I reiterate the point that the Government’s position on this issue is very clear: we want to secure the status of EU citizens in the UK, just so long as we can do so while guaranteeing the position of UK citizens to whom we have a responsibility across the European Union. We cannot and should not seek to do one without the other. All 4 million people matter.
As to assurances given to EU nationals here today, let me repeat what I said previously: nothing changes in their status until we have left the EU. Nothing can change without the approval of Parliament, and the Government will continue to respect their obligations under the ECHR. This position is held by the Government and now by the other place. I remind your Lordships of what our European partners are saying. Many of them have made it clear that they, too, want a speedy agreement, but once we have started the negotiations. Indeed, the Polish Prime Minister has said:
“Of course, these guarantees would need to be reciprocal. It is also important what guarantees the British citizens living and working in other member states of the European Union will have”.
We need an agreement on this issue as soon as possible and I believe that we are in a good position to do just that. Just last Friday, Guy Verhofstadt, the lead negotiator for the European Parliament, told the BBC that the issue of EU citizens’ rights post exit should be addressed,
“before we talk about anything else”.
On the matters raised by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Campbell-Savours, I want to highlight the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who said on this subject earlier today in the other place that the Government would aim to get all member states, the Commission and the Council in an exchange of letters to explain what the rights of EU citizens are and will be once the UK has left the EU and once an agreement has been reached in negotiations. As regards the process of ratification of such an agreement, this is a matter for negotiation, but it is the Government’s intention to have this agreement concluded by the end of the two years.
Our commitment to seeking an agreement is clear, but the Government will not be able to set about securing this reciprocal guarantee until we have passed this Bill and triggered Article 50. I urge your Lordships to let this Bill go through unamended and not to prolong its passing, so that the Prime Minister can trigger Article 50 and seek the certainty that we all want to offer both European and UK citizens.
Lord Oates
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for his principled advocacy on this issue, but I must confess I cannot follow the constitutional argument that he and other noble Lords have made that somehow we cannot insist to the elected House. I could understand it if this House never insisted, or if the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, never voted to insist against the will of the elected House, but he knows that is not the case. I wonder why on this issue of such vital importance to so many people we should not.
Lord Cormack
Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord. Yes, we agree on the fundamentals of the issue, but this is a constitutional matter. What is the point of prolonging a time-sensitive Bill, on which the fortunes of so many ultimately depend, merely to have the satisfaction of being soundly beaten in the Lobbies?
Lord Oates
Whether we are soundly beaten in the Lobbies is a matter for noble Lords. It is not, with respect, a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I seek to put my argument and I hope to convince people. None the less, I pay tribute to the advocacy he has given so far and to all noble Lords who have made this issue crucial.
I am sorry that the Government continue to refuse to do the right things. I am sorry that they failed to make any concessions, or answer any of the questions that were put to them in Committee. I am particularly sorry that, as a result, they intend to allow the fear and uncertainty of millions of EU and UK citizens to continue. But the Minister, to be fair to him, has been given an impossible job defending the indefensible and I respect the skill with which he does it. What I cannot respect are the seven current Cabinet Ministers who backed the Vote Leave campaign which made an unequivocal, unilateral commitment to EU citizens during the referendum campaign—a commitment that has been betrayed. I hope that all noble Lords who supported and were involved in Vote Leave will think about that commitment, which they made without caveats or conditions.
That is the Government’s position. What I do not understand is the position taken by the Labour Front Bench in the House today, but I recognise that it will be as bewildering to many Labour Members as it is to me. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that if you want to get the ball back across the net, it is very important not to drop the bat before you get there. The Labour Party has a key role in the way things are decided in this House. If it was prepared to stand behind this and insist, there would be a greater chance of success.
Last Tuesday, the Leader of the Labour Peers, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, made great play of attacking the Liberal Democrats, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has done. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked how we could oppose the Bill given how extraordinarily important the amendment on citizens’ rights was. I voted that the Bill should not pass because I firmly believe that we should not begin withdrawal negotiations until there is a mechanism for the people to have a final say on the outcome of those negotiations.
There were two things also on my mind when I went through the Division Lobby: first, the Government were making it crystal clear, even at that stage, that they would concede nothing in regard to the amendments; and secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, had already indicated that if the Bill was returned to this House, she would concede everything.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely wrong on that point. If he is going to quote me, he should do so correctly. I have always said that in this House we respect the primacy of the other place. We said that there should be no extended ping-pong but that we would listen to what the Commons had to say. If the noble Lord really believes that by voting for this Motion tonight he will change the mind of the other place, then he can go ahead but do not give false hope to people who rely on this House to make a point to get the other side to think again. It is no good noble Lords opposite cheering me—you got us into this mess.
Lord Oates
The noble Baroness’s argument makes no sense at all. She has voted in many Divisions insisting on amendments when she knew they had no chance of success. It turns out that many of the amendments she voted for in the past to insist to the Commons when it was not going to give in were more important than this amendment. I am sorry about that and bewildered by it.
I hope that noble Lords of all parties and none will on this occasion pay attention to their conscience rather than their party Whip and join us in the Division Lobby. In view of the importance of this issue to millions of EU and UK citizens, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bridges of Headley
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Commons Reason
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, last week I set out the three core principles governing the UK’s approach to leaving the European Union, namely: that the Government are determined to honour the result of the referendum; that everything we do will be determined by our national interest; and that parliamentary sovereignty is key. This last principle was reflected in the Government’s commitment to give Parliament a vote on the final agreement. This House believed that this commitment ought to be enshrined in legislation, and your Lordships sought to go further by giving Parliament the power to say whether the Prime Minister can terminate negotiations with the European Union.
The issue of parliamentary approval had been debated by the other place before the Bill came to this House. It disagreed with amending the Bill then and, having considered this specific amendment, it has now disagreed again by a majority of 45. In essence, and to keep it very short, the Government’s position has not changed. This amendment is unnecessary. It would create untold uncertainty and would undermine our negotiating position. This is why the other place considered this issue again—
Lord Bridges of Headley
Let me just finish this, and then the noble Lord will able to speak. I am sure that once I have sat down he will be able to speak. This is why the other place considered the issue again and rejected this amendment.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
Before the Minister sits down, will he accept an intervention?
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
I am most grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention—enfin. I am genuinely puzzled. If it is the case that John Major could seek parliamentary approval for the Maastricht Bill twice without weakening his bargaining position, how is it that this Government cannot allow Parliament to have a say once without weakening theirs?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am sorry to say to the noble Lord that I am genuinely puzzled by his position. He went on national television and said that he would obey the decision of the British people and now he is trying to get away from those comments. That is what I think will baffle many people. We have made the Government’s position very clear: when an agreement has been reached, we will give this House and the other place the chance to vote on it. That is the Government’s position. I urge noble Lords not to insist on the amendment and I beg to move Motion B.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Baroness Ludford
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 2”.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, told “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday that he was determined to make sure that Britain does not fall off a cliff edge—in other words, does not leave without an agreement. Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told the rival “Peston on Sunday” that it would be perfectly okay if we were not able to get an agreement; while the last in the trio, Trade Secretary Liam Fox told Sky News that not having a deal would be bad not just for the UK but for Europe as a whole—and I agree with Liam Fox.
So the three merry Brexiteers seem to be rather at odds about the prospects. One thinks that no deal is perfectly okay, another thinks that it would be bad all round and a third says that it will not happen. Given that the Cabinet is all over the place, it is perfectly self-evident that Parliament needs to stay in the driving seat throughout the process to prevent a disorderly and catastrophic plunge over the cliff edge—although, Liberal Democrats would add, with the people having the last word.
We have been reminded by the press of the Treasury view that an extreme Brexit, crashing out of the EU without a trade deal and relying only on WTO rules, would cause a major economic shock and is the option with the most negative long-term impact on the economy. The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, has just now warned of the uncertainty and shock of a hard Brexit, including confusion for EU and British citizens, the sudden return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic and a major hit to the economy.
Government assurances of a vote on a final deal are not enough. First, it is executive arrogance and presumption of the most preposterous kind for the Government to insist that MPs will have to choose only between the deal brokered by the Prime Minister and crashing out of the EU on to WTO terms in a hard Brexit. Secondly, Tory government assurances do not have a good track record. Their broken promises include manifesto commitments on safeguarding the UK’s position in the single market, not raising national insurance contributions and on lifting the 15-year cap on votes for Brits abroad—the very Brits they claim to be looking after, incidentally. This is in addition to unfulfilled assurances in respect of the Dubs amendment on refugee children and pledges on the full implementation of Leveson.
On Report, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, said that of course the Government would honour their promise. But that is five broken promises already, and an assurance now on parliamentary sovereignty may well be destined to go just the same way, given that the track record on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty itself since last June has involved resistance all the way from this Government on any restraint on executive power. So a commitment on a vote wide enough in scope to be meaningful in the event of no deal must be written into the Bill. The Government have given no good reason why that should not be so.
The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who sadly I think is not in his place tonight, wrote yesterday about how Members of the House of Lords were called upon to vote on an issue involving a critical principle: the supremacy of Parliament in approving or rejecting the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. He said:
“Some say the involvement of parliament will weaken the prime minister’s hand ... I reject this argument as mere blackmail, much of it peddled by extreme Brexiteers”—
some of whom, he added,
“hanker for the hardest Brexit of all, without a deal of any kind with our EU partners”.
So he rejected what he described as,
“the cheap jibes uttered by Brexiteer fanatics, some of them—I regret to say—sitting on the government front bench”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, last week set the tone for staying the course. She said:
“We passed those amendments not as some kind of vanity exercise or just to make a point—we are not a debating society where we have our debates and then afterwards shrug off home or off to the pub because we have made our point and have no thought about what happens next”.
She issued a rallying cry, saying that,
“responsibility is not just about winning—it is about taking responsibility for our actions”,
and that she was,
“very much committed to those two amendments”.—[Official Report, 7/3/17; cols. 1342-43.]
I very much hope that that commitment will be made evident from the Labour Benches tonight—or at least from many of them. Otherwise, the risk is of facilitating what it is becoming clear is the real agenda of many if not all of this Tory Government, which is to pursue Brexit at any cost, to go over that cliff in what they apparently believe be a winning Tory Party formula for the 2020 election: “We have delivered Brexit”. Maybe—but at what terrible cost? For us in the Liberal Democrats, as well as for the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, last week, this is a matter of principle and conscience.
Baroness Ludford
Not the Government but Parliament must be in charge, for the good of the country. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I moved the amendment last week that was approved by your Lordships’ House. I very much regret that the House of Commons has not taken the advice of this House and indeed that the Government have made no effort to move in the direction of the views of this House. We won the vote last week because we won the argument. That is why the amendment was carried by a majority of 98, with the largest number of noble Lords voting, so I understand, in any vote since 1831.
However, it is now time for this House to give way to the House of Commons on this matter. Earlier this evening the Government had a majority of 45 in the Commons. There is no reason whatsoever to think that if this House were to stand its ground, the Commons would change its view later this evening. I have to say to the noble Baroness that for the Liberal Democrats to press this matter is in parliamentary terms—I say nothing about any other consideration—a completely pointless gesture, and I for my part cannot support it.
I also bear in mind that this afternoon the Secretary of State gave a clear assurance that any agreement would be put to both Houses for their approval. I would prefer that to be in the Bill, but we do have an assurance. We have no assurance on parliamentary approval if the Prime Minister decides it would be better to leave the EU with no deal, and I regret that. However, I take some comfort from the point that was made last week by a number of noble Lords who were supporting the Government: Parliament has ample means of asserting its sovereignty in those circumstances.
I have two other brief points. The first is that this Bill has demonstrated the value of parliamentary sovereignty at this stage of notifying our intention to withdraw from the EU. It is only because of the determination of my client, Mrs Gina Miller, and the independence of the Divisional Court and the Supreme Court that we have had the Bill at all. I very much hope that during the negotiating process, and at the end of it, the Government will show more wisdom on the question of parliamentary sovereignty than they have done at this notification stage.
My other point is that for my part, I bear very much in mind that this is only the beginning of the process of withdrawal from the EU, a point the Minister has repeatedly emphasised. A much more complex Bill is going to be brought forward in the next Session to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 in order to maintain rights and duties that owe their origin to EU law.
The Government are on notice that this House will be scrutinising that Bill with especial care to ensure that parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law and other constitutional principles are upheld. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, has produced an introduction to some of the issues which will arise.
This is just the start of the debate. This House has made known its views on the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. I very much look forward to continuing the debate with the Minister, but not on this Bill.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, the best part of 35 years ago, I had a hand in trying to amend what Gerald Kaufman described as the longest suicide note in history. I have played a little part in trying to amend what I think we should now call the shortest suicide note in history.
On the question of how Parliament fits into this, Parliament will be there in two years’ time and there will be plenty of opportunity then—I would have preferred it today—for Parliament to have a decisive say, whatever the small print says, in relation to scenario A, B or any other scenario at the outcome of the negotiations, which I do not think will be a happy occasion.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, I want to discuss a fundamental question. I think that we are absolutely justified on this occasion, for this amendment, in not giving way to the House of Commons, because it has now in effect abandoned the principle of parliamentary democracy and taken the view that the referendum verdict is sacrosanct and cannot be challenged. That is clearly the opinion of the Government. What does that mean? It means that MPs are delegates, not representatives; it means there is no point in parliamentary government considering the argument, and debates considering the evidence; they have to obey the will of the people. That is now the principle.
I was not the greatest admirer of Mrs Thatcher in all her policies, but she was not someone who said to the electorate, “These are my principles, and if you don’t like them, I will change them”. That, in effect, is what some of those who supported the remain cause and felt deeply that Brexit would be disastrous or very damaging to this country have now accepted. It is a very dangerous step towards the doctrine that the people’s will must always prevail. This is the doctrine always favoured by Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin—and by Erdogan at present. It is a denial of the essence of democracy, which we have supported to great effect in this country. Now we are abandoning it.
We are the guardians of parliamentary democracy, and we are right in this. We are the democrats and we are right to support the democratic cause.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I ask a question of noble Lords who may be thinking of voting against the Commons this evening and in favour of their previous amendments. How do they justify extolling the supremacy of Parliament—the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House—and wanting Parliament to have the last word on the terms of our leaving the EU, when for the past 43 years they have supported our EU membership and still do so?
I ask because perhaps the main achievement of the European Union is precisely that national Parliaments have been emasculated and that much of their former power has been transferred to the institutions of the European Union. Thus, the unelected bureaucrats in the Commission have the monopoly to propose EU laws in secret, which are then negotiated in secret by yet more bureaucrats in COREPER—the Committee of Permanent Representatives—and are then decided in the Council of Ministers from national Governments, not Parliaments, where our Government have about 14% of the vote. EU law, now a large proportion of our law, is then enforced by the Commission and the so-called Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
The point is that our national Parliament, which noble remainers have been praying in aid to keep us in this anti-democratic failure, is excluded from the whole process. We do indeed have EU Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament, which scrutinise very little of the legislation imposed on us by Brussels, but they cannot change any of it and never have—nor can the House of Commons or your Lordships’ House change any of it, nor have we ever. Yet it is this system which those who have tabled this new amendment in truth wish to perpetuate with their newfound faith in parliamentary democracy. The people, with whom ultimate sovereignty resides, voted to leave that system. The House of Commons has this evening again agreed with the Government that the Bill shall become law as originally drafted. I would, of course, be amused to hear the noble remainers’ answer, but I trust that this is the end of the matter.
The Archbishop of York
I shall not detain noble Lords long, but in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who always speaks with such clarity and grace, I must say that the problem with the amendment is with subsection (4). If the Prime Minister does not get an agreement, whatever she does she has to have the rule of Parliament. She will bring it to Parliament, but the problem is this, if I understand it right—that triggering Article 50 is an irreversible act. Two years after triggering Article 50, the UK will leave the EU; it will do so with or without a deal but, either way, it will leave, because paragraph 3 of Article 50 makes it clear that the:
“Treaties shall cease to apply … two years after the notification”.
Of course, it is possible that the EU 27 might unanimously agree to extend the negotiation period beyond two years, but that cannot be taken for granted, nor should it be assumed that they will offer anything but a brief extension.
The amendment shows no awareness of the realities represented by the Article 50 timescale. It overlooks the fact that the Bill is about to trigger Article 50 and the formal divorce agreement. Neither this Bill nor Article 50 are about negotiating a new agreement with the EU. So as far as I am concerned, once we trigger it, it is irreversible; leave we will, with an agreement or without. So why put in subsection (4) of the amendment? For that reason, I hope that we follow what the House of Commons has just done.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, the notes to Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty say that,
“the Council needs to obtain the European Parliament’s consent … voting by a simple majority of the votes cast, before it can conclude the withdrawal agreement”.
That means that all Members of the European Parliament, including of course UK Members, have the legal right to vote on any final agreement, or lack of it, while Members of the British Parliament have no such legal right because the Government refuse to put such a right in the Bill. In that way I am trying to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—that supporting the European Parliament having legal rights on the withdrawal agreement that our own elected Members of Parliament will not have seems completely inconsistent with why many people voted for Brexit. They voted for Brexit to have better control of our own laws and, by refusing to put this in the Bill, the Government are in effect making our legal rights less than those of the European Parliament. I think that that is a very strong argument on this point, which needs to be aired, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, accepts that that is indeed the legal position.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will also answer the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I have not supported the EU for 45 years, but even I think that this amendment has validity. When people voted on taking back power, they did not expect it to be a Prime Minister with a very small mandate and a small coterie of people who would make these decisions. People imagined that they were voting for our Parliament to have some sort of supremacy. I have listened very carefully to the Government on this and have found that their arguments are not arguments at all. They are actually comments, and rather specious ones at that. This is not a time-sensitive issue: we are not triggering Article 50 until much later in the month. It is not true that a promise is as good as having something on the face of the Bill. Quite honestly, I think that it is time that we accepted that this is a mistake and we ought to support the amendment. I very much regret that it will not pass, but I will be voting for it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I have a very simple question for the Minister before the Opposition Front Bench speech, because it may be relevant to what the noble Baroness says. His colleague in the other place has answered the question about what happens if there is a deal on the Article 50 withdrawal agreement: the matter will be brought to the two Houses for approval. I think he has also answered the question about what happens if there is a new partnership agreement: it will be brought to both Houses for their approval. So far, so good. What happens if the Prime Minister decides that no deal is better than a bad deal? Will the Minister please give an answer?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I was never someone who enjoyed saying, “I told you so”, because I rather expect my advice to be heeded. Never was this more the case than last week, with the highest ever vote in the House of Lords. Of the 634 Peers who voted, 366 advised that the promised vote on the outcome of the negotiations should be inscribed in law. That would make it very clear to the Government—but also to the EU Commission and Council as well as to the European Parliament—that this Parliament is a player in the process of how we extract ourselves from the EU. As my noble friend Lady Symons has said, without our change, the European Parliament, which has UK Members in it, has the right in law to consent to the deal but this Parliament has no such guaranteed right. Our amendment last week gave legal certainty to the promised vote and the legislative authority for the withdrawal agreement, something which the Government may well have to do another way if not in this Bill. There is currently no legislative way of authorising the withdrawal deal ahead of a treaty.
There are challenges ahead. Withdrawal is not simply about the divorce or even just about the potential shape of new trade deals with the EU 27. It will be about forging a new partnership, or concordat, which will cover so much more than trade, vital though that is. We will need a vision of how we should work together after exit, not just on the hard subjects such as security, terrorism and that, but on the whole swathe of our approach to the economy. We will need to negotiate with the EU in a way that shows our openness and willingness to retain our strong bonds, because that will influence our future relationship with the EU as a bloc and with the 27 members individually. It is for this reason that it is important to recognise Parliament’s role in the process, because we will be part of those negotiations with the EU and the 27 countries. We will be working across Europe with all our contacts—in business, trade unions and consumer groups—to help get the best deal for this country. Parliament should be a part of that.
In so far as we heed the polls, they indicate that by 2:1 people are in favour of Parliament having a meaningful vote at the end of the negotiations. This House spoke very clearly last week. Therefore, I deeply regret that the Government and the Commons did not hear our plea. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, their view will not change. We will not make a pointless gesture. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is now tweeting that that is shabby of us. However, that is our view. We have heard, regrettably, that the Commons did not heed the overwhelming vote in this House. However, we will hold the Government to their promise of a vote before that in the European Parliament and will work to devise a parliamentary route to establish that more firmly, not least because having the support of Parliament during the negotiations would be a source of strength rather than a weakness. The Government have made the wrong call on this amendment, but we will seek to rectify that another way.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, we spent considerable time debating this issue in Committee, on Report and again today. I fear that once again there is little I can add to this fulsome debate, especially as I am very much aware that my last attempt to convince the House of the merits of my case did not result in an unalloyed success.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we had the largest vote on record in this House, with a turnout of 634 Members. The fact that 366 of your Lordships did not accept my arguments was, I hope, as they say in Sicily, “Nothing personal, just business”. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did a bit better this afternoon. As has been remarked, the other place rejected this amendment by a majority of 45.
I will briefly remind your Lordships of the Government’s case. First, as I have said, this is a simple and straightforward Bill designed to implement the referendum result and respect the Supreme Court’s judgment. It is the culmination of a long, democratic process started by the people at the last election, endorsed by this House in an Act of Parliament and then voted for by the people at the referendum itself. Parliament will continue to play its part through the scrutiny and passing of future legislation, through questions and debates and, most important of all, through a vote on the final agreement. Therefore, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said, we are not abandoning parliamentary sovereignty. Our commitment to a vote in both Houses, which we fully expect and intend will take place before the European Parliament votes on any deal, is an absolute commitment and will be honoured.
Furthermore, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said this afternoon in the other place,
“of course, Parliament can, if it wishes, have a vote and debate on any issue. That is a matter for Parliament. It is not for a Minister to try to constrain that”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/17; col. 42]
Therefore, as I have said on a number of occasions, proposed new subsections (1) to (3) are unnecessary. However, as I said before, this amendment goes further. It seeks to make it impossible for the Prime Minister to walk away without a vote in Parliament. Article 50 does not give the European Parliament that power. The European Commission would not have to go to the European Parliament if it wanted to walk away from the negotiations. So it is incorrect to say that the amendment would simply put on the face of the Bill the same power as that given to the European Parliament.
Also, as I argued before, it is unclear what the effects of this would be in any case. If Parliament votes against the Prime Minister walking away, is she to accept the deal on offer? Is she meant to try to negotiate a better one? Or is she to try to revoke the UK’s notice to withdraw? We do not know and, as I have said, such vagueness on something so critical is unacceptable.
The people voted to leave the EU in a referendum granted to them by this Parliament. We will respect that result. We are confident that the UK and the EU can indeed reach a positive deal on our future partnership, as this would be to the mutual benefit of both this country and the European Union. We will approach the negotiations in that spirit.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, it is very hard to see what meaningful vote there could be if there had been no deal at all. In the absence of an agreement, I have no doubt that there would be further statements to this House. However, we are leaving the European Union, either through the deal we have agreed or without a deal. So we now need to consider whether the other place should be asked to consider this issue yet again, given that it has considered and decided, twice, against amendments that seek to put on the face of the Bill a vote on the final agreement.
I end by saying that this Bill is to trigger the process of our leaving and to fulfil the Supreme Court’s requirements. As I have said many times before, tonight we might just make it to the legislative base camp in terms of parliamentary scrutiny and debate. There is a lot more to come. The other place is clearly satisfied with this approach and satisfied that the Bill does not merit amendment. I therefore ask noble Lords to be mindful of that and to pass the Bill unamended.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, the Minister attempts to bamboozle us and produce some of the same Aunt Sallies and red herrings that I mentioned last week. The key point is that, if he pledges that the Government will honour an assurance that there will be a parliamentary vote, why not put that in the legislation? No good reason has been produced why it should not be enshrined in statute. The more he doth protest too much, the more he generates concern that the commitment to honour a parliamentary vote may be somewhat fragile. If there are indeed ample means for Parliament to assert its control, there is no problem in writing them into the Bill.
This issue concerns a fundamental principle. It is the most important decision for this country in over 70 years. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, referred to this Bill as the shortest suicide note in history. It would not have needed to be so if the Government had given any indication of pursuing a sensible Brexit, but unfortunately they give every indication of hurtling towards an extreme, brutal Brexit. That makes many people inside and outside this building very nervous.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said from the Opposition Front Bench that she wanted to show that this Parliament is a player and she wanted recognition of Parliament’s role. The best way to do that is to follow the advice of my noble friend Lord Taverne not to abdicate parliamentary responsibility. There is a huge onus on us to continue to maintain that principle in the face of considerable bluster and insufficient legislative commitments. I therefore believe that it is justified to press this matter and I ask noble Lords to agree Motion B1. I wish to test the opinion of the House.