House of Commons
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
Before I reply to the questions, let me welcome the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), back to her position. I wish everyone Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda for the coming season.
I hold regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and other Cabinet colleagues about our exit from the EU, including on the Euopean Union (Withdrawal) Bill. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and I recently met local government leaders in Wales to discuss the issues that affect them as we leave the European Union.
Bambos Charalambous
In the run-up to the referendum, voters were assured by the leave campaign that Wales would not be one penny worse off as a result of leaving the EU. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the benefits of EU structural and investment funds in Wales will continue after March 2019?
Alun Cairns
We have already undertaken to honour the commitments made on EU structural funds until we leave the European Union, and we are seeking an implementation period that may well also involve such commitments. We have a manifesto commitment to create a UK shared prosperity fund, and I will ensure that Wales has its fair share.
Anna McMorrin
The fact that this imperialist UK Government have excluded the Welsh Government from Brexit is putting at risk the devolution that has lasted for 20 years. The Welsh Government have always played an integral part in EU negotiations. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to continuing that well-established practice and avoid a constitutional crisis by ensuring that the Welsh Government are directly involved in both Brexit and trade negotiations?
Alun Cairns
I do not accept the tone or the content of what the hon. Lady says. It should be recognised that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is largely technical, but we are deeply engaged with the devolved Administrations, particularly the Welsh Government. Only a week or so ago, the First Secretary of State and I met the First Minister, and yesterday we had a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee—in which a further ongoing warm relationship was developing—with the aim of securing the right deal that works for every part of the United Kingdom. It is, of course, in my and the Welsh Government’s interest to ensure that Wales is well represented.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend rightly points out that leaving the European Union provides new opportunities. We want a frictionless trading arrangement with the EU so that we can negotiate trade deals with other nations around the world. Since the referendum vote, Wales has attracted some of the most remarkable inward investment projects, and we are continuing on that basis.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to remind Welsh Government Ministers, or indeed Opposition Members, that more than 850,000 people across Wales voted to leave the European Union on a turnout of over 70%? The most important thing is to respect the referendum result, get on with governing Wales, and look forward to the future.
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. He recognises that Wales voted to leave the European Union, as did the UK, and that we have an obligation to respond properly to that result while also respecting the constitutional settlement. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill does that, but we are working closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that it meets Wales’s needs.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has already been quizzed about the effect on the Welsh economy of the loss of European structural funds. May I ask him specifically whether the Government’s flagship growth deals will result in similar or even greater funding for the four growth and city deal areas of Wales?
Alun Cairns
I do not need to take any lectures on funding from the Labour party, which refused to reorganise the Barnett formula during its 13 years in government. The new fiscal framework that was signed this time last year enhances the Welsh settlement; furthermore, the growth deals are in addition to the enhanced Barnett settlement. I remind the House that over the last 16 years more than £4 billion of European structural funds has been spent, and that the greatest number of people voted to leave in the areas where the most money was spent. That hardly suggests that the Welsh Government’s policy is successful.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
We remain confident that we will reach a trade agreement that is in the mutual interest of Wales, the UK and the EU, and we remain committed to delivering a trade policy that reflects our status as an outward-facing nation at the forefront of global trade.
Tom Brake
I have had the pleasure of spending some time on Mark and Helen Williams’s farm near Welshpool. What reassurances can the Minister give them that their lamb exports to Germany will not be hit by a 40% tariff if we fall back on to WTO rules, and that they will not be affected by large-scale imports from New Zealand, which operates to lower welfare standards than the United Kingdom?
Guto Bebb
I can give the same assurances that I have given to Welsh farming unions and farmers across Wales. This Government are working for a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, but we also see opportunities to export Welsh lamb to other parts of the world. We have had recent success in exporting Welsh lamb to the middle east, for example. I can assure Welsh farmers that the Government are committed to markets within the EU, and also to expanding opportunities throughout the globe.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Is it not also important to look at the opportunities for Wales from imports with lower tariffs on food and clothes, which could particularly benefit the least well-off?
Guto Bebb
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Opportunities are being grasped by Welsh businesses as we speak. Exports from Wales have increased dramatically—by 18% in the last year—and it is interesting to note that while there has been a 16% increase in exports to the EU, there has been an increase of over 22% in exports to the rest of the world. Welsh manufacturers and businesses are taking the opportunity to export to all parts of the globe.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Last Friday’s progress report on the negotiations was described by the Brexit Secretary as a mere “statement of intent”. Is that the position of the Government?
Guto Bebb
The position of the Government is very clear. The breakthrough last Friday means that we can move on to what is important for Welsh businesses, Welsh farmers and Welsh communities: the trade talks that are absolutely essential for us in Wales. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate the Prime Minister on her success last Friday.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
What are the Government doing to ensure that Wales continues to benefit from positive UK-wide announcements, such as the Toyota investment in Derbyshire and the plant at Deeside? Companies such as Toyota and Airbus are very important to the success of the Welsh economy.
Guto Bebb
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she knows Wales extremely well. Airbus and Toyota are key parts of the north-east Wales economy, and investment in those plants, and the success in terms of the efficiency of those plants, means that they are well-placed to take advantage of the opportunities that will come our way once we leave the EU. All employees at those plants are committed to working hard to ensure that their employers have a healthy future after we leave the European Union, but that success is based on ensuring that they are also competitive in the world market.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Some 90% of Welsh red meat is sold in the EU. That market is already being destroyed by meat from Romania and Spain. If Brexit happens after the confirmation referendum that we might have following the advisory referendum, the only remedy that has been suggested is to send more Welsh lamb abroad on the hoof rather than on the hook. Is the Minister happy with that, and will Brexit mean more suffering for sentient animals?
Guto Bebb
The whole House will be interested in the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to being the defender of Welsh farmers, which would be a first for the Welsh farming community. The Welsh farming community is proud of its animal welfare standards. It is proud of the fact that Wales has the best lamb and beef available in all parts of the EU, and it will be successful, regardless of any scare stories peddled by the hon. Gentleman.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
I commend my hon. Friend’s commitment to this issue. I would be delighted to see the return of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales’s regalia to Wales. The display would present an excellent opportunity to boost tourism across Wales, if a suitable home could be secured.
Michael Fabricant
I am very glad to hear the Minister’s answer, because he will know that almost 50 years ago, 1 billion people around the world saw the investiture. Wales was in homes around the world. His Royal Highness Prince Charles’s regalia is, I believe, sitting in a vault beneath St James’s Palace. I might be wrong on that point, but it is the principle of the thing: it should be on display. The people of Wales should see it. They should be proud of their heritage. When will we see it?
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I hold regular discussions with Welsh Ministers on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. At the end of November, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and I met the First Minister again as part of our ongoing bilateral discussions. Yesterday, Mark Drakeford and representatives of other devolved Administrations met at the Joint Ministerial Committee to consider further details.
Hywel Williams
I have asked the Secretary of State a number of times, both orally and in writing, what would happen if the National Assembly for Wales were to withhold its consent for the withdrawal Bill, and he has gone from looking hopelessly Panglossian to being unsure, evasive and even furtive. Will he now tell the House what would happen if the National Assembly for Wales withheld its consent for the Bill?
Alun Cairns
May I add to the hon. Gentleman’s descriptions by saying that I am optimistic? I am optimistic that our work with the Welsh Government will lead to a legislative consent motion. After all, we should be focusing on the outcomes that communities and businesses want while respecting the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom. I am sure that he and I will want the best outcomes for businesses, and that is what we are focusing on.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Given the result of the referendum, should not any Government who claim to represent Wales—and indeed any party that claims to be the party of Wales—support this Government and this Prime Minister in delivering the legislative consent motion and the Brexit that the people of Wales voted for?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Any politician from Wales needs to recognise and respect the outcome of the referendum. That is what the Government are working to deliver. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is a largely technical piece of legislation, but we expect the decision making of the Welsh Government to increase while we also protect the integrity of the UK market to ensure that Welsh businesses continue to prosper in the way that they are now.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is great to be back. I have missed you all so much. I thank everyone for their good wishes and support while I was away, and I give massive thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) for standing in for me at last month’s Question Time.
Does the Secretary of State agree that unless his Government agree a common approach with the devolved nations in advance of phase 2 of the negotiations that is based on proper consideration of the evidence, it is unlikely that the Welsh Government will pass a legislative consent motion ratifying the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill?
Alun Cairns
We are working closely with the Welsh Government, and we have had another productive meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee at which proposals were made, which will rightly be considered. The First Secretary of State and I met the First Minister just a couple of weeks ago, and that built on an ongoing relationship across Government that involves positive engagement not only with the Welsh Government, but with the businesses, local authority leaders and chief executives, and communities that will benefit from our leaving the European Union.
Christina Rees
I thank the Secretary of State for his response—I think. Does he agree that the UK Government could avoid clashing with the Welsh Government by agreeing to amend the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill on Report, by involving the Welsh Government in drawing up amendments to prevent the power grab, and by agreeing common frameworks, which would stop the Welsh Government putting in place their own legislation, which is worked up, in position and ready to go?
Alun Cairns
As we leave the European Union, we are determined to deliver as much certainty and continuity as we can. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill focuses on delivering that, and I am sure that that is really what the Welsh Government want. After all, we should be focusing on the outcomes. This is about providing a framework in which businesses and communities can prosper. This is where politics needs to fit business and community need, rather than that of politicians.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I have always said that we will negotiate for every nation and region of the United Kingdom, and our goal is to secure a deal that works for all parts of the country.
Liz Saville Roberts
Following weeks of chaos, the Government have realised that their original Brexit promises were the stuff of fantasy. They conceded on continuous regulatory alignment with Europe but, hand in hand with Labour, the Westminster Tory Government remain ideologically committed to severing Wales’s membership of the single market and the customs union. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many Welsh jobs his Government are prepared to sacrifice to placate Brexiteers on both sides of the Chamber?
Alun Cairns
I am sorry to hear the tone of the hon. Lady’s question. It is almost as though she is disappointed with the Prime Minister’s great success last week in getting an agreement and with the prospect of moving on to phase 2 of the negotiations. I will happily talk about investment and employment opportunities. We are obviously extremely pleased with record low levels of unemployment over recent months. Even since the referendum, we have seen some of the greatest inward investment projects coming into the UK and Wales, and I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome that and support the process.
Liz Saville Roberts
I spent some time this morning with the Brexit Secretary’s sectoral analyses. They provide an interesting snapshot, but they do not provide any views about the future. I want to take the Secretary of State back to June 2016, when he said that 100,000 jobs in Wales are
“directly linked to our place in Europe.”
In fact, he also said:
“The economic argument trumps everything else, at the end of the day this is down to the economy, jobs, jobs, jobs.”
Will he indicate whether he stands by his remarks of 18 months ago? Will he tell the House how many jobs in Wales he is prepared to sacrifice and in which sectors?
Alun Cairns
It would be interesting to know whether the hon. Lady wants to respect the outcome of the referendum, in which the majority of Wales voted to leave the European Union. Leaving the EU provides new opportunities. We want frictionless trading arrangements and to exploit new markets around the world. Exports to markets outside the European Union are growing much faster than exports to the European Union, and the figure for Wales is above the UK average. I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that businesses are already seeing the opportunities.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Last week, Northern Ireland was given a carte blanche final say on the Government’s phase 1 Brexit position. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is now time for the same privilege to be afforded to the accountable and sitting Parliaments of Scotland and Wales?
Alun Cairns
I have said this several times, and I will continue to repeat it because it is extremely important: we will negotiate a Brexit deal that works for every part of the United Kingdom. Yesterday’s meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee was positive, but the differences will be debated, as is only right and proper. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respect the outcome of the referendum that the UK voted for.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda i chi, Mr Speaker, and to all Members. Last week showed how important the Irish dimension is to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the negotiations. Will the Secretary of State give me a categorical assurance that Welsh ports, especially Holyhead, will be safeguarded and given the same treatment as those in Northern Ireland when it comes to trade?
Alun Cairns
I share the hon. Gentleman’s interest in Welsh ports. Holyhead is clearly important, as is Fishguard in Pembrokeshire. Leaving the European Union provides new opportunities for both north-west and south-west Wales. After we have left the European Union, they will be gateways to Europe in a way that they have not been previously, and local authorities and businesses will need to respond to new opportunities for growth.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House that an hon. Member should not leave the Chamber until the exchanges on his or her question have been completed. It really is the height of parliamentary discourtesy, and I hope that I do not have to say it again. I have just been alerted to someone doing that, and it should not happen again.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
Leaving the EU allows us to establish new trading opportunities across the globe, forging ahead as a global leader in free trade. Welsh exports have outperformed the UK average over the last year, and I am working closely with the International Trade Secretary to build on that success.
Mr Speaker
Order. I see that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has beetled back into the Chamber. It is good of the fellow to drop in on us. We are grateful to him.
Mr Jayawardena
What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage Welsh businesses and consumers to seize the opportunity of a global Britain by boosting imports and exports to increase consumer choice and helping businesses to create more good jobs as we leave the EU?
Alun Cairns
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has established the UK Board of Trade, and I am pleased that Lord Rowe-Beddoe and Heather Stevens sit on it as Welsh representatives—their reputation goes well before them. Businesses are already responding. I have already quoted the encouraging export data, but clearly there is more work to do.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State is serious in his discussions about Wales’s international business links, why will he and the Government not publish the impact assessments? Is it not time these disappearing documents came to light?
Alun Cairns
We have published the 58 sectoral analyses, which cover all the sectors that are key to the Welsh economy, from steel to aerospace. Not only have we shared them with the Commons and the other place, but we have shared these 800 pages with the devolved Administrations, demonstrating the open, pragmatic approach we are taking to involving every part of the United Kingdom.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
Figures show that exports from Wales grew by 19% last year. Welsh businesses are also looking to markets outside the European Union, where exports grew by 23% over the same period. I will continue to support businesses in Wales to help them make the most of the new opportunities.
Mrs Murray
In north Wales, like in South East Cornwall, there are amazing businesses that are the lifeblood of the local economy, from first-class tourist accommodation to delicious food and drink producers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Brexit will provide additional trading opportunities for them and for companies across Wales?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend is a strong champion for Cornwall, and Cornwall is already responding, through her leadership, to the new opportunities that leaving the European Union provides. Wales is rightly doing the same. Exports to areas outside the European Union are growing at a much sharper rate than exports to the European Union, and Wales is well ahead of the UK average.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
One of the trading opportunities we already have is at Ford in Bridgend, which is at risk of closure after Jaguar Land Rover’s contract ended early. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy met me at Ford yesterday. What is the Secretary of State for Wales doing to help to secure those jobs for the future?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about Ford in Bridgend. I met the unions recently, and I speak to Ford on a regular basis. I am pleased that the Welsh Government responded to Ford’s suggestion that I join their working group. We are determined to work together to come up with the best outcome that delivers long-term, sustainable jobs at the Ford plant in Bridgend.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
As the Chancellor announced in the autumn Budget, we have now begun formal negotiations for a north Wales growth deal. The local area has shared its initial proposals, and I was delighted to host a briefing session for north Wales MPs earlier this week. My officials are in north Wales today to help develop the proposals into an exciting deal for the region.
Paul Masterton
Will my hon. Friend outline how the north Wales growth deal will build on the positive cross-border work that is already taking place, most notably through the Mersey-Dee alliance? I am sure he is aware that the alliance is of unspeakable interest to the good people of East Renfrewshire.
Guto Bebb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that cross-border connectivity, which is essential to the success of north Wales, is a key part of the north Wales growth deal. Such connectivity allows the north-west of England and the north of Wales to benefit from the economic success story that is available on both sides of the border.
Andrew Percy
The hon. Gentleman will remember from the joint ministerial visits we undertook to both Chester and north Wales that there is enthusiasm for this deal on both sides of the border. Can he assure me that that enthusiasm will carry through not just to the north-west of England but all the way through to the Humber region, given the alliances between Liverpool and Hull?
Guto Bebb
I do indeed remember the visit to Chester, which was a great success. I am proud to say that the new northern powerhouse Minister was at the briefing we had in the Wales Office on Monday. Businesses and local authorities in north Wales understand the power of the northern powerhouse, but we also know that north Wales has a lot to offer to the northern powerhouse, and this cross-border deal is essential to the economic wellbeing of north Wales.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Will the Minister meet the all-party group on Mersey-Dee-north Wales to discuss the detail of the growth deal, and will he please show me the colour of his money?
Guto Bebb
The hon. Gentleman is the chair of the all-party group and I would be delighted to meet it. I am well aware of the work it has done. This is a deal for north Wales, which means we will have to work with all stakeholders and all partners, including the hon. Gentleman.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Unemployment has risen by 10% in my constituency, showing the need for this growth deal as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister focus particularly on cross-border issues to improve transport links to north Wales?
Guto Bebb
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I am aware of his support for this growth deal. It is fair to say, however, that the unemployment situation in Wales has dramatically improved since 2010, with 54,000 more jobs in Wales and unemployment falling in most constituencies in Wales. My constituency has the lowest unemployment it has recorded for a long time. But I assure him that if a cross-border deal will help his constituency, we will help to deliver it.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced additional support for universal credit claimants. Advances to people who need them will be made available earlier, more generous and interest-free. All claimants will be eligible for universal credit from the first day they claim it, and we will improve the transition from housing benefit to universal credit.
Laura Smith
The Department for Work and Pensions’ own analysis shows that half of those with rent arrears under universal credit said they had gone into arrears after making a claim. Is the Secretary of State content with the fact that more Welsh families who are currently not in arrears will begin 2018 in debt once they have made their UC claim?
Guto Bebb
I simply do not recognise the hon. Lady’s doom and gloom. I have visited jobcentres throughout Wales and staff are telling me that UC is the biggest change in a generation. I met the regional manager for north Wales, and he said that in his 40 years of working for the DWP this was the most positive and customer-focused change he had been aware of. This change is helping people back into employment. The hon. Lady should support the changes and the efforts the Government are making to get people back into work.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
This week marks the sixth-month anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire. I will be attending the national memorial service tomorrow, and I am sure I speak for Members across the House when I say that it remains at the forefront of our minds as a truly unimaginable tragedy that should never have happened. Many who survived the fire lost everything that night, and I can assure the House that we continue to do everything we can to support those affected and to take the necessary steps to make sure it can never happen again.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mrs Gillan
I think the Prime Minister will be able to take to that memorial service the thoughts and prayers of every Member in this House, from across all parties.
My right hon. Friend has said that at the end of the Brexit process Members of Parliament will have an opportunity to vote on the deal. Can she confirm that it is still her intention to hold such a vote?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to confirm to my right hon. Friend that we will put the final withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force. As we have said, we expect the UK Parliament to vote ahead of the European Parliament, so we fully expect Parliament to vote well before March 2019. To be clear, the final deal will be agreed before we leave, and right hon. and hon. Members will get a vote on it. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has set out today, we will then bring forward a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to give the withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect, which will itself be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. And of course, after we leave, the withdrawal agreement will be followed up by one or more agreements covering different aspects of the future relationship, and we will introduce further legislation where it is needed to implement this into UK law, providing yet another opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
This week does indeed mark six months since the avoidable and tragic fire at Grenfell Tower that took the lives of 71 people and injured and traumatised many more. I, too, will be at the service in memory of them tomorrow.
That fire also shone a light on the neglect of working-class communities all over this country. Since the Government came to power, homelessness is up by 50% and rough sleeping has doubled. Homelessness and rough sleeping have risen every single year since 2010. Will the Prime Minister pledge today that 2018 will be the year when homelessness starts to go down?
The Prime Minister
Across this House, we do not want to see anybody who is homeless or anybody who is sleeping rough on our streets. That is why the Government are putting £500 million into tackling homelessness, it is why we backed the Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), and it is why we have ensured that we are putting in place several projects that will deal with the issue of rough sleeping.
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that when we look at the question of housing, we need to look at ensuring that more homes are available to people and that we are giving people support to get into those homes. That is why in the Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out a whole range of ways in which we will be helping people to ensure that they have their own roof over their head. That is compared with the situation under Labour, when house building went down by 45%, the number of homes bought and sold went down by 40% and social housing went down by 400,000.
Jeremy Corbyn
The last Labour Government cut homelessness by two thirds during their time in office, and when Labour left office, the number of children in temporary accommodation was a lot lower than it is now. I asked the Prime Minister for a pledge to reduce the amount of homelessness next year; that pledge was not forthcoming. One hundred and twenty-eight thousand children will spend Christmas without a home to call their own—that is up 60% on 2010. It is too late for this Christmas, but will the Prime Minister promise that by Christmas 2018, fewer children will be without a home to call their own?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman again that of course we want every child to wake up in their own home, particularly at Christmas. It is incredibly important that people know that they can keep a roof over their heads, even in the most desperate circumstances. That is why we are making sure that councils can place families in a broader range of homes if they fall into such circumstances. Since 2011, councils have been able to place families into private rented accommodation so that they can get a suitable place sooner. We have changed the law so that families with children should not find themselves in B&B accommodation, except in an emergency. By implementing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 we are making sure that families at risk can get support before they find themselves homeless. I have been clear, as I was a few weeks ago, that we are going to be a Government who put a clear focus on housing, on building the homes that people need, on ensuring that people are given help to get into those homes, and on acting to prevent homelessness before it happens. That is what we are doing, and that is what will make a real difference to people’s lives.
Jeremy Corbyn
The sad reality is that one in every 100 children in this country are homeless at any one time. That is a national disgrace, and it is getting worse. For all the Prime Minister says about the private rented sector, I shall quote from a letter I received this week from Rachael, who says:
“I have a knot in my stomach every New Year period when we are due to sign a new tenancy agreement…After renting the same flat for ten years, never being in arrears and keeping the property in good order we were given notice to quit out of the blue”.
Will the Prime Minister help people like Rachael and back secure three-year tenancies for all private renters?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. Gentleman was present in the Chamber for the Budget, and that point is precisely why we said that we are looking at ways in which we can encourage longer-term tenancies. What is important is ensuring that people are able to have the accommodation that they need and that they want on the basis that is right for them. That is why, as I have said, we are dealing with the issue of longer-term tenancies.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about people renting their homes, but his response on renting is to bring in rent controls. Rent controls have never worked. They result in reducing the number of homes that are available for people who want to have accommodation and a roof over their own head. It is not just me who says that Labour party policy will not help people who are renting; Shelter says that it will not help people who are renting.
Jeremy Corbyn
Evictions by private landlords have quadrupled since 2010. There is no security in the private rented sector, and the Prime Minister well knows it. She also promised one-for-one replacement of council housing sold off through the right to buy, but just one in five council homes have been replaced. Hundreds of thousands of people are on housing waiting lists. Will the Prime Minister apologise for what she said and tell the House when she will deliver this one-for-one replacement?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are increasing the flexibilities to enable councils to build homes. We have put more money into affordable housing. He talks about the right to buy, but I have to say, what a contrast: we actually want to give people the opportunity to buy their own home; the Labour party would take that opportunity away from them.
What do we see on housing? The shadow Housing Minister recently said that fewer people owning their own home is “not such a bad thing”. What the Leader of the Opposition is offering to people on housing is this: if you live in a council home, he will take away your right to buy; if you are looking to rent, Shelter says that his policies will harm you; and his shadow Housing Minister does not want to support people owning their own homes. It is only the Conservatives who will deliver the homes that this country needs.
Jeremy Corbyn
If only that were true. Under the Tories, home ownership has fallen by 200,000. Under Labour, it rose by 1 million. Forty per cent. of all homes sold through right to buy are now in the private rented sector. The latest figures show that a quarter of all privately rented homes are not up to decent standards, which means that many families are living in homes with damp, that are not secure and that are very poorly insulated. Does the Prime Minister support homes being fit for human habitation?
The Prime Minister
Of course we want homes to be fit for human habitation. May I just remind the right hon. Gentleman that the number of homes failing to meet the decent homes standard is down by 49% since the peak under the Labour Government? While I am talking about the record of the Labour Government, statutory homelessness peaked under the Labour Government and is down by more than 50% since then. It is this Government who are delivering for people on housing. It was his Labour Government who failed to deliver over 13 years.
Jeremy Corbyn
I would just remind the Prime Minister that 1 million homes were brought up to the decent homes standard under Labour. I would also assume from what she has said that she will be here on 19 January to support the Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) to make privately rented homes fit for human habitation.
When it comes to housing, this Government have been an absolute disgrace. After seven years, more people are living on the streets, more families are in temporary accommodation and homes not fit for human habitation, and fewer people own their own home. When are this Government going to get out of the pockets of property speculators and rogue landlords, and get on the side of tenants and people without a home of their own this Christmas?
The Prime Minister
Under Labour, we saw house building down, homes bought and sold down, and social housing down. The one thing that did go up under the last Labour Government was the number of people on the social housing waiting list, with 1.74 million people waiting for a home. We have delivered over 346,000 new affordable homes since 2010. More affordable homes have been delivered in the last seven years than in the previous seven years under a Labour Government, and we are building more homes—last year, 217,000 homes were built in this country. Apart from one year, that is a record for the last 30 years. It is the Conservatives who are doing what is necessary. Labour would produce failure for this country once again. It is the Conservatives who are delivering the homes that people need, the economy that people need and the standard of living that people need.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Isabelle on receiving the award, on her sporting achievements and on her incredible bravery; she is an inspiration to us all.
My hon. Friend mentioned that she was one of those who campaigned for the meningitis vaccine. Meningitis can be a devastating disease, which is why we have taken steps to increase the availability of the vaccine. In September 2015, we became the first country to have a national meningitis B vaccination programme. As my hon. Friend says, she contributed to the work on that. It is, of course, necessary that Public Health England continues to raise awareness of the symptoms. Its campaigns are reaching hundreds of thousands of parents. The NHS has been running a programme to vaccinate teenagers, school leavers and university freshers against four different strains of meningitis. My hon. Friend can be pleased with the impact that she has had and the work she did on the issue.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
In 2008, we collectively bailed out the Royal Bank of Scotland at a cost of £45 billion. In 2017, the Royal Bank of Scotland is paying us back by turning its back on 259 of our communities. Given that we are the majority shareholder, will the Prime Minister step in and tell the Royal Bank of Scotland to stick to its commitment and not to close the last bank in town?
The Prime Minister
As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, the decision to open and close branches is a commercial decision taken by the banks without intervention from the Government, but we do recognise the impact that such decisions have on communities. The Secretary of State for Scotland raised the concerns that the House has expressed on the issue in his meeting with RBS. Of course, more people are banking online, which has an impact, but we want to ensure that all customers—especially vulnerable ones—can still access over-the-counter services. That is why we have established the access to banking standard, which commits banks to carrying out a number of steps before closing a branch. The Post Office has also reached an agreement with the banks that will allow more customers than ever before to use Post Office services. We recognise the importance of such services to communities and have acted in a number of ways.
Ian Blackford
If the Prime Minister recognises the importance of this, she should be summoning Ross McEwan in to see her and making it clear that we will not accept towns and villages up and down the United Kingdom losing banking services. There are 13 towns in Scotland where the last bank will be going. This is not acceptable. It is about time the Prime Minister accepted her responsibilities. Will she summon Ross McEwan, and will she tell the Royal Bank of Scotland this must be reversed?
The Prime Minister
Decisions on opening and closing branches are a commercial matter for the banks. As I say, this is an issue that the Secretary of State has raised with Royal Bank of Scotland. What is important is that services are available to individuals. That is why those are being provided, and alternatives are available. But I also say to the right hon. Gentleman that, actually, an awful lot more people are banking online these days, not requiring the use of a branch. We want to ensure that vulnerable customers, particularly, who do not have access to online banking, are able to have services provided. That is precisely what we are doing through the access to banking standard and the work with the Post Office.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work that has been undertaken by University Hospitals Birmingham in support of Heart of England foundation trust. We do want to see strong management across the national health service. I understand there are a number of practical and financial issues still to resolve in this, and I would encourage all of those who are involved to make progress on this important matter, but I congratulate those NHS staff who have seen that improvement and worked hard to ensure that improvement takes place.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I think that Lord Kerslake made the right decision in stepping down as chairman of King’s College Hospital. I am not surprised that the Labour party is interested in this, given, of course, that the noble Lord Kerslake is a key adviser to the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman might care to look at what NHS Improvement said about King’s College Hospital:
“The financial situation at King’s has deteriorated very seriously over recent months and we have now placed the trust in special measures to maximise the amount of scrutiny and support that it receives…It is not acceptable for individual organisations to run up such significant deficits when the majority of the sector is working extremely hard to hit their financial plans, and in many cases have made real progress.”
It called the situation
“the worst in the NHS”.
Perhaps it is no surprise that the noble Lord Kerslake, I understand, is advising the Labour party on matters of debt and deficit.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, I am happy to join him in congratulating all those who were involved in setting up this much needed free school. I know that my hon. Friend, as the chair of governors, will ensure that the school does provide young people in his constituency with an excellent education, despite, I understand, the school being opposed by the Labour party. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is not just a question of education; it is a question of social justice. A good-quality education opens the door to the future for the lives of every one of those young people, and that is why it is so important that we ensure the quality of education is there to give young people the best possible start in life.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
First of all, as I indicated earlier in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), this Parliament will have an opportunity to vote. We will have a meaningful vote on the withdrawal arrangements. The hon. Lady says that it should be Parliament that makes the decision about our membership of the single market. Actually, this Parliament gave that decision about our membership of the European Union to the people of this country. It is the people of this country who have voted to leave the European Union, and this Government will deliver for the people of this country.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this very important issue, which might, at a glance, seem quite a small issue but is actually very important in the lives of those disabled children to enable them to lead the life that they want to lead. I agree with him that the provision of changing places can make a real difference to disabled children but also to their carers. I understand that the Department for Communities and Local Government has been working to increase the number of facilities. I would certainly urge relevant building owners to consider installing changing places where they can. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will be happy to discuss this matter further with my hon. Friend.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
As I said in response to the questions from the Leader of the Opposition, we do not want to see people without a roof over their head. That is why we are working in a number of ways to deal with this issue. It is why we are committed to halving rough sleeping by 2022 and eliminating it by 2027. As I also said earlier, a number of announcements have been made in the Budget, and we are now dedicating over £1 billion to 2020 to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping. That is across a number of areas; it is £1 billion to deal with this issue and to tackle something that we agree we do not want to see on our streets.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
May I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on her election a year ago yesterday, I believe, but on her re-election earlier this year, and on her year in this House? She has raised an issue that is a matter of concern to many rural areas across the country. We remain committed to universal broadband coverage of at least 10 megabits so that no home or business is left behind. Superfast broadband is now available to over 90% of premises in Lincolnshire—up from 26% in 2011—and we have committed over £1 billion for next-generation digital infrastructure. I can assure her that we have not forgotten any community across the United Kingdom. We recognise the importance of broadband to communities, and we are working to ensure that we deliver further so that people can have the services that they need.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I recognise the importance of dealing with domestic violence. When I was Home Secretary, we ring-fenced funding to support the victims of domestic violence, and we have continued to ring-fence that funding. We have also taken a number of steps: we will be introducing a new domestic violence law, we have introduced the criminal offence of coercive control and we have introduced a variety of changes that have improved the support for people suffering from domestic violence.
We are proposing a new funding model for the provision of housing and homes for people who have suffered from domestic violence. There is a very good reason for wanting a change, which is to make this more responsive to the needs of individuals at a time of crisis in their lives, and to make the system work better. At the moment, the funding is not responsive enough to need in local areas. Individuals have to worry about meeting housing costs themselves at a time of crisis, and access relies on welfare claims and eligibility. We are proposing a new model that frees those women from worrying about meeting housing costs themselves, and the overall amount of funding available will remain the same.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking all the wonderful staff from across the European Union who work in our NHS and social care? Will she give them her personal, unequivocal assurance that they and their families will have the right to remain after Britain leaves the European Union?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking all who work in our NHS and social care sector, including those from across the European Union. They do incredible work, and it is absolutely right that we recognise the contribution that EU nationals make in this sector but also across our economy and our society. That is why we want people to be able to stay and we want families to be able to stay together. I am very pleased that the arrangements that were published in the joint progress report between the United Kingdom and the European Union last Friday show very clearly, on citizens’ rights, that where people have made the life choice to be here in the United Kingdom, we will support them and enable them to carry on living their lives as before.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I responded to the leader of the Scottish National party earlier in relation to RBS closures, which I think is what the right hon. Lady is referring to. She and others need to accept that people’s behaviour in relation to bank branches has changed over the years and there is less demand, but we have the access to banking standard in place. She referred to the bank levy. Let us be very clear: there is a bank levy, and there is also a corporation tax surcharge for banks. This Government are raising more money from the banks than the Labour Government ever did.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the UK’s community foundations, which have just reached the notable milestone of distributing £1 billion to local communities across the country? Does she agree that community foundations are a perfect example of her shared society, and that funds from dormant assets, once available, should be provided to them to continue their very important work?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating community foundations across the UK. I was very pleased to be able to have a meeting with the chief executive of the Berkshire Community Foundation just a couple of weeks ago to hear about the excellent work it is undertaking in Berkshire. I know from what my hon. Friend has said that, across communities across the country, these are an important contributor to and an example of the shared society, as he says.
I understand the dormant accounts scheme has already distributed over £362 million for the benefit of good causes. There has been a report on possibly expanding the scheme, which would have the potential to build significantly on the success of the current scheme. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will be looking at this and will respond in due course.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
We are seeing a growing number of young people going into apprenticeships, we are introducing the T-levels and we are putting £500 million into technical education to ensure that, for the first time, this country has first-class technical education. I called for it in 1997; in 2017, I am delivering.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
As an enthusiastic member of the Women and Equalities Committee, I aim to be a strong champion for the equality of women, and I aspire to the title of honorary sister, as bestowed on you, Mr Speaker, by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Ruth Cooke on her recent appointment as chief exec of Clarion Housing Group, the largest housing association in the country, proving that exceptional women can get the top job in housing and politics?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend, and to congratulate Ruth Cooke on her appointment for the Clarion Housing Group, which does show that women can take on those very senior jobs. I have to say to my hon. Friend that he is aspiring to an accolade that I do not think the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has ever given to me, despite the fact that I am only the second female Prime Minister in this country. One day, maybe, the Labour sisterhood will manage to get a female leader of the Labour party.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
No, it is not the case that no work has been done in looking at that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from the over 800 pages of sectoral analysis that have been published.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that Brexit means Brexit. When it comes to the closure of Grantham A&E, now that the trust believes that it has recruited enough doctors, does she agree with me that temporary means temporary?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend has been a strong champion of his constituents on this matter, and he has been campaigning tirelessly in relation to it. I know that he will agree with me that the first priority must be to ensure patient safety, and that is why a report was commissioned by NHS Improvement. I understand NHS Improvement is continuing to work very closely with the trust, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary would be happy to discuss the detail with my hon. Friend.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this country already has a legal position in relation to the payment of the national minimum wage and ensuring that people are paid for the work that they do.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Given that the SNP Scottish Government have an extra £2 billion to play with, thanks to this Conservative Government’s Budget last month, will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the First Minister of Scotland to rule out higher taxes for hard-working Scots?
The Prime Minister
I have to say that I think this is a very real test of the First Minister and the SNP Government in Scotland. In previous weeks we have heard some rather strange claims being made by the Scottish nationalists in this House about the impact on Scotland of decisions taken at UK level. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there is £2 billion extra going into Scotland—but let us watch very carefully how the SNP Government choose to spend that money.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Last week I tabled a written question to the Chancellor, asking for the evidence behind his extraordinary claim to the Treasury Committee that disabled workers are responsible for the UK’s productivity problems. Last night I received his written answer; unsurprisingly, there is no such evidence for that claim. It is disgraceful that he has so far declined to express any regret, so will the Prime Minister take back control and order the Chancellor to withdraw his remark and apologise for inaccurate and offensive comments?
The Prime Minister
The Chancellor did not express the views that the hon. Lady claims he expressed. This is a Government who value the contribution that disabled people make to our society and to our economy in the workplace. This is a Government who are actually working to ensure that more disabled people get into the workplace. We have had some success; there is more to do, but we will continue to work to ensure that those disabled people who want to work are able to do so.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I recently sponsored an event in this place for the UN “Draw a line” campaign, which has helped 6,000 women and girls worldwide to have a better life. However, one in four women in the UK and 70% of girls around the world will experience physical or sexual violence during their lives. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this Government will continue to lead the world on tackling trafficking and exploitation?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to confirm that for my hon. Friend, who once again raises a very important issue. It is, of course, this Government who introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and we continue to work not only to increase our ability to deal with the perpetrators of these crimes, but to provide support to victims. I want a world in which women and girls have the confidence to be able to be what they want to be, and to know that they will not be subject to exploitation, violence, trafficking or slavery. Of course, slavery applies to men as well. Our commitment as a Government to ending violence against and the exploitation of women and girls is absolute.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Last week it was announced that my wonderful city of Coventry had been successful in its bid to become UK city of culture 2021, and we are bursting with pride. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating everyone who was instrumental in this great achievement and wish Coventry success, prosperity, hope and some fun in the next few years up to 2021 and beyond?
The Prime Minister
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating Coventry on being selected as city of culture. As she will be aware from previous exchanges during Prime Minister’s questions, a number of hon. Members will be disappointed because their cities have not achieved that particular status, but I am very happy to congratulate all those who were involved in putting the bid together and ensuring that Coventry is that city of culture, including the Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The Prime Minister and I have many things in common, including, if I may say so, being proud of being called “bloody difficult women”. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) is not in that category, for many reasons. He is, obviously, a man. He is a respected, seasoned parliamentarian and, like many on these Benches, has for many decades been loyal to his party. Nobody wants to be disloyal or to bring about more disunity. The Prime Minister says that she wants a meaningful vote on Brexit before we leave the European Union. Even at this last moment, will she be so good as to accept my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment 7, in the spirit of unity for everybody here and in the country?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an important point on the concerns Members have had about having a meaningful vote on this particular issue before we complete the deal. As I set out in the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), that is what we will have. We will ensure that there is a meaningful vote in this House. There will then, of course, be an opportunity for Parliament to look at the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. The fact that there will be that meaningful vote has been set out and confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary in a written ministerial statement today. We were very clear that we will not commence any statutory instruments until that meaningful vote has taken place, but as currently drafted what the amendment says is that we should not put any of those arrangements and statutory instruments into place until the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill has reached the statute book. That could be at a very late stage in the proceedings, which could mean we are not able to have the orderly and smooth exit from the European Union that we wish to have.
Mr Speaker
I call Mr Jack Dromey. [Interruption.] Mr Dromey. The hon. Gentleman must try to overcome his natural reticence. I know he is a shy fellow, but I am trying to encourage him.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Not one penny has come from Government to fit sprinklers in Birmingham’s 213 tower blocks. Now the city is suffering the biggest cuts in local government history. It is to suffer a further £100 million unfair funding cut, yet Maidenhead is the least hard-hit constituency in Britain. How can the Prime Minister begin to justify one law for her own constituency and another law for the great city of Birmingham?
The Prime Minister
The local government settlement has yet to come before this House. We have been very clear in relation to fire safety arrangements and on any action that needs to be taken by local authorities. They should discuss that with the Department for Communities and Local Government. We will ensure that it is possible for the necessary safety work to be undertaken.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the foundation of the Women’s Royal Naval Service, an event that will be celebrated with a reception at your house, Mr Speaker, immediately after Prime Minister’s questions. Will the Prime Minister join me in marking 100 years of women’s outstanding service in the Royal Navy, as well as in the Royal Air Force and the Army? Will she join me in welcoming in particular the fact that women are no longer consigned to duties ashore and can now take part in every aspect of service?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend. It is right that we mark the centenary of the Women’s Royal Naval Service and that we recognise the contribution women have made across our armed forces. It is important that they are now able to contribute across all aspects of work in the armed services and are no longer restricted, as used to be the case in the Navy, to jobs onshore. That is an important step forward which strengthens our armed forces and I congratulate all women in our armed forces.
Petition
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents in my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood.
The petition declares:
The petition of residents of Dulwich and West Norwood,
Declares that there is widespread concern about the deterioration of our mental health services and that those in need of care are receiving inadequate treatment as a result; further that a revolving door of admission, discharge and readmission is emerging, instead of the long term treatment that is needed; further notes that overworked professionals do not always have the time that they would like to spend with their patients to determine the best course of treatment and most appropriate support; and further that welcomes news that the Government is putting some extra funding into mental health services, but is concerned that this is insufficient, and not ring-fenced, and that despite the increase the proportion of funding that many Clinical Commissioning Group (CCGs) are spending has continued to fall, including in Lambeth and Southwark.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to commit to providing adequate, ring-fenced funding for mental health services.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002091]
Short and Holiday-Let Accommodation (Notification of Local Authorities)
Wednesday 13th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Short and Holiday-Let Accommodation (Notification of Local Authorities) Bill 2017-19 View all Short and Holiday-Let Accommodation (Notification of Local Authorities) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
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
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require householders to notify local authorities of an intention to register accommodation for short or holiday lets; and for connected purposes.
As with so many other aspects of the digital and sharing economy, the nightly booked accommodation sector brings advantages for some but adds costs to others. Without sacrificing all that is good about it, it is clearly time the Government acted to help those who are the losers in this new environment and, in particular, made it realistically possible to stop the illegal element within it. It is time, too, to recognise that this industry is by no means confined, as was the original intention, to homeowners renting a room for some extra cash, or letting out their property when going on holiday, but is becoming increasingly commercialised, as is evidenced by the rise in the number of multiple listings by single owners on sites such as Airbnb and the proliferation of subsidiary agencies offering management services.
One year ago, I introduced a Bill along similar lines to this one seeking to respond to the growing concern among my residents about the short, holiday, or what we now call the nightly let sector. Many residents feel the impact most in respect of their own homes: issues around noise, rubbish, security fears, antisocial behaviour, breaches of leasehold in blocks of flats and the undermining of insurance. It is also increasingly clear, however, that, as ever more properties turn over to shorter lets, there is a wider impact, including the loss of much-needed residential accommodation.
Since last year, the pressure has only grown. Last week, research published by the Residential Landlords Association found 53,000 Airbnb listings this year in London alone—up 60%—and a 54% increase in whole property listings. That is equivalent to 12,213 homes that are not available for residential use. In my borough of Westminster, the number of Airbnb lettings rose from 1,603 in 2015 to 3,621 in 2017—an increase of 126%. As of March, an estimated 3,621 whole properties were advertised in the borough and 27,175 entire properties in London. Figures provided by Westminster City Council suggest that in London alone, over two years, there has been a 187% increase in the total number of rentals; the total comes to 173,714. As we know, Airbnb is the biggest player, but there are a number of others.
It is certainly not only London that is affected, as the RLA’s ten-city research showed. It found that the largest percentage increase occurred in Birmingham, where demand has increased by 687% over the two years; that Liverpool had the highest proportion of professional listings, at 72% of all rentals offered by multi-listing hosts; that in Cardiff there had been a 536% increase since 2015; and that in Edinburgh the figure was up by 182%, with 18,105 rentals this year. Several other cities are increasingly being affected.
Of course, many property owners—probably the large majority—lawfully let their properties to enjoy some extra income via Airbnb and other sites, and most owners and tenants act responsibly. To be absolutely clear: no one—not me, Westminster City Council or the Mayor of London—is seeking to ban short lets. It is clear, however, that there is unlawful letting too, and of course last year that prompted Airbnb to announce that it was introducing its own restrictions so that property owners on their sites could not let accommodation for more than 90 days a year.
That was a welcome development, but predictably it has not solved all the problems. There were loopholes from the start, the most significant of which is that, even with a major platform committed to upholding the law, if other platforms do not follow suit, or if owners prove adept at switching between them, or classify whole properties as single rooms or move between definitions of addresses, the core issues remain.
All these issues were brought to the fore in London earlier this year when Assembly Member Tom Copley brought concerned parties from London together to analyse the trends in this sector and the problems it is causing for local authorities and others. I very much look forward to his report on the topic, which I believe is imminent, and I am grateful to him for sharing his evidence and conclusions with me. They have informed my speech today. This is emphatically a cross-party issue, as his work confirms and as is demonstrated by the work done by Westminster City Council, which I have drawn heavily on today. We are working across parties to make sure that the Government address the negative impact on communities
What is the problem? There are three main problems. The first is the sheer scale of this growing sector and its concentration in certain neighbourhoods—although it is spreading—of London. There are apartment blocks in my constituency and others that are fast becoming informal hotels, but without any of the management and support functions provided by hotels and, of course, without paying business rates or corporate taxes. More localised lettings, even though they do not have the same concentration of problems, can still cause real stresses for neighbours and costs and demands on the public purse. Only this weekend, I was in Dibdin House, a former Church Commissioners block in Maida Vale, where a woman was telling me that the flat upstairs had been let continuously on short-let sites for the past two years, meaning that people never knew who was coming and going and that there were parties and all kinds of issues having a negative effect on the local community.
The second problem is the loss of whole properties to the residential sector at a time of acute housing demand. Although single rooms account for a high proportion of nightly lets, overall, 70% of my borough’s holiday lets are whole properties. We know that short lets of nightly booked accommodation command far higher rents than assured shorthold tenancies. The RLA analysis demonstrates the growing professionalism of the sharing economy, with a 75% increase in the number of multi-listings. It believes that landlords are shifting into the sector because of the impact of Government changes to taxation, but also because lettings on a nightly basis command far higher income for landlords.
Information provided to me by Westminster City Council based on Valuation Office Agency data indicates that a one-bedroom flat will rent for £495 a week locally on an assured shorthold tenancy, but for £1,561 a week if let on a nightly basis; that a two-bedroom flat can rent for £620 a week, but for £1,838 a week on a nightly basis; and that a three-bedroom property can rent for £950 a week on an assured shorthold tenancy, but £2,656 can be generated a week by a nightly let. The RLA says that its research
“identifies a significant issue for the future of the Private Rented Sector…in that landlords are starting to offer their properties as short/holiday lets”
rather than as residential lets. It has also found that
“over 1 in 3 are doing so because of tax increases on landlords”.
The RLA will have to make the case for how the tax differential impacts on landlords, but the fact is that, between higher rents and tax changes, we are losing properties, particularly in central London, but increasingly elsewhere, too, as the short-let sector grows.
The third problem is the costs of and difficulties with enforcement. As of September 2017, almost 1,500 properties in Westminster alone were suspected of unauthorised nightly lettings over and above the legal 90-day maximum. Last year, an Institute for Public Policy Research report found that almost one in four short-let properties were being let for more than the 90-day legal limit. Scarce public resources have to be devoted to dealing with problems arising from a minority of nightly lets and to identifying and seeking to prevent owners from breaching the legal limit. Westminster City Council currently spends more than £250,000 a year on planning enforcement activity, which is purportedly more than the tax bills of certain companies involved in creating the issues. As it says—and I agree—the polluter does not pay.
We urgently need to look at this growing issue of enforcement. This is now an issue in cities all over the world and we are in danger of falling behind; other cities are leading on enforcement. When public resources are so scarce, we simply cannot expect local authorities to have to spend their resources in enforcing the law. We need a simple legal change and the Government to get behind local authorities. We need the Mayor of London to be able to take a role in enforcing the Deregulation Act 2015 and we need some action now from the Government before this becomes a crisis.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Karen Buck, Robert Neill, Kevin Brennan, Tom Brake, Tommy Sheppard, Karin Smyth, Andy Slaughter, Matthew Pennycook, Clive Efford, Tony Lloyd and Emma Dent Coad present the Bill.
Karen Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 142).
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 13th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 View all European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 December 2017 - (13 Dec 2017)
19:00 - divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:17 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:30 - divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:42 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:14 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Arrangements for withdrawing from the EU—
“Notwithstanding any powers granted under this Act, no Minister of the Crown may agree to the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union referred to in Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union until Royal Assent is granted to an Act of Parliament—
(a) authorising the Minister to agree to an exit day to be specified in the Act,
(b) authorising the Minister to agree to those arrangements that will apply after exit day, the arrangements to be specified in the Act.”
This new clause would ensure that a separate Act of Parliament would be required for Ministers to determine exit day and to set out the arrangements that will apply after exit day.
New clause 19—Publication of the Withdrawal Agreement—
“The powers for Ministers set out in section 9 shall not come into force unless and until a final withdrawal agreement made between the United Kingdom and the European Union has been published and copies placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.”
This new clause would ensure that the wide-ranging powers for Ministers to implement the withdrawal agreement set out in Clause 9 of the Bill cannot come into force until the withdrawal agreement has been published.
New clause 38—Status of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom—
“Before making any regulations under section 9, the Minister shall commit to making available to Irish citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom after exit day any status, rights and entitlements available to Irish citizens before exit day, inclusive of and in addition to their status, rights and entitlements as EU citizens.”
New clause 66—Parliamentary approval for the outcome of negotiations with the European Union—
“No exit day may be appointed under this Act until the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, including leaving the EU without an agreement, have been approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause is intended to establish that Parliament has a meaningful vote on the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 68—Terms of withdrawal: approval by Parliament—
“(1) The Government shall not conclude any agreement on terms of withdrawal from the European Union, or on the UK’s future relationship with the European Union, until those terms have been approved by resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament must be sought no later than three months before exit day.”
This new clause would require the Government to seek Parliamentary approval for its exit agreement with the EU at least three months before exit day.
New clause 69—United Kingdom withdrawal from the EU—
“(1) Subsection (2) applies if either of the conditions in subsection (3) or (4) is met.
(2) The Prime Minister must seek an agreement with the EU on one or more of the following—
(a) extending the negotiations beyond the two-year period specified in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union; or
(b) agreeing that negotiations over the final terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU may take place during a negotiated transitional arrangement which broadly reflect current arrangements and which begins immediately after the Article 50 notice period expires and the EU treaties cease to apply to the UK; or
(c) any other course of action in relation to the negotiations (with the EU over the withdrawal of the United Kingdom) which has been approved in accordance with this section by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that no Article 50 withdrawal agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom and the EU by 31 October 2018.
(4) The condition in this subsection is that an Article 50 withdrawal agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom and the EU but the proposed terms of withdrawal have not been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament by 28 February 2019.
(5) Nothing in this section may be amended by regulations made under any provision of this Act.”
The intention of this new clause, which could be amended only by primary legislation, is to specify the actions that should be taken if the Government does not secure a withdrawal agreement by 31 Oct 2018 or that Parliament does not approve a withdrawal agreement by 28 February 2019.
New clause 75—Implementing the withdrawal agreement (No. 2)—
“(1) No powers to make regulations under this Act may be used for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament detailing how implementing the withdrawal agreement will be achieved through primary legislation.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2), “implementing the withdrawal agreement” may include any necessary provision for a transitional period after the exit day appointed for section 1 of this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2), “implementing the withdrawal agreement” must include any necessary provision to ensure that any citizens of any EU Member State who are lawfully resident in the UK on any day before exit day can continue to be lawfully resident after exit day on terms no less favorable than they currently enjoy.”
This new clause is intended to ensure that primary legislation is used to implement the withdrawal agreement, including maintaining EU citizens’ rights.
Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 6, line 45, at end insert
“, subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
To require the final deal with the EU to be approved by statute passed by Parliament.
Amendment 355, page 6, line 45, at end insert “, subject to—
(a) the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament, and
(b) an affirmative resolution passed by the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
This amendment would require the final deal with the EU to be approved by statute passed by both Parliament and by the devolved administrations.
Amendment 361, page 7, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section may, notwithstanding sections 1 and 5(1), make provision to replicate, for such an implementation period as is provided for in the withdrawal agreement, any aspect of the operation of EU law in the United Kingdom.”
The amendment would make clear that aspects of EU membership, such as the automatic effect of EU law and enforcement and adjudication mechanisms, can be maintained for an implementation period if the Government agrees to do so as part of the withdrawal agreement.
Amendment 142, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) remove, reduce or otherwise amend the rights of any citizen of an EU Member State who was lawfully resident in the UK on any day before 30 March 2019.”
This amendment seeks to protect the existing rights of EU citizens living in the UK.
Amendment 47, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the terms of the withdrawal agreement have been approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
Amendment 196, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until a Minister of the Crown has submitted a formal request to the President of the European Council that the UK should continue to be a member of the European Union’s Political and Security Committee after exit day.”
Amendment 197, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until a Minister of the Crown has submitted a formal request to the President of the European Council that the UK should continue to be a signatory to all agreements signed through the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.”
Amendment 198, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until a Minister of the Crown has submitted a formal request to the President of the European Council that the UK should continue to be a member of the European Union’s Foreign Affairs Council.”
Amendment 199, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until a Minister of the Crown has submitted a formal request to the President of the European Council that the UK should continue to be a member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.”
Amendment 227, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the UK leaving the EU single market on the forecast to the UK’s public finances.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom exiting the EU single market on the UK public finances, before any regulations are made under section 9.
Amendment 228, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before Parliament an assessment of the impact of exiting the EU single market on levels of GDP growth.
(3B) Any assessment under subsection (3A) shall set out an assessment of the impact of exiting the EU single market on levels of GDP growth in—
(a) Scotland,
(b) Northern Ireland,
(c) England, and
(d) Wales.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom exiting the EU single market on the levels of GDP growth in the UK and in each part of the UK, before any regulations are made under section 9.
Amendment 229, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before Parliament an assessment of the impact of ending freedom of movement on the UK’s public finances.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom ending freedom of movement on the UK’s public finances, before any regulations are made under section 9.
Amendment 230, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before Parliament an assessment of the broadened responsibilities of the UK Treasury following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the broadened responsibilities of the UK Treasury following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, before any regulations are made under section 9.
Amendment 300, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until—
(a) the Government has laid before Parliament a strategy for maintaining those protections, safeguards, programmes for participation in nuclear research and development, and trading or other arrangements which will lapse as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from membership of, and participation in, the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), and
(b) the strategy has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would prevent the Government using any delegated powers under Clause 9 until it had secured Parliamentary approval for its proposals to replace any provisions that cease to apply as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from membership of Euratom.
Amendment 55, page 7, line 9, at end insert
“or until the withdrawal agreement has been published and legislation proposed in the 2017 Gracious Speech in relation to customs, trade, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, nuclear safeguards and international sanctions has been published.”
This amendment would ensure that powers to Ministers to make regulations implementing the withdrawal agreement cannot be exercised until such time as the withdrawal agreement has been published along with the publication of associated legislative proposals on customs, trade, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, nuclear safeguards and international sanctions.
Amendment 19, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) Regulations under this section will lapse two years after exit day.”
Although the power conferred by this clause lapses on exit day, there is no sunset clause for the statutory instruments provided under it. This would make all such statutory instruments lapse two years after exit day and require the Government to introduce primary legislation if it wanted to keep them in force.
Amendment 74, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has signed an agreement with the EU guaranteeing that the UK will remain a permanent member of the EU Single Market.”
Amendment 75, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has signed an agreement with the EU guaranteeing that the UK will remain a permanent member of the EU Customs Union.”
Amendment 116, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until such time as the terms of the withdrawal agreement have been approved by a Ratification Referendum, giving voters the options of supporting the terms of the withdrawal agreement, or remaining in the EU.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that Ministers cannot make and use secondary legislation for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement until such time as that agreement has been approved by a Ratification Referendum.
Amendment 143, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until such time as the Government has signed an agreement with the EU that maintains and guarantees the existing rights of EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU, as of 29 March 2019.”
This amendment seeks to protect the existing rights of both EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU.
Amendment 156, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section unless the requirement in section [Status of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom] has been satisfied.”
Amendment 224, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for the UK to retain access to the EU’s Emissions Trading System markets after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to retain access to the EU’s Emissions Trading System markets after withdrawal.
Amendment 225, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for the UK’s continued participation in the North Seas Countries’ Offshore Grid Initiative after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for the UK to continue participation in the North Seas Countries’ Offshore Grid Initiative after withdrawal from the EU.”
Amendment 231, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has published a statement setting out a strategy for retaining access to the European Investment Bank.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for retaining access to the European Investment Bank.
Amendment 232, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has published a statement setting out a strategy for retaining membership of the European Investment Fund.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for retaining access to the European Investment Fund.
Amendment 238, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking the maintenance of UK membership of the European Food Safety Authority on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for continuing to be a member of the European Food Safety Authority.
Amendment 241, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking the preservation of reciprocal healthcare agreements on existing terms as under social security coordination regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
(6) Any changes to regulations in subsection (5) shall only be made after—
(a) the House of Commons has passed a resolution approving changes to regulations mentioned in subsection (5),
(b) the Scottish Parliament has passed a resolution approving changes to regulations mentioned in subsection (5),
(c) the National Assembly of Wales has passed a resolution approving changes to regulations mentioned in subsection (5), and
(d) the Northern Ireland Assembly has passed a resolution approving changes to regulations mentioned in subsection (5).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for seeking to ensure that reciprocal healthcare arrangements continue after the UK leaves the EU.
Amendment 242, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain UK membership of the European Medicines Agency on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for continuing to be a member of the European Medicines Agency.
Amendment 243, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain UK membership of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for continuing to be a member of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.
Amendment 244, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain UK membership of the European Chemicals Agency after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for continuing to be a member of the European Chemicals Agency.
Amendment 245, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain UK membership of the European Single Sky Agreement on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for continuing to be a member of the European Single Sky Agreement.
Amendment 246, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain UK membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that the UK continues to be a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 247, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to retain UK membership of the European Maritime Safety Agency on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that the UK continues to be a member of the European Maritime Safety Agency after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 248, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to retain UK membership of ERASMUS on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that the UK continued to be a member of the ERASMUS scheme after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 249, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain access for the UK to reciprocal roaming charge agreements on existing terms as under Regulation 2017/920, after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would seek to ensure that roaming charges do not come into effect after exit day for UK citizens in the EU and vice versa.
Amendment 250, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to retain UK membership of Creative Europe on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that the UK continued to be a member of Creative Europe after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 251, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has made a formal request to President of the European Council that the UK continues membership of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the UK to make a request to the President of the European Council for continued UK membership of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 252, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has published a strategy for reaching an agreement with the EU to enable the UK to have continued access to Passenger Name Records after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that the UK continued to have access to Passenger Name Records after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 253, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the Schengen Information System after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the Schengen Information System after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 254, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have continued access to the European Arrest Warrant.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the European Arrest Warrant after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 255, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have membership of EUROPOL.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have membership of EUROPOL after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 256, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have membership of EUROJUST.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have membership of EUROJUST after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 257, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the European Criminal Records Information system with the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the European Criminal Records Information system with the EU after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 258, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the Prüm Council decisions relating to fingerprint and DNA exchange with the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the Prüm Council decisions relating to fingerprint and DNA exchange with the EU, after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 259, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the False and Authentic Documents Online (“FADO”) internet-based image archiving system.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the False and Authentic Documents Online (“FADO”) internet-based image archiving system after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 260, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to participate in the Convention on Mutual Assistance and Cooperation between Customs Administrations of 1997 (“Naples II Convention”).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to participate in the Convention on Mutual Assistance and Cooperation between Customs Administrations of 1997 (“Naples II Convention”), after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 261, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 262, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out a strategy for ensuring that lawyers registered to practise in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland shall not lose their right of audience at the European Court after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable British-registered lawyers to continue to appear before the Court of Justice of the European Union, after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 263, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out a strategy for ensuring that lawyers from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland shall not lose their status of legal profession privilege concerning communications with regard to proceedings before the European Court, after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to ensure that communications from British-registered lawyers with regard to proceedings before the European Court continue to be covered by legal profession privilege, after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 275, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament an agreement with the Scottish Government for the freedom of movement of EU citizens in Scotland to continue after exit day.”
This amendment would facilitate the continuance of free movement in and out of Scotland after exit day.
Amendment 276, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out a strategy for continued participation by the United Kingdom in the common European Asylum System.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for continued participation by the United Kingdom in the common European Asylum System, after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 343, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for a food standards framework after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for a food standards framework after withdrawal from the EU, before making any regulations implementing the withdrawal agreement.
Amendment 351, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out plans that seek to secure continued clinical trials agreements as under EU Regulation 536/2014 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would ensure harmonisation of clinical trials across the EU Member States will continue in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
Clause 9 stand part.
New clause 7—Consultation—
“The Government shall follow the principles set out in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice in respect of public consultation in advance of regulations being made under powers granted by this Act.”
This new clause would commit Ministers to abiding by the existing Cabinet Office code of practice on consultations in respect of regulations to be made under the Bill.
New clause 12—Social, employment and environmental protection—
“Any rights, protections, liabilities, obligations, powers, remedies and procedures which exist immediately before exit day in the fields of—
(a) social and employment law, and
(b) environmental law
will not be amended through any regulations made to deal with deficiencies or withdrawal unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament or by Act of Parliament”
This new Clause would ensure that social, employment and environmental laws cannot be changed by the order-making powers delegated to Ministers without a vote in Parliament.
New clause 57—Citizens’ Jury on Brexit Negotiations—
“(1) A citizens’ jury shall be established to enable UK citizens to be consulted on the progress of negotiations between the UK and the EU on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, and the approach outlined in UK Government White Papers.
(2) The citizens’ jury shall in total be composed of exactly 1501 persons.
(3) Members of the citizens’ jury shall be randomly selected by means of eligibility from UK citizens on the current electoral register as registered on the date of this Act receiving Royal Assent, with allocation across the nine UK Government Regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland weighted by population, and a stratification plan, with the aim of securing a group of people who are broadly representative demographically of the UK electorate across characteristics including whether they voted Leave or Remain.
(4) The jury will be broken down into individual sittings for each of the nine UK Government Regions in England, as well as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(5) The sittings will be for no more than 72 hours at a time, facilitated by independent facilitators, and if required, by electing fore-people from within their number.
(6) Membership of the jury will be subject to the same regulations and exceptions as a regular jury, but membership can be declined without penalty.
(7) The citizens’ jury will be able to require Ministerial and official representatives of the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations to give testimony to them to inform their work, and to have the power to invite other witnesses to give evidence as required.
(8) The citizens’ jury shall publish reports setting out their conclusions on the negotiations and UK Government White Papers.
(9) The first report from the citizens’ jury shall be published within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and subsequent reports shall be published at intervals of no more than two months.
(10) Costs incurred by the citizens’ jury shall be met by the Exchequer.”
Clause 16 stand part.
Amendment 226, in schedule 7, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(g) makes changes to the application of the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive in the UK.”
This amendment would make any changes to the application of the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive in the UK subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
Amendment 235, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(g) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning the rights of workers in the UK.”
This amendment would require that the rights of workers currently afforded by EU law that are being transposed into UK law can be changed only through affirmative procedure.
Amendment 236, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(g) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning rights for disabled people in the UK.”
This amendment would require that the rights of disabled people currently afforded by EU law that are being transposed into UK law can be changed only through affirmative procedure.
Amendment 237, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(g) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning annual leave rights,
(h) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning agency worker rights,
(i) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning part-time worker rights,
(j) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning fixed-term worker rights,
(k) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning work-based health and safety obligations,
(l) makes changes to EU-derived legislation concerning state-guaranteed payments upon an employer’s insolvency,
(m) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning collective redundancy rights,
(n) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning terms and conditions of employment rights,
(o) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning posted worker rights,
(p) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning paternity, maternity and parental leave rights,
(q) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning protection of employment upon the transfer of a business, or
(r) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning anti-discrimination.”
This amendment would list areas regarding workers’ rights where changes to EU-derived law could be made only through affirmative procedure.
Amendment 293, page 39, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations appointing any exit day may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require regulations appointing an exit day to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 328, page 39, line 42, leave out sub-paragraphs (6) and (7).
This amendment, and Amendments 329 and 331, would remove provisions in the Bill that prescribe scrutiny procedures for the National Assembly for Wales. These amendments, coupled with Amendment 330, would allow the National Assembly for Wales to set the scrutiny procedures it considers appropriate for the control of powers proposed for the Welsh Ministers under the Bill.
Amendment 329, page 41, line 15, leave out sub-paragraphs (10) and (11).
This amendment, and Amendments 328 and 331, would remove provisions in the Bill that prescribe scrutiny procedures for the National Assembly for Wales. These amendments, coupled with Amendment 330, would allow the National Assembly for Wales to set the scrutiny procedures it considers appropriate for the control of powers proposed for the Welsh Ministers under the Bill.
Amendment 155, page 42, line 17, at end insert—
“(3A) A Minister cannot make a declaration under sub-paragraph (2) unless they have satisfied themselves that they have sufficiently consulted—
(a) relevant public authorities,
(b) businesses,
(c) people, and
(d) other organisations
who are likely to be affected by the instrument.”
This amendment would require that, when using the urgent cases provision in the Bill, the Minister must first consult with businesses and other relevant organisations.
Amendment 154, page 42, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) For the purposes of this paragraph “urgent” has the same meaning as “emergency” in Section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.”
This amendment would limit the circumstances in which Ministers can use procedures for urgent cases to circumstances in which there is a serious threat of damage to human welfare, the environment or the security of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 51, page 43, line 26, leave out paragraph 6
This amendment is linked to New Clause 3 to require the Government to implement the withdrawal agreement through separate primary and secondary legislation rather than through this Bill.
Amendment 294, page 44, line 37, after “section 17(5)” insert “, other than regulations to appoint an exit day,”
Consequential to amendment 293.
Amendment 295, page 45, line 5, after “section 17(5)” insert “, other than regulations to appoint an exit day,”
Consequential to amendment 293.
Amendment 344, page 45, line 11, at end insert—
The intention of this amendment is that tertiary legislation under the Act should be subject to the same parliamentary control and time-limits as are applicable to secondary legislation.
Amendment 58, page 45, line 23, leave out “urgency” and insert “emergency”
This amendment would remove the wider latitude currently allowing Ministers to make regulations without Parliamentary approval “by reason of urgency” and instead only allow such executive action “by reason of emergency”. An emergency is a situation that poses an immediate risk to human health, life, property, or environment.
Amendment 330, page 45, line 40, at end insert—
“Scrutiny of regulations made by Welsh Ministers
11A (1) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act of the Welsh Ministers must be made in accordance with the procedures from time to time set out in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales for the scrutiny of regulations under this Act.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to statutory instruments made by the Welsh Ministers acting alone and to statutory instruments made by the Welsh Ministers acting jointly with a Minister of the Crown.
(3) The Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales may set out different procedures for the making of different statutory instruments or for different categories of statutory instruments under this Act and, for the avoidance of doubt, may empower the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly to decide which of those procedures is to apply to an instrument or category of instruments.
(4) For the purposes of section 11A of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, and any other provisions of that Act referred to in that section, the provisions set out from time to time in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales for the scrutiny of regulations under this Act shall be deemed to be provisions of an Act.”
This amendment would allow the National Assembly for Wales to set the scrutiny procedures it considers appropriate for the control of powers proposed for the Welsh Ministers under the Bill.
Amendment 301, page 46, line 18, at end insert—
“12A Any power to make regulations under this Act may not be exercised by a Minister of the Crown until 14 days after the Minister has circulated a draft of the regulations to the citizens’ jury appointed under section [Citizens’ jury on Brexit negotiations].”
The intention of this amendment is to provide for a citizens’ jury to be consulted before regulations are made under this Act.
Amendment 223, page 46, line 29, at end insert—
“14A Any power to make regulations in this Act relating to the oil and gas sector may not be made without—
(a) consultation, and
(b) an impact assessment, a copy of which must be laid before Parliament.”
This amendment would require consultation and an impact assessment before legislation affecting the relating to the oil and gas sector is changed by regulations made under the Act.
Amendment 331, page 48, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
This amendment, and Amendments 328 and 329, would remove provisions in the Bill that prescribe scrutiny procedures for the National Assembly for Wales. These amendments, coupled with Amendment 330, would allow the National Assembly for Wales to set the scrutiny procedures it considers appropriate for the control of powers proposed for the Welsh Ministers under the Bill.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 29, in clause 17, page 13, line 34, leave out subsections (1) to (3)
This amendment would remove a widely drawn delegated power, which covers anything that happens as a consequence of the Act.
Amendment 99, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(8) Regulations under this section may not limit the scope or weaken standards of environmental protection.”
This amendment ensures that the power to make regulations in Clause 17 may not be exercised to reduce environmental protection.
Amendment 100, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(8) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.”
This amendment imposes the same restriction on the regulation making powers under Clause 17 as applies to other regulation powers in the Bill.
Amendment 296, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(8) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.
(9) Regulations made under this section may not amend or repeal retained EU law.”
This amendment would place restrictions on the power to make consequential and transitional provision.
Clause 17 stand part.
Yvette Cooper
I rise to speak to new clause 3, which has cross-party support, but also amendment 7, which does something similar to my new clause, albeit, I confess, in a rather more elegant way. I defer to the drafting powers of the former Attorney General in drafting his amendment.
This, on day seven in Committee, is really where we get to the crunch on this Bill. There are two big anxieties about the content of the Bill that finally come clashing together in clause 9. The first is the sweeping use of secondary legislation through Henry VIII powers, which, regardless of one’s views on the overall legislation, have caused some unease in all parts of the House because of the way in which they concentrate power in the hands of the Executive and cut deep into our historic role in Parliament to hold the Executive to account. The second anxiety is about getting the final Brexit deal right and about making sure that Parliament has a real, meaningful say on the deal, which will define our country for generations, and that we decide together what “taking back control” should mean.
Clause 9 is where those two anxieties come crashing together, because it allows a huge concentration of power in the hands of the Executive, and it does so over the final withdrawal agreement on the outcome of Brexit. Notwithstanding the commitments that the Prime Minister has made today and the written statement that we have seen, the reality is that clause 9 would allow Ministers to start to implement a withdrawal agreement entirely through secondary legislation and to do so even before Parliament has endorsed the withdrawal agreement.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Many of us hear what the right hon. Lady says about the Henry VIII clauses and the power grab, but does she not accept that the quid pro quo of that is that, while many in this House were quite happy for the EU to conduct a power grab, they seem less trusting of their own Government when it comes to these clauses?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about parliamentary sovereignty, which was indeed a key issue that was debated in the referendum. In fact, many people argued in the referendum that what they were doing was bringing sovereignty back here, from having shared sovereignty with the EU. I do not think we are arguing that sovereignty should be handed over in a concentrated way to a small group of Ministers instead. That is the responsibility on us. We know that of course there are times when Parliament needs to give Ministers power on our behalf to use through secondary legislation, but we should do so cautiously and sensibly and make sure that the right safeguards are in place. That is the problem with the Henry VIII powers in this Bill, and not just in clause 9 but in clause 7. The challenge, too, is that we are being asked to do that on an issue that will define our country for generations. Each and every one of us will be judged on what we did in this place to get that Brexit deal right.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is most welcome that, since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) tabled his amendment 7, it has been agreed that there does need to be an Act of Parliament? Is not the weakness of clause 9 that there is still no trigger requiring the consent of Parliament to the withdrawal agreement before the regulations can be laid and used?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right, and that is why we have a cross-party interest in these issues. Not only is there no trigger on the face of the Bill—clause 9 will still allow Ministers this huge concentrated power to go ahead and implement the withdrawal agreement without Parliament’s agreement—but there is also a second difference, certainly for me in what Ministers have set out so far, about how a meaningful vote should take place. I want to come on to that as well.
New clause 3 says that Parliament will not yet give the Government permission to use secondary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement, and that instead the Government must set out their plans for primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement. If secondary legislation is needed at that time, as part of the implementation process, those powers should be taken in the withdrawal agreement Bill—the second Bill—so that Parliament is not just handing over a blank cheque, but is deciding what powers are needed and making sure that the proper scrutiny and checks and balances are in place at that time.
I do not think this is really a controversial proposal. It is basically saying that Parliament should hand over no more power to the Executive than it needs to and should not hand over power to the Executive until it needs to and until it knows what is going on. New clause 3 also has the effect of requiring a meaningful vote in primary legislation on the withdrawal agreement before it can be implemented. That is not really a controversial proposal either. It simply says that we should have a proper vote on the most important thing to pass through Parliament in a generation—and a meaningful vote in primary legislation, as is fitting for something so important—and that we should do so before and not after we give Government the powers to start implementing it.
Amendment 7, which was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), has broadly the same effect. Rather than removing the powers from clause 9, it simply says that they cannot be used until a statute or primary legislation has been passed supporting the withdrawal agreement. Again, that means that Parliament does not blindly hand over powers to the Executive in a trusting way without knowing what the consequences will be or what the agreement looks like.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The whole point of this Bill is that it is taking back power to this country and this Parliament, so that we can decide for ourselves what will happen. All the significant powers in the Bill are subject to the affirmative resolution and those that are not will now be subject to a sifting committee. We are recovering from a situation where, as members of the European Union, we had handed over all these decisions, lock, stock and barrel, to the European Union, so the Bill is a massive improvement, and to dress up this attempt to reverse Brexit as an argument in favour of parliamentary sovereignty is nothing but cant.
Yvette Cooper
Oh my, what Stalinism is this?—that any attempt to disagree with the way in which this Bill is drawn up is somehow a betrayal of Brexit! What rubbish! How insecure are Members who object to any changes in the Bill, if they cannot see that it is Parliament’s job—a job that they argued for when they stood up and tried to defend parliamentary sovereignty—to take some responsibility by scrutinising legislation and proposing amendments to it? That is all we are doing now. We are putting forward an amendment to the way in which the Brexit process—the withdrawal process—should take place. The idea that this somehow undermines the referendum decision is just a load of rubbish and the hon. Gentleman well knows it, and if he had any better arguments, he would put them, rather than using something that is so ridiculous.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The argument that we have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is really quite ludicrous. They opposed what they described as a power grab by Brussels—by the European Union—while we were members of the European Union. They now seem to be advocating a power grab by the Executive, although they said that they wanted to take back control for the legislature of this country. If taking back control does not mean taking back control for the legislature, why on earth did we have the referendum in the first place?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Let me say to the Conservative Members who seem to be suddenly so keen to give away powers from Parliament to the Executive, that part of our historic tradition has always been our objection to concentrations of power, and indeed our relationship with the EU was a sharing of power rather than a concentration of power. I realise that people objected to that, and this debate is not a rerun of the referendum; it is about how we implement the referendum result. However, it is also—or should be—about Parliament having the confidence to say, “We do not believe in concentrations of power, and we think that each and every one of us has a responsibility to do what we, as elected parliamentarians, think is right, and get the best Brexit deal for the country.”
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The power that the Executive will have in making regulations under the clause will be subject to Parliament, because secondary legislation comes to Parliament. These regulations are of a different order of magnitude from regulations made by the European Union, which can be made by qualified majority vote against the will of the British Government and are automatically British law. So this is, in fact, restoring parliamentary oversight to the making of laws.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman has himself been a strong advocate of the responsibilities and powers of Parliament, but it does not take long for him to become completely lost down a sidetrack and start talking about what our relationship with the EU has been for very many years. The point is that this process is about how that relationship will change. We know that it is due to change as a result of the referendum and the article 50 negotiations, but the responsibility for all of us is to determine how it should change. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, and as well as every other Member in the House, that the giving of powers in secondary legislation concentrates powers in the hands of Ministers, and does not receive the same scrutiny. Furthermore, this is not just about the concentration of power through clause 9; it is also about the process through which the Government want to make the decisions on the withdrawal agreement in order to trigger clause 9.
Anna Soubry
I assume that the right hon. Lady has read clause 9. Does she share my concern about the fact that some people seem not to have done so? Am I right to conclude that the clause means that the Government negotiate a withdrawal agreement—arguably one of the most important things that have happened for decades—which will not come to us here, but will be implemented by Ministers? As the Bill stands, that is it: apparently there will be no further involvement of this sovereign Parliament.
Yvette Cooper
I do agree, and I think that goes to the heart of our concern.
It ought to be possible for the Government to agree to my new clause 3, or to amendment 7. Let us think about the points that they have already made. First, they have recognised that there is a problem if too much power is concentrated in the hands of the Executive. They said so yesterday during the debate on clause 7, and I think that they recognise the importance of safeguards on the use of Executive powers. Secondly, they have said that there will be a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement. I welcome that, but I think there is still a difference between us on what counts as a meaningful vote. Thirdly, they have said that there will now be primary legislation on the withdrawal agreement, and I welcome that as well. If we put all those three things together in the right way—the commitment to primary legislation, the commitment to a proper vote and say for Parliament, and concern about the concentration of powers—we get amendment 7 or new clause 3. It is the same thing.
Sir Oliver Heald
Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), may I ask whether the right hon. Lady agrees that the statutory instruments that we are discussing relate to matters of constitutional significance—matters of the sort that we normally only debate on the Floor of the House? It would be wrong for those matters to be dealt with in Committee when the House has not necessarily even agreed to the withdrawal agreement.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which was all about minor and detailed changes and consolidating legislation through secondary legislation—or that, at least, was its intention. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, this is about hugely constitutionally significant legislation and changes that will affect the course of events in this country for generations.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The right hon. Lady mentioned the different definitions of a “meaningful vote”. Does she agree that a vote that took place at a point at which, for instance, Parliament could not say to the Government, “What you have negotiated is not acceptable” would not constitute a meaningful vote?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The timing of the vote matters, but so does its constitutional status. That is why I think it immensely important for this to be a statutory vote.
Let me explain why the Government’s words and the Prime Minister’s words—in the written ministerial statement, in various letters and so on—are not enough, and why we need to vote on either amendment 7 or my new clause 3. First, the Government’s unwillingness to put their promises on the face of the Bill is a problem. Parliament needs commitments in legislation before we can give the Executive such strong powers—such constitutional powers—and we need that commitment on the face of the Bill before and not after we do so. Secondly, there is still a difference between us on what counts as a meaningful vote. Without either new clause 3 or amendment 7, it would still be possible for Ministers to offer only a vote on a motion on the withdrawal agreement, and that indeed is the Prime Minister’s intention. The written ministerial statement published this morning says:
“This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the Withdrawal Agreement and the terms for our future relationship.”
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady share my concern about the fact that the vote on the motion of both Houses will come after the ratification of the treaty, and the fact that this House has no power or ability to change treaty terms under the ratification, which renders any vote on the motion meaningless?
Yvette Cooper
I think the hon. Lady is right. The Minister will be able to clarify this later, but I think it is a key point that the vote on the primary legislation— on the implementation of the Bill—will not happen until after the treaty has been ratified. I think that there is still some confusion about whether the vote on a motion, or a resolution, will happen before or after the ratification of the treaty, but the main point I want to make about the weakness of trying to do this simply through a resolution is that it is the primary legislation that counts, and it is clear from what the Minister has said, and what has been said in the written ministerial statement, that the primary legislation vote, the statutory vote, will not happen until after the ratification and the whole legal process have been completed.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)
The written ministerial statement makes it very clear that the meaningful vote will come after the negotiations have been concluded, but before ratification. That is precisely why it was published today.
Yvette Cooper
I think that there is a big difference between us on the word “meaningful”. I shall be happy to give way to the Minister again, but I think that he should clarify the position, and confirm that the only vote that we will have before the ratification of the treaty is a vote on a motion.
We are talking about a “take it or leave it” deal, and about a “take it or leave it” vote on the completed deal. That is the only thing that is there, even in the written ministerial statement; and there is no guarantee in the legislation, by the way. The Minister is not proposing to put that on the face of the Bill. Even if we take the written ministerial statement in good faith, and even if we rip up our commitment to putting things on the face of the Bill, all that the Minister has given us is the possibility of a vote on a motion, not a vote on primary legislation before the ratification of the treaty.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I would not take any consolation from what the Minister has said. The formal process of ratification of a treaty, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, is that the treaty is laid before the House by a Minister, and if the House has not annulled it within 21 days, it goes ahead. However, we can only have a vote on annulment if the Government allow it, and in recent years they have regularly chosen not to do so. It is perfectly possible, consistent with what the Minister has just said, that the only vote we would have—and this may be what he means by a meaningful vote—is the vote on annulment, which is a “take it or leave it”, completely meaningless vote.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that goes to the heart of this: in the end, the power is still concentrated in the Executive’s hands, whether it is the power to give us a vote on the treaty at all or the power over the timing of any of these votes. That is all still in the Government’s hands, with no reassurances in the Bill, and then there is still only this proposal simply to have a vote on a motion, not a vote on statute with all the scrutiny that brings.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
I am conscious of time; I will give way again, but many Members want to speak in this important debate.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the consequences of the possibility, under the Government’s proposed procedure, of this House voting in favour but the other place voting against the motion?
Yvette Cooper
That is clearly a possibility, but I think we should trust in the maturity of Parliament. It is possible for people to vote in different ways, but we have long-standing processes between our two Houses for resolving differences and debating them. My problem is that we are not actually being given the opportunity to have those proper meaningful votes through legislation, and instead we just have these motions, which have no constitutional status.
Anna Soubry
Can the right hon. Lady confirm that it is Government policy that this place will be given, to use their expression, a meaningful vote? For example, as the talks progress, some hon. Members might say, “Well, hang on a moment; my pharmaceutical industry is being excluded from this arrangement on trade under this particular head of agreement.” That is an example of doing something “meaningful”—the ability of those of us in this place, acting on behalf of our constituents, to change some of the drift of the negotiations, to get a deal that suits everybody in our country.
Yvette Cooper
I agree: it is hugely important that this vote has the proper status in Parliament, as well as our being able to debate the detail.
Chris Bryant
The point about a potential difference between the House of Lords and the House of Commons again makes me concerned that the Government are toying with only allowing a vote on an annulment motion, presumably tabled by the Opposition rather than the Government, on the original treaty, because then they would have sanction under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which determines what happens if there is a difference between the Lords and the Commons. So, again, I spy a rat.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right, and that again shows the importance of having these commitments in the Bill, so that there can be no doubt and no possibility of the Government using clause 9 to start implementing an agreement on which there has been no meaningful vote.
Mr Jenkin
Can the right hon. Lady explain how the timing will work? If there is to be legislation to approve a withdrawal agreement before March 2019, what happens if the agreement is reached too late to allow that legislation to go through all its stages—[Interruption]—or is this a plan to delay the Brexit date?
Yvette Cooper
I thought part of the way through the hon. Gentleman’s intervention that he was finally coming up with a sensible point. I have no control over the timing of the Government’s negotiations; I hope that they and the EU will get on with this quickly, because in particular we need the transitional agreement pinned down as early as possible, as businesses need certainty—and they need that as much in my constituency as in the hon. Gentleman’s. So I hugely hope there will be plenty of time for all these debates to take place. In the event that, against the Government’s will—they have said they do not want this—it ends up being a late deal, Parliament should have the opportunity to ask the Government to extend article 50 for a couple of months, to be able to implement it properly. In fact, the Government will have to do that anyway, because they will not be able to bring clause 9 powers through fast enough not to have to do so.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Is it not far more likely that the Government will have to do that long before then, because everyone, including the Brexit Secretary, recognises that it is simply not possible to get everything agreed within the next year, plus a few months?
Yvette Cooper
That may be the case. It is clearly not what the Government want, and many of us want the certainty early on. Either way, in the end, however, the timing of the article 50 process will be determined by the Government and the EU states together, but Parliament should be able to put its view to the Government, and Parliament so far in this process will be given no choice in that and no opportunity to have its say.
There is another problem with doing this through a resolution. It is not a fit and proper way to decide something so constitutional to simply do it through a resolution or motion of this House, especially when the Government have shown, in their attitude to Opposition day motions and to resolutions they have lost, that they do not give those sorts of motions and resolutions much status and significance at all, and they do not have constitutional or legal status.
It is only fitting, therefore, for us in this Parliament to say that we should do this through statute, but that is also the most important way to make sure the vote is meaningful. As several Members have said, a motion being put to Parliament that, as the Brexit Secretary has suggested, basically says, “Vote for this deal, whatever it is, or leave with no deal at all,” in the end is not a meaningful vote for Parliament. If Parliament is being given the choice of endorsing the deal the Government have come up with, whatever it is, or alternatively saying in effect that we want no transitional agreement, no security co-operation—nothing at all—and we want to just go straight off the edge of a cliff, that in the end is not proper scrutiny and not a proper meaningful vote. It also provides no incentive for Ministers to have to make sure that what they negotiate can get support in Parliament.
At present, the Government have more incentive to come up with a deal that will get the support of the European Parliament than the support of this place. That is not on; that is not acceptable. It is unacceptable that they have more incentive to focus on the interests of the European Parliament than they have to focus on the interests of, and the potential to build consensus in, this Parliament. That is why we need a vote on statute; that is why we need a statutory vote; and that is why we need either amendment 7 or new clause 3, to have a meaningful vote before, not after, the treaty is ratified.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
The right hon. Lady talked about a delay of perhaps a couple of months, but if the treaty is not right in the eyes of this Parliament, a couple of months could turn into a couple years, and, indeed, some people would like it to be a couple of decades. Therefore, she talks about a meaningful vote, but what about the meaningful vote of the people of this country, who voted last June to leave the European Union? We need to get this done as quickly as possible, to deliver what the British people voted for.
Yvette Cooper
We had a referendum on whether or not Britain should leave the EU. That referendum has taken place; that decision has taken place; and Parliament has respected that decision. Despite how individual Members might have voted in that referendum, or on which side we might have campaigned, as a whole Parliament has respected that referendum result. The referendum did not decide how we leave the EU, however, or what the Brexit deal or transitional agreement should be. That is the responsibility now for the Government in negotiations, but also for this Parliament.
I point out to Members who claim that somehow we cannot have a parliamentary debate on this because it is an internationally negotiated deal—because, somehow, it is a done deal—that Parliament must be able to have a say in this process and we should trust Parliament to be mature and responsible. A lot of Conservative Members said that if we let Parliament vote on article 50, the sky would fall in because it would somehow stop the Brexit process, rip up the referendum result and get in the way of democracy. But actually, the Members of this Parliament know that we have a responsibility towards democracy. We have a mature responsibility to our constituents to defend the very principles of democracy. That is exactly why many of us, including me, voted for article 50, to respect the referendum result, but we do not believe that we should then concentrate powers in the hands of Ministers to enable them do whatever they like. We have a responsibility to defend democracy and those democratic principles. It is our responsibility as Members of Parliament to have our say and to ensure that we get the best deal for the country, rather than just give our power to Ministers.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The right hon. Lady might agree with me that what causes more consternation overseas among those observing what is going on are the signs that we as a Parliament and as a Government seem from time to time to completely lose our marbles and get involved in polemical arguments that are far removed from the actual matters that we are supposed to be discussing.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right, and I will defer to him to set out his amendment and describe its impact. The idea that we should make a confidence issue out of every single adjustment to the Brexit process or to the withdrawal Bill is just nonsense.
If we have a Bill before Parliament, it has to be possible for Members of Parliament to table amendments to it and to vote on them. In a hung Parliament, that is even more the case. The Prime Minister asked for a mandate to do all this her own way, but she did not get it. She got a hung Parliament. That puts even more responsibility on us all to work together to find something that will build consensus across Parliament and across the country. In a hung Parliament, the Government sometimes lose votes because Parliament has to do its job to build the right kind of consensus and to get the right kind of outcome.
In the end, this is all about Parliament and democracy. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to our constituents not to hand over, share or give up our authority and our sovereignty, but to exercise our responsibility to get the very best deal. For centuries, Members of Parliament have fought tooth and nail to defend democracy and the powers of Parliament against Executive power. We cannot be the generation that just rips that up and hands over all the power to the Executive. We have a responsibility—now more than ever, given the gravity of the decisions before us—to use that power responsibly and to try to build consensus. To be honest, if the Government cannot build a broader consensus in Parliament, there is no chance of their building a broader consensus in the country, and if they cannot do that, we will end up with everybody rowing over the Brexit deal for a generation to come. For the sake of all of us who want to get back to discussing our schools, our hospitals and all the other issues that face our Parliament, I urge Ministers to accept either amendment 7 or new clause 3, and to start trying to build a consensus that can get us a sustainable Brexit deal.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I rise to support new clause 3 and amendment 7. As mine is the second name attached to amendment 7, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who is mainly responsible for it, I also incline to the view that it is slightly the better drafted, but I will support either proposal if one or both are put to the vote.
I might well succeed in being reasonably brief, because I agreed with every word of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I will not repeat what she said. A welcome note of cross-party consensus exists across a large part of the House, and it represents the cross-party consensus that is in favour of what is lazily called a soft Brexit and of having the best possible close relationship with the European Union after we leave.
The main issue in this debate seems to turn on what we mean by a “meaningful vote”, which relates to our discussion on the role of parliamentary sovereignty in a situation of this kind. I accept that today the Prime Minister—not for the first time—promised us a meaningful vote, but she later went on to qualify that slightly by talking about the need for statutory instruments to be brought forward during the period of the Bill, within the extraordinary powers that the Bill gives Ministers to enact, by regulation, even changes to British statute law. We have to be clear what a meaningful vote is, and the key is the timing. It is quite obvious that if the British Government are to be responsible to the British Parliament, the vote must take place before the Government have committed themselves to the terms of the treaty-like agreement that is entered into with the other member states. Any other vote will not be meaningful.
Mr Clarke
I will give way in just a second, but let me finish this point.
That means that a meaningful vote cannot take place until a detailed agreement has been arrived at about certainly the precise nature of our trading and economic relationships with the single market of the European Union, and actually quite a lot else besides, because we still have to embark on the security discussions, the policing discussions and the discussions about which agencies we are going to remain in and which agency rules we are going to comply with. This is, we all agree, a huge and complex agreement, and it is going to determine this country’s relationships with the rest of the continent of Europe and the wider world for generations to come. Can that happen before March 2019?
We face the genuine difficulty that it is quite obvious that we will not be remotely near to reaching that agreement by March 2019, and we have to think through what that actually means. The negotiators have been very optimistic in saying that they will have first a transition deal and then a deal by 2019. I am sure that they will try, but they have not a chance. I think that what they are actually saying—certainly the continental negotiators—is that they might be able to have some heads of agreement on the eventual destination by March 2019, which we can all carefully consider. They will certainly have to agree a transition deal of at least two years within which the rest of the process will have to be completed.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford that everybody wants things to be speedy, because one of things that this country is suffering from most at the moment is the appalling uncertainty caused by the fact that we have taken a ridiculous length of time to reach three obvious conclusions on the three preliminary points that had to be determined as the basis of our withdrawal. At the moment, however, we do not quite know what the British Government are going to be seeking as their end goal in the negotiations that are about to start, because the British Government, within the Cabinet, have not yet been able to agree exactly what they are seeking.
If I may say this to my desperately paranoid Eurosceptic friends, it is not as if I am somehow trying in some surreptitious remainer way to put a spoke in the wheels of the fast progress of the United Kingdom towards our destination. The Government do not know what leave means. Nobody discussed what leave meant when we were having the referendum. Our overriding duty is not just to our political allegiances and so on; it is to provide this country with a good, responsible Government who face up to the problems of the real world and, accountable to Parliament, can produce the best new order that they can for the benefit of future generations.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is demonstrating why he is Father of the House, so I hesitate to interrupt him, but on his point about having a meaningful vote prior to the Prime Minister of the day making the deal, does he agree, with his wealth of experience, that if we are to keep the country together, it is important that that Prime Minister has in the back of her head when trying to pull off that agreement, “I have to get this through my Parliament”?
Mr Clarke
The right hon. Gentleman makes one of the points that I was going to make. The most important effect of passing either new clause 3 or amendment 7 —there is actually more to this than a meaningful vote, if we consider the various stages—and achieving proper parliamentary accountability is that that would affect the tenor of the negotiations. Like every other Head of Government in the European Union, our Prime Minister would need to have at the back of her mind, “Can I deliver to the House of Commons what I am thinking of conceding?” Every other political leader in Europe will do that, because they will have to sell what they sign up to to their own Parliaments. If we do not have a meaningful vote, we will be the only member state whose negotiators are not under a legally or constitutionally binding commitment to sell the deal, because they will be able to make the deal and then come back to the House of Commons and the House of Lords and say, “This is it. What do you think of it?”
Chuka Umunna
The Father of the House is absolutely right that the Bill essentially gives the Government a blank cheque. On timing, the only commitment I can see in today’s written ministerial statement from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union about what will happen before we leave the EU is that the proposed withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will be introduced before we leave. That is clearly unacceptable. Any piece of legislation seeking to do what that Bill has in mind must be passed before we leave the European Union, even if that means extending the process to maintain parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr Clarke
I agree entirely, and my next point is linked to that. The nature of the parliamentary approval cannot just be a motion; it must have statutory basis, which is the route that the Prime Minister has followed. There are various reasons for that, but the obvious one is the extremely uncertain status of resolutions of this House under current parliamentary practice. The Brexit Secretary is only the latest example of someone saying that anything that is not statutory is not legally enforceable, but just a “statement of intent”. The House of Commons keeps passing all kinds of motions with which I ferociously disagree, but they get carried by this House and make all kinds of criticisms of what the Government are doing. We have moved into a new era in which the Government are allowed to keep saying, “Parliament may pass motions, but they are worthless expressions of opinion. They are not part of our being accountable to the elected body of the House.”
Sir Oliver Heald
Of course the original plan was not to have a Bill, but to rely on statutory instruments under clause 9 to effect changes of constitutional significance. It was then made clear recently—I think on 17 November—that we will in fact have a Bill. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to try to make such changes by secondary legislation just is not on? It is very unlikely that the courts would say that such constitutionally significant changes could be made under secondary legislation.
Mr Clarke
Again, I agree entirely, and that takes me back to something that has occurred all the way through this process. I am obviously standing here in disagreement with the Government, of whom I am critical in many respects, due to both the policy and how it has been conducted, but I have had some sympathy with them since the election, because they are trying to carry through this enormous, controversial and historic measure when they do not have a parliamentary majority, except when they can persuade the Democratic Unionist party to turn up and support them.
The process started with the extraordinary suggestion that the royal prerogative would be invoked, that treaty making was not going to involve Parliament at all, and that leaving did not require parliamentary consent. Rather astonishingly, that matter had to be taken to court, and it came to a fairly predictable conclusion. The next idea—I will not repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) said—was that everything would be done by statutory instruments under broad powers. However, we are slowly getting to what I would have thought is the fundamental minimum that a real parliamentary democracy should be demanding: the country will not be able to enter into a binding treaty commitment until the details have received full parliamentary approval. How we get there is no doubt a matter of some difficulty, but it must be addressed.
Mr Clarke
I will give way in a second.
The debates on this Bill have typified this Government’s approach to parliamentary scrutiny. I understand their difficulties when they have no majority and their Members include people like me and those who are trying to interrupt me—we are allegedly on the same side of the House—who fundamentally disagree with each other.
I have attended every day of our debates on this Bill. We spent yesterday discussing parliamentary scrutiny, but our proceedings have not been a great advertisement for such scrutiny. The Government’s reaction to each and every proposal is to say how carefully they have listened, how important it is and how they will go away and think about it, but then to explain why the drafting of the Bill will not currently be amended. I am sure that I have done that myself when taking legislation through the House, and it is always a joy to find out that one can get away with it for quite a long time. After a bit, one gets used to the fact that one can get away with it as long as one is suitably polite and flattering to those who are proposing amendments. The actual reasons that have been given for rejecting proposals have been all about administrative convenience—that they are obscure drafting amendments. I congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen on creating arguments of such extraordinary minutiae to support the amazing aspirations of civil servants who see a mountain of work before them and hope that most of it can proceed with the minimum of political scrutiny.
What we have not heard, and I will have to hear it today, is the political argument against Parliament having a meaningful say. What is the constitutional argument that says Parliament should be denied a statute before the Government enter into all these commitments? I have not so far heard a word expressed to try to explain that to me. That should be the key, dominant thought in the Government’s mind as they negotiate. Of course they will have to think about what will satisfy the Foreign Secretary and the Environment Secretary, and of course they will have to get something for which the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Sun will criticise them least, and so on, but I do not think Parliament is an afterthought to those vital considerations; I think it is the parliamentary process that matters. The rest is a problem for some press officer.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend said earlier that other Parliaments across Europe will have a say and we will not, but I posit that that is not true. This is about the withdrawal agreement, which will be agreed under qualified majority voting by the European Council, so it is not true that every Parliament across Europe will get a say on this subject.
Mr Clarke
Qualified majority voting is an excellent innovation achieved by the Thatcher Government when we were explaining to the other Europeans how they could have an effective free trade agreement. The number of times that British Governments have ever been outvoted under qualified majority voting is tiny. Qualified majority voting could be extremely important in these negotiations, because otherwise a Government of some small state—I will not name any, because they are all friendly—could suddenly decide they have some great lobby group at home that does not want to concede to the British something that the British Government have set out to achieve. The whole thing could then be held up.
The agreement will have to go to all the Parliaments. The Parliament of Wallonia will no doubt be allowed to have a say, which, if this Government have their way, this Parliament will not. The Parliament of Wallonia will be allowed to have a say, and I am not sure whether the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments will—that remains to be seen. European Governments will all have to take a view and defend that view to their own Parliament in each and every case.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is disorderly to say that an hon. Member is misleading the Committee. I suggest that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) settles down and allows the Father of the House to continue.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Qualified majority voting means that each Government cast a vote and, if we get a qualified majority, that is the effective decision. Each Minister who takes part in that vote is, of course, accountable to their own Parliament, to which they go home and defend their vote. If it is on a difficult, controversial subject, any sensible Minister—all those Ministers—will take the view of their Parliament before going to cast their vote on behalf of their country. It is utterly ludicrous to say that this Parliament should be denied a vote and not allowed a role because qualified majority voting somehow replaces it. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) says that what I say is untrue and, with great respect, I would say that his argument is an absurdity.
Mr Baron
I respect my right hon. and learned Friend’s consistency on this issue. He is on public record as having once said that he looks forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament will be nothing more than a council chamber of the European Parliament.
When my right hon. and learned Friend says that leavers did not know what they were voting for, he risks sounding very condescending, because we knew exactly what we were voting for: to reclaim our laws and to reclaim our finances. Although one accepts his point that one cannot predict the future in any detail, that is as much true for the EU as it is for this country.
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is not the sort who usually repeats the more scurrilous right-wing rubbish that fanatical Eurosceptics come up with about what I have and have not said in the past. I am not, and never have been, a federalist. I would not pursue a united states of Europe. It is social media stuff to start throwing in that kind of thing when we are in the middle of a serious parliamentary debate.
When the public were invited to vote in a referendum, they were invited to take back control, which was not defined. It was mainly about the borders and about the 70 million Turks and all the rest of it. They were told in the campaign that our trade with the European Union would not be affected in any way. Indeed, that is still being held out as a prospect by the Brexit Secretary and others, who seem to believe that they will get unfettered trade without any of the obligations.
The discussions we have had in Committee on previous days about the details of what “single market” and “customs union” mean, and so on, would have been a mystery to anybody whose knowledge of the subject is confined to the arguments reported in the national media on both sides. Those arguments are largely rubbish, and it is now for this House to turn to the real world and decide in detail what we will do.
Anna Soubry
The Father of the House is right that there will be a qualified majority vote on the withdrawal agreement. That agreement will not go to each individual Parliament in the same way that the actual trade agreement will. Does he share the concerns of many people, as that now dawns upon them? They had thought that this place would have some sort of say on the trade deal—the actual final relationship that we will have with the European Union—but, actually, we will have no such say because the deal will not be finalised until after we have left the European Union. Does he agree that that is now concerning many citizens across the length and breadth of this land who did indeed apparently vote to take back control?
Mr Clarke
I agree entirely. My right hon. Friend eloquently underlines the point that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford raised and that I am trying to make. We must have a meaningful vote before the final trade deal—indeed, the whole deal—is agreed by the Government.
Let me try to lower the temperature by going back, as I rarely do, to reminisce for a moment.
Sir William Cash
My right hon. and learned Friend and, I believe, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), both concede that amendment 7, at this crucial moment, is defective and would not work for a variety of reasons. I have indulged what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has said about scrutiny and responsibility and the rest, but does he agree that it is not appropriate to press such an amendment to a vote when, in fact, it would make a nonsense of itself? It would be a meaningless vote about a meaningful vote.
Mr Clarke
No doubt my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Dame Rosie, when he will be able to explain why he thinks the amendment is technically defective, but this is the kind of argument we have had against every proposition that has been put forward throughout the passage of the Bill. I heard the Prime Minister personally promise us a meaningful vote and then go on to explain how the Bill would have to be used to make statutory instruments; so we are talking about the very wide powers in the Bill being used probably even before the end of the article 50 period—I think that is what she said. This amendment would prevent that; it would prevent those powers from being used until a statute has been passed by this House confirming its approval and also giving legal effect to whatever final agreement has been arrived at. I bow to my hon. Friend’s legal skill—he was indeed in parliamentary law when he practised—but I cannot for the life of me see why this is defective.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie, just as it is to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, who gave an informed and powerful speech that we would do well to take on board as we proceed in today’s debate.
I rise to speak to new clause 66 and amendments 30, 27 and 29, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I also intend to speak to amendment 28 and to the wider question of whether clause 9 should stand part of the Bill. In its policy impact, clause 9 is arguably the most important in the Bill and, taken together, clauses 9 and 17 give rise to a very wide range of interlocking issues. For the purposes of clarity, I intend to speak first to amendments 30, 27 and 28, which relate to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 9 and whether it should stand part of the Bill. I will then turn to amendment 29, which relates to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 17. I will finish by dealing with new clause 66 and the thorny issue of Parliament’s role in approving the final terms of the UK’s exit from the EU and any associated transitional arrangements that might be agreed.
I turn first to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 9. The Government have argued that the clause 9 power is necessary in order that they have sufficient flexibility to give effect to whatever is in the withdrawal agreement and to ensure that there are no holes in the statute book after exit day. The withdrawal agreement, it should be noted, is defined in clause 14 as an agreement, whether or not ratified, agreed with the EU under article 50, meaning that the powers in clause 9 could be used before a withdrawal agreement is ratified but not, as the clause makes clear, after exit day for the purposes of the Bill, because the power will expire at that point.
In the light of the Secretary of State’s announcement on 13 November that the Government intend to bring forward a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill in order to give the agreement and any agreed transitional arrangements domestic legal effect, an announcement, it should be noted, that was confirmed in writing in the joint UK-EU report published last Friday, it is entirely unclear why the Government still require the powers provided for by clause 9.
Let me set out why we believe that to be the case. In that announcement on 13 November, the Secretary of State made it clear that the major policies set out in the withdrawal agreement, including those reached last week on citizens’ rights, Northern Ireland and the financial settlement, along with any agreement on transitional arrangements, would be implemented by means of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill and not by secondary legislation provided for by the Bill before us. So barring some unforeseen delay in the concluding of a withdrawal agreement, if the Government are not to create significant legal uncertainty following our departure with regard to the major policies covered by such an agreement, the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will have to have come into force by 29 March 2019 at the latest. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) covered that point.
In legal terms, any transitional arrangements agreed to could not bridge a post-exit gap, because even if some elements of the withdrawal agreement come into effect at the end of any such period, an agreement on transition itself will have had to have been given legal effect in the UK by means of the very same primary legislation, namely the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. As such, unless the Government are proposing to begin the process of implementing the withdrawal agreement and any agreed transitional arrangements immediately after the final terms of such an agreement are reached, but pre-ratification, by means of secondary legislation in this Bill—a point made earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who is not in his place—a course of action for which there is no justification, given that the phase 1 joint report published last week sets out in black and white the intention to provide a specified period to approve the agreement and transitional arrangements in accordance with our own constitutional procedures and to prepare the statute book in accordance with that agreement, there is simply no need for the powers provided for by clause 9, including the broad power under that clause to amend the Bill itself.
Mr Jenkin
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is it really that unreasonable that the Government might need to avail themselves of these powers in clause 9 while the withdrawal and implementation Bill is proceeding through the House of Commons? If the timetable is compressed, that Bill would not be on the statute book and the powers there would not be available. So clause 9 is necessary for that purpose. Of course the withdrawal and implementation Bill could circumscribe the powers in clause 9 and indeed close them off once that Bill is on the statute book.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted a point I was going to come to. In the scenario he gives, there is no need for the timetable necessarily to be compressed. If it were squeezed, what would that say about the role that Parliament will have on the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill? In his scenario, there would also be no need for the secondary legislation in this Bill, which could be included in a similar form in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, when we would have a better idea about what it will be needed for and can more adequately circumscribe its scope. As for this idea that we have a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill making its way through this House at the same time as secondary legislation implementing elements of that agreement hang over this place, such an approach would create serious confusion.
Anna Soubry
Has it come to the hon. Gentleman’s attention that, were the Bill passed without either amendment 7 or amendment 4 being made, and were there then a change of Government to one who believe in a hard Brexit, we could leave the European Union on absolutely no agreement, with no deal and no recourse whatever to this Parliament to have any say in that, because the Bill is completely silent about what would happen in the event of no deal?
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Lady makes a very important point. Although I concede that amendment 7 provides for an additional check because it requires primary legislation, our new clause 66 highlights an important point: we would wish to bind the Government so that Parliament would get a say even in the event of a no-deal scenario. I shall return to that point later.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the potential for a compressed timetable and the consequences of what may flow from that, but is that not actually following from the will and vote of Parliament? Parliament passed into law article 50, which it agreed to by bringing the Lisbon treaty into law, so this is the natural consequence of what Parliament itself has determined.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is right that the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the article 50 notification gave effect to their own timetable. That is why it is so important that we have transitional arrangements on current terms that allow us flexibility to negotiate the final deal. I will return to this point later, but there is no way that, before we leave in March 2019, we will have agreed the future relationship. We will have agreed heads of terms at best.
Matthew Pennycook
If it is all right, I am going to make a bit of progress because many Members wish to speak.
As I have said, I do not think there is a need for the powers in clause 9 because secondary legislation of a similar type could be included in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. Why the need for such powers? We do not think there is any justification for them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s justification for why the clause needs to stand part of the Bill but, unless amendment 7, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), is passed, the Opposition will vote for the clause to be struck from the Bill.
If clause 9 remains part of the Bill at the end of the parliamentary process, its constitutional potency and scope must be highly circumscribed. I do not intend to dwell extensively on what limits should be placed on the clause 9 power because, in general, the same arguments apply as those that I set out at length in the Committee’s deliberations on clause 7 yesterday. I will say, though, that amendment 27 to clause 9, similar to our amendment 25 to clause 7, would constrain the capacity of the powers in clause 9 to reduce rights or protections.
The powers in clause 9 are different from the powers in clause 7 in a particular way: namely, the extraordinarily wide power explicitly provided for by clause 9(2) gives Ministers the power by regulation to modify—a term that clause 14 makes clear covers amendment and repeal—the Bill itself once enacted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out on Second Reading, there is no example throughout the history of the 20th century of a Bill that has ever sought to do that—not in time of war and not in time of civil emergency. In fact—this is a point that my hon. Friend continues to make, and should—every single emergency powers Act has specified that there should not be a power in such legislation for Ministers to alter primary legislation. We do not believe the power is justified, and amendment 30 would limit the potency of the delegated powers in clause 9 by preventing them from being used to amend or repeal the Act itself.
Let me turn briefly to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 17, which gives powers to Ministers to make any consequential provisions that they consider appropriate in consequence of the Act and to make any transitional provisions that might be needed as a result of the Bill coming into force. In contrast to our position on clause 9, we acknowledge that there is an established precedent with regard to consequential and transitional provisions, so we will not be voting against clause 17 standing part of the Bill, but it must be circumscribed.
A clause as widely drawn as clause 17—it is arguably the most widely drawn of all—set in the context of a Bill of such constitutional and legal significance that it covers almost every element of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and, it could be argued, nearly every facet of our national life, means that the power to make consequential provisions under clause 17 is not as tightly limited as it might be in other pieces of legislation. As such, it inevitably throws up the possibility that the powers in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 17 could be used to make changes to vast swathes of secondary and primary legislation, including legislation in this Session up to May 2019.
When he responds, the Minister will no doubt cite other statutes that provide for not dissimilar powers, but having looked closely at a fair number of them, I am not convinced that any are so widely drawn as this one, and none are contained in legislation as constitutionally significant as this Bill. The Hansard Society was right to refer to clause 17 as a “legislative blank cheque” for the Government, and the power must be restricted. Amendment 29 would achieve that aim by removing subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 17. If the Government believe that that is the wrong way to restrict the sweeping powers in the clause, they can of course come forward with their own suggestions, but the principle of circumscribing the powers in the clause must be accepted.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I just want to clarify whether the hon. Gentleman means what I think he means by what he just said. Does he mean that if the House did not approve a withdrawal agreement, his view is that the Government should have to ask for an indefinite extension of article 50 until the House has approved a set-up that it finds acceptable?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think that is necessarily the case, for several reasons. First, there is no reason why a withdrawal agreement cannot be reached, perhaps even sooner than October 2018—
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
You told us it would take a long time.
Matthew Pennycook
I think it will take a long time. The Minister can confirm this, but I assume the Government would be pleased to conclude the withdrawal agreement before October 2018, if possible. However, there are several things that might happen, one of which is that the Government go back to the negotiating table and try to improve on the deal. I cannot see what is unreasonable about filling in the gaps or asking for revisions, were that the expressed will of the House.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I think that he has just confirmed not that it would necessarily follow that the Government would have to extend indefinitely, but that it would be possible that the Government, in his view, should have to extend indefinitely because this House had not agreed to the withdrawal agreement. In other words, he is saying, is he not, that, if this House does not approve the terms on which we leave, until and unless it approves the terms on which we leave, we should not leave. Is he saying that, or not?
Matthew Pennycook
What I am saying is that there is any number of options that might happen, but let us bear in mind there is a period after October 2018 for the Government to return to the negotiating table and seek to revise or improve the terms. It does not necessarily mean an extension of article 50—I know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me down that path.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
I wish to make a little progress.
That is why we tabled new clause 66, which would guarantee, by means of prescribing when exit day for the purposes of this Bill can be appointed, that both Houses have a meaningful vote on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and, just as critically, a vote in the event that no such agreement is reached and the Government are determined to take us out of the EU without a deal—a catastrophic scenario that would result in legal chaos, significant damage to our economy, the erection of a hard border in Northern Ireland and serious harm to Britain’s standing in the world. We have consistently called for the Government to make it clear that no deal is not a viable outcome.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the event of a no deal, people are concerned about falling into World Trade Organisation rules and tariffs, but will my hon. Friend confirm that, of course, the WTO does not cover services, which are the majority—in fact, 80%—of our exports and which require intricate, detailed negotiations? In the case of a car, two thirds of it are now services and often parts of the car go across borders. Therefore, does he not accept that having no deal would not be a disaster—it would be a catastrophe?
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about services. I say to all hon. Members who are happy to contemplate a scenario in which the Government walk away from the negotiations and this House is merely a spectator in that outcome, that that is not acceptable and this House should not accept it.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make some progress, I am afraid, because a number of hon. Members wish to speak. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) will do so.
New clause 66 would ensure that there is a vote on a motion, not just in the event of a withdrawal agreement being concluded, but, crucially, when no such deal has been concluded, should that be the case. That outcome appears less likely following the agreement the Government reached last week and the clarification that the default position in the event of no deal will be regulatory alignment, but it remains a possibility, and Parliament must have a say.
As I have said, there are many, many ways of ensuring that Parliament has a meaningful vote. Amendment 7, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), is very well drafted. I do not think that it is deficient. We would definitely support it and we would not press new clause 66 if he pressed it to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I am very, very pleased to hear that. We will support the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the amendment in that eventuality.
I will conclude by saying that, subject to the kind of constraint that would be put in place if amendment 7 were incorporated into the Bill, we remain of the view that the power to appoint an exit day for the purposes of the Bill should be placed in the hands of Parliament, not Ministers, and also that the flexibility inherent in clause 14 with regard to exit day should be retained, because it is essential to finalising in some scenarios a withdrawal agreement and any transitional arrangements that need to be agreed to. We need only look at the mess last week to justify the need for such flexibility. As such, we believe that amendments 381 and 382 tabled by the Government with the aim of putting a specified exit date, and indeed time, in the Bill are an ill-conceived and unnecessary gimmick and on that basis we intend to oppose them if they are pushed to a vote.
This whole debate is about whether right hon. and hon. Members are content for Parliament to be a spectator, a passive observer, of one of the most important decisions that has faced our country in generations. Parliament must have a grip on the process, which is why we have tabled our amendments and new clauses.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I agreed with virtually every word that he said.
In speaking to amendment 7, in the name of my hon. Friends, myself and other hon. Members, I am conscious that it has taken on a life of its own. When the Committee stage of the Bill started, it was my intention—and I hope one that I have observed and honoured throughout—to try to approach the amendments that I tabled in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to try to improve difficult legislation while entirely recognising the many challenges that the Government face. Brexit is full of risk and full of complexity—legal and otherwise—and the Government are entitled to my support, wherever possible, to carry Brexit out as smoothly as they can and with the least impact on the well-being of the citizens of our country. That has been my aim throughout.
I very much regret that—as often tends to happen in these matters—while some sessions in Committee have led to sensible amendment and the Government considering matters, or going away to look again and making some helpful suggestions, in the case of amendment 7 we seem to have run out of road. What happens in those circumstances, I regret to say, is that all rational discourse starts to evaporate. The purpose of the amendment, the nature of it, is entirely lost in a confrontation in which it is suggested that the underlying purpose is the sabotage of the will of the people, which it most manifestly is not. That is then followed by a hurling of public abuse; large numbers of people telling one that one is a traitor; and, I regret to say, some of one’s hon. and right hon. Friends saying slightly startling things. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), for example, said that I am grandstanding, when I do not remember ever having suggested such a thing to him about the way that he has expressed his views on Europe at any time in his career—including, I might add, when I tried to be a loyal member of his team when he was leader of my own party.
Mr Baron
My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I have never participated in any of that sort of language. May I gently put it to him that amendment 7 leaves open at least the possibility that, given that the EU does not want any member to leave and that there is therefore no incentive for it to negotiate a good deal that would be acceptable to this Parliament, we could find ourselves in a permanent state of limbo, deadlocked in unproductive negotiations?
Mr Grieve
I note what my hon. Friend has said and I am very grateful to him for the way in which he put it, but I happen to disagree with him. If he listens to me he will understand why I think that I am right on that point.
The consequence is that we completely lose sight of what the key issues are, and if I may say so before I move on, that matters a lot, because in the course of this, we also lose sight of the fact that we are the Parliament of a deeply divided country on this issue. When I go and lecture to sixth-formers occasionally and talk to them, I point out that the parliamentary process is not just about the imposition of the will of the majority on the minority; it is the process by which we obtain consent for what the majority chooses to do.
The difficulty with this referendum is that, having invoked the public will, which, I regret to say, is not entirely tempered in its expressions of view by some of the courtesies that we extend to each other here, we run the risk of losing sight of the fact that 48% of the electorate did not wish for the policy that we are currently pursuing and have deep concerns about, not trying to reverse it, but the extent to which it will have an adverse impact on their well-being, and request us as a Parliament to pay as much attention to what they are saying as we undoubtedly have to do to those who voted in the referendum and said that they wanted to leave. The most worrying aspect of the debate, as it has progressed, is how we become polarised and so fixated on ends that we fail completely to look at means. We look at the top of the mountain, but not at where we are going to put our foot next. As a consequence, we run serious risks of badly letting them down—all of them, collectively—by enacting bad legislation and taking very foolish decisions.
Of course, when this confrontation comes along, the negotiations immediately stop, the conversation ceases, the Government’s steamroller is invoked, and the atmosphere can suddenly get really quite unpleasant; and I regret it. As a consequence—I will come back to this in a moment—I have to tell my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that I think they have lost a series of opportunities in the dialogue we have had on this to come to a sensible outcome. With that, I turn to the issue that is, in truth, under debate.
Paul Farrelly
Is not the advantage of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s very helpful amendment that it would give certainty? It would nail down, in black and white, what we have agreed and would place a legal responsibility on the Government. We would then avoid a situation whereby what people think has been agreed simply becomes a statement of intent within a matter of hours and days.
Mr Grieve
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I will be able to develop some of those points in a moment.
As was rightly said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Government had a notion when this debate started that it was possible to pull out of the European Union by use of the royal prerogative. Fortunately, time, common sense, debate and a small amount of judicial intervention has pointed out that that is not possible. As a consequence, my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have correctly begun to understand that in fact there has to be a proper process. I appreciate the points that have been made about a meaningful vote and how we can actually get that in the context of Brexit; it is a real, live issue. Nevertheless, I greatly welcome the written ministerial statement, which sets out what appears to be a constitutionally tenable process for Parliament approving or considering the deal by motion, and then moving on to implement the deal by primary legislation.
Of course, the Government know that they must proceed by primary legislation because, in view of the comments during the Miller case, it is blindingly apparent that there must be a serious risk of legal uncertainty if anything other than a statute were to be used to take us out of the EU at the end. That is the last thing that my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench should want, because that will cause even more trouble and difficulty than they already have in the challenges they have to face.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me if I appear pedantic, but does not this Bill and the enactment of article 50 take us out of the European Union at the end, whereas the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill legislate for the consequences?
Mr Grieve
Yes. If, indeed, we were leaving with nothing further to do, that might be a good point. But it seems to be a pretty universal view, even on the Government Benches—although this perhaps does not apply to my hon. Friend—that simply leaving to jump off the top of the tower block is not the best thing to do. Therefore, there will need to be primary legislation to implement the undoubted new constitutional order that we will have after 29 March 2019.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr Grieve
May I just make a tiny bit more progress?
As the Government’s position has shifted, they have come up with a written ministerial statement, which seems accurately to reflect the right direction of travel. But the difficulty is that clause 9 is entirely incompatible with what the Government have set out.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I happen to agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it would be undesirable for us to leave without an agreement. Indeed, I think that the Government agree with that. But I will go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) a moment ago. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the event that it were not possible to reach a further agreement, it would then be the case that the actions of Parliament already taken—including in triggering article 50—would constitute a proper answer to the Supreme Court’s point that Parliament, and Parliament alone, can remove us from the EU?
Mr Grieve
Yes, I think I agree with my right hon. Friend that the action of Parliament in triggering article 50 would do that. But it is not, I think, the intention of the Government to do any such thing, and never has been. Indeed, if it is the intention of the Government to do such a thing, I hope very much that they will tell me as soon as possible, because I think I might be withdrawing my support from them.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Is not the point that, everything else being equal, even if nothing else happens, article 50 has been triggered so we are leaving the European Union on a set date, unless 27 other countries decide to extend the date? Therefore, this argument is about the UK’s internal process. It is not a question of the EU or anyone else holding things up.
Mr Grieve
There are a series of processes. I do not wish to get too diverted from my main point. We are intending, and will require, a further statute in order to achieve what the Government have set out. I hope very much that we do not leave with a no deal on anything, because we would not be able to fly off to Rome on the day after, we would have no security co-operation and we would, indeed, be mired in complete and utter chaos.
The reality is that clause 9 is incompatible with the programme that the Government have set out. At the time that clause 9 was inserted, I think that the Government had not yet fully worked out the implications of how withdrawal had to take place.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr Grieve
In a moment. I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee’s time.
My point brings me to the specifics of clause 9, which is an extraordinary and wide power to remove us from the EU by statutory instrument, and moreover—this is the most telling point—to ask the House to give the Government effectively a blank cheque to draft statutory instruments to achieve something when at the moment we do not know what that is.
Mr Jenkin
I am listening very carefully, but clause 9 is not about implementing our leaving the European Union; it is about implementing a withdrawal agreement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) did not vote for article 50, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) did. That is when he voted to leave the European Union and that is decided, so he is incorrect to say that clause 9 is deciding when or how we leave the European Union.
Mr Grieve
If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood what I said. The fact is that clause 9 provides a power, exercisable once this Bill comes into force before exit day, to implement something when we do not at present know what that is. Therefore, it is a very strange thing to ask Parliament to sign off.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Is not the supreme irony the fact that clause 9 is actually the child of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which the Government are now supporting? This provision is the Lisbon treaty timetable. It is not in any way trying to give power or control back to this House to amend that in any way or to ensure that the UK leaves the European Union at the time that is fortuitous. The UK is just accepting what is in the Lisbon treaty and the Government have welded themselves to that very idea.
Mr Grieve
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
Ultimately, the centre of this point is that we are being asked to give the Government a power that can be exercised on something, but we do not know what that something is. Logically, the moment to make the statutory instruments to enact our withdrawal would come when we have this further statute—whatever it happens to be called—and have debated it in this House. We will then have structured the powers conferred by statutory instrument to achieve what Parliament wants and thinks is necessary to carry out withdrawal. That is the point, and pre-empting matters in this fashion is odd. Indeed, it is so odd that I heard one Minister—I will not reveal who—informally saying that they questioned whether the clause 9 power was in fact still needed, in view of how the Government were progressing this matter.
Mr Grieve
In a moment.
On my key issue and what I was trying to tease out in tabling amendment 7, I could, I suppose, have simply said that I will not support clause 9. Indeed, if my amendment is not accepted, I am afraid I shall be voting against clause 9 this evening—I have no option—but rather than do that, the purpose of my amendment is to try to explore what it is that the Government want clause 9 to do that, in fact, we should not be doing when we enact the legislation at the end.
It is for the Government, in those circumstances, to explain themselves; it is not for Parliament simply to roll over and accept something because the Government say that that is what we should do. Indeed, if we all get told that we must support the Government out of loyalty because to do otherwise would undermine the Prime Minister—I think that is cuckoo, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—we need to know why.
Last week, I engaged in a whole series of dialogues with the Government, trying to understand what was bothering them. At one point, I thought we might be getting to the point where we would reach an agreement that some power might be needed in the Bill before we came to the final Bill, although I will come back to that in a moment. It started to dawn on me that one possibility was that this power might be exercisable, but only provided it could not be used to bring anything into force—we might lay some statutory instruments, but they could not be brought into force in any way until the end statute had been passed.
That is where I thought we might be—and then everything closed down, and I am none the wiser why the Government need this power, except that I note that a journalist who seemed to have been speaking to a briefing was told it might be required to effect the registration of EU citizens. I thought to myself, “I thought we were going to have an immigration Act to do that.” So I am still at this moment—this afternoon—absolutely at sea about why this power is needed. If the Government cannot make a case for this power, it should not be here.
Even at this stage, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, if they accept this amendment, which is absolutely central and necessary to ensuring that a power of this scope cannot be abused in a way that the House should not tolerate, and if they want to come back on Report and tidy it up because there is some adjustment or some caveat they want to put in, I will of course listen to what they want to say—my job is not to make their lives more difficult—but I am not prepared to sign away such an extensive power, when it appears to be contrary to the Government’s stated policy on how Brexit will be carried out and, in fact, surrenders without any good reason the control of this House over how the Government conduct Brexit.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
If my right hon. and learned Friend’s version of what our vote would be were to prevail, rather than the Government’s version, what would happen if, close to our leaving date, Parliament voted against any agreement there might have been and against no deal?
Mr Grieve
Ultimately, as my right hon. Friend knows, this Parliament is sovereign, although its sovereignty does not extend to concluding agreements with other parties in international relations that the Government do not wish to adhere to or sign up to. I have no idea what the circumstances are going to be in 12 months’ time. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich: we are dealing with a whole series of hypothetical questions. I get a bit fed up when I keep on being asked, “What is it? Surely, it is a choice between the deal on offer and no deal.” I do not know. There is no way that any of us can know, and that is why the process matters so much. If we get the process right, we will answer correctly each question as and when it arises. Far from that hurting or damaging the Government, it will enhance their power. To come back to the point I made in an intervention, it will convey an impression of purpose and method to our EU partners in negotiation, whereas, at the moment, the major thing that has been undermining our negotiations is the impression of chaos in our procedure and our aims.
Sir William Cash
I am extremely intrigued by the line that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken, with which I largely agree in relation not to the substance, but to the deficiencies he now seems to have accepted could, in some shape or other, be tidied up, as he put it, on Report if we were to get to that unfortunate situation. I simply ask him: is he able to elucidate how his amendment would actually work in practice?
Mr Grieve
I have been pleading with the Government throughout the past four weeks, pointing out to them that this is a really important amendment, and asking them please to respond to it. I have asked them what alternative they might have that could persuade me that they had a working proposal that should command the approval of the House and my own approval. I have been doing that repeatedly, and I was striving to achieve those things last week, but the blunt reality is—I am sorry to have to say this to the Committee—that I have been left in the lurch as a Back Bencher trying to improve this legislation, because silence has fallen. There has simply not been a credible explanation. The last explanation was, “Here is your written ministerial statement. That ought to be enough for you. In loyalty, you should now support the Government.” However, that does not answer the question.
Anna Soubry
Has my right hon. and learned Friend also looked at this issue: does he think that, should the Government decide that the best deal is the European Free Trade Association—we would effectively be Norway—some right hon. and hon. Government Members have worked out that, without his amendment or the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), this country would become like Norway and go straight into EFTA, without this Parliament having a say on whether that is what leave meant?
Mr Grieve
It would indeed be a remarkable outcome. Certainly, I think that Parliament ought to have a say. Those reasons highlight the difficulty of clause 9. There are other difficulties with the Bill, but clause 9 really has it.
I want to bring my remarks to an end, and I simply say that I do want the Government to listen. The opportunity is here for them to accept the amendment and then to come back on Report and explain themselves further or to tidy the amendment up, and I will listen and try constructively to help them if, indeed, any of this power is needed, but I am not prepared to sign off clause 9 in its present form.
The one merit of amendment 7—I tailored it very carefully and I tried quite deliberately to avoid the no-deal scenario, which is a very legitimate issue, but it is not what I went for—is that I wanted to make sure that these powers could not be used to pre-empt a statute that we should probably be considering this time next year. It is plainly wrong, and if it is to be departed from, the Government have to provide a credible reason for it.
Alex Chalk
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend about a point I am struggling with and that others may be struggling with, too? On the one hand, given that the Government have conceded that there will need to be a statute to implement any agreement, it is difficult, for me at any rate, to see what the point is of clause 9, and Parliament should not legislate in vain. That is point one. On the other hand is the key point not that we will get a vote on that statute, so does this really matter? That is the part I am struggling with, and I would very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s views.
Mr Grieve
I think that this does matter. If I understand the reason why the Government want this power, it is that, at the time when we may be considering the next statute, they will also be pushing through this House statutory instruments setting up structures for our departure from the EU that may be, or that we might consider to be, at variance with what we need in the fresh statute that we are considering. I think that that is a form of constitutional chaos, actually. I cannot see how it produces any clarity at all. For that reason—a reason of good process—this is a mistaken course of action, particularly because it is not necessary.
We have heard the argument, “We’re going to run out of time in leaving the EU.” I simply repeat what I have said previously. I realise that this is hugely objected to by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends because they are so fixated on getting us out. The article 50 mechanism provides for a sensible structure to enable us to leave smoothly, yet for reasons that I do not understand, the aim of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends seems to be to mess it up as much as possible. There is the famous amendment 381, for example, which we are going to come back to next week and which I have already indicated I will not support under any circumstances whatsoever. If we actually stick to a sensible process, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), then we will get the right answers. As I say, if the Government are to justify keeping clause 9, they have to provide us with chapter and verse—and they simply have not done so. I have asked, and I have not had it.
In those circumstances, the only proper course of action—I say this with the greatest reluctance—is that I am going to have to vote for my amendment, and, if necessary, if it is not passed, I will vote against clause 9, because without my amendment, clause 9 becomes a really very worrying tool of Executive power that does not appear to have any reasonable presence in this legislation. Apart from on HS2, I do not think that I have ever rebelled against the Government in my 20 and a half years in this House. I do find it quite entertaining that some who criticise me for speaking my mind on this matter are individuals who appear to have exercised the luxury of rebellion on many, many occasions. But that said, there is a time for everybody to stand up and be counted. As Churchill said, “He is good party man—he puts the party before himself and the country before his party.” And that is what I intend to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
Order. The Chair obviously recognises the importance of this debate. There is a very, very long list of colleagues wishing to speak, so unless colleagues keep their remarks to about seven or eight minutes, without interventions, there will be many disappointed Members.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 47, which stands in my name. It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has shown great resolution, fortitude and reason in the face of unreasonable criticism. We admire him for it.
We are debating the single most important question in the Bill: how the House can exercise its view on the withdrawal agreement in a way that gives us control. “Control”—there is a word we have heard before. It resonated throughout the referendum campaign, but when Members start to argue that Parliament should have some control over this process, it seems to send shivers down Ministers’ spines.
Amendment 47 arises from an exchange that I had with the Secretary of State on Second Reading. When I asked him to give us a very simple assurance that clause 9 will not be used to implement the withdrawal agreement until Parliament has had the opportunity to vote on it, he replied:
“It seems to me to be logical”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 354.]
What has been set out in today’s written ministerial statement appears to give that undertaking, but if that is what Ministers are prepared to do, why not put that into the Bill? I similarly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that there will be separate legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement, but if Ministers are prepared to give that commitment, we want to see that in the Bill, too, which is why I shall vote for amendment 7.
The question has been asked—I want to ask it, too, because it has exercised the Select Committee—“What is clause 9 now for?” It is a very simple question indeed. Timing and the order in which these things are done are absolutely crucial in this debate, and that point was made forensically and forcefully by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. May I suggest a new principle? We often heard it said during reports back from the negotiations that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so I suggest that we agree that nothing should be implemented until everything is agreed.
The written ministerial statement says something interesting, and rather puzzling:
“The Bill will implement the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement in UK law…Similarly, we expect any steps taken through secondary legislation to implement any part of the Withdrawal Agreement will only be operational from the moment of exit, though preparatory provisions may be necessary in certain cases.”
My simple question for Ministers is this: secondary legislation where, and arising from what? Does this refer to clause 9, which a lot of Members think should no longer be in the Bill, or is it advance notification that there will be provision for secondary legislation under the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill that we have been promised? We need some clarification.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who spoke so ably from the Front Bench, drew attention to the statement by the Secretary of State on 13 November in which he said, in announcing that Bill:
“This confirms that the major policies set out in the withdrawal agreement will be directly implemented into UK law by primary legislation”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 37.]
That is very interesting. I must confess that I did not understand the full significance at the time, so will Ministers also enlighten us on this? What are the major policies and what are the minor policies, and in which Bill, and by what means, will those minor policies be implemented?
The next issue of timing is the idea that exit day should be set as 11 o’clock in the evening of 29 March 2019. The Government amendment to implement that proposal would cause all sorts of trouble, not least because of the way that this Bill was originally drafted, as the Select Committee heard in evidence from Ministers, who confirmed that they would be able to set different exit days for different purposes. The Committee thought that that seemed to provide a great deal of flexibility, but the amendment would bring that possibility to an end, and in the process bind the Government’s hands to an hour of the clock on a day at the very moment when they may well need maximum flexibility so that they can bring the negotiations successfully to an end. The amendment really makes no sense.
As the Committee said in its report, the proposal would cause “significant difficulties” if the negotiations went down to the wire. Of course, we had the famous evidence from the Secretary of State in which he suggested that the negotiations might go to the 59th minute of the 11th hour, although since then there has been a certain amount of rowing back, because that would not be consistent with the pledge that we have been given. That was why the Committee said that it would not be acceptable for Parliament to be asked to vote after we had actually left the European Union. The timing of all this is absolutely fundamental to making the vote meaningful. A vote may be meaningless unless at some point in the procedure the timing ensures that it is meaningful. We have to get the order right.
Michel Barnier said at the start of the process that he wanted to bring the negotiations to an end next October. We have 11 months to go to deal with a very long list of issues that we have not even started to broach. The agreement that was reached last week, which we welcome, is the easy bit of this negotiation—the really difficult bit is about to begin. Those who had thought that leaving the European Union would be about keeping all the things they liked and getting rid of all the things they did not like are now in for a rude awakening as they come to realise that choices have consequences and trade-offs will need to be made.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman is getting to the nub of the issue. If a meaningful vote, by his definition, means that Parliament should be able to say to the Government, “We don’t like the deal that you have got, and we’re not accepting no deal, so go back to the EU and negotiate another deal,” what chance does he think there is that those who do not want us to leave in the first place will ever offer a deal that this House could buy into?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman anticipates precisely the point that I was going to make—[Interruption.] I was. As we have already heard, all the Ministers and Prime Ministers who negotiate in this process will say at some point, either in the main forum or in other discussions, “I’ll never get this through my Parliament.” That is the accountability we are talking about. It is called democracy, and it is really important that Ministers, Prime Ministers and negotiators have that thought in their minds when they are negotiating on behalf of the country and the House. In such circumstances, I think the House would first want to ask why we were facing no deal, and it might well wish to give the Government fresh negotiating instructions. The House might want to tell the Government to go back in and say, “On reflection, we would like to suggest that we do the following.” There must be sufficient time for that to take place if we are going to get a reasonable deal.
Another point I want to make—I am conscious, Sir David, of what you said about the time—is that Ministers need to understand why they are having such difficulty with this fundamental debate on the Bill. It has to do with the history of the Government’s handling of the whole process. At every single stage, this House has had to demand our role and our voice. I remember the answer when people first asked what the Government’s negotiating objectives were: “Brexit means Brexit.” When a follow-up question was asked, we were told—
Hilary Benn
I am still wrestling with the concept of a red, white and blue Brexit, and I did not find it very enlightening.
The second answer was, “No running commentary,” but that eventually had to give way to the Lancaster House speech and a White Paper. Then we asked, “Will Parliament get a vote?” Almost exactly a year ago, when the Prime Minister last appeared before the Liaison Committee, I asked her that question. She was unwilling to give me a commitment on that occasion, but we all pressed, and in the end the Government conceded that there would be a vote.
We argued that there would need to be separate primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement, but what did the Government do? They produced this Bill, which says, “No, no. We’ll just do it all by statutory instrument.” That was until amendment 7 appeared on the horizon, at which point the Government changed their mind. If the Committee insists, as I hope it will, on amendment 7 later today, that will be because of our experience of the Government’s handling of the Bill so far. They have not acted in the spirit of seeking consensus, even though the Prime Minister said earlier that that was what she wanted to achieve.
The final point I want to make is simply this. Parliament has no intention of being a bystander in this process. We intend to be a participant, as I have said on a number of occasions, because this decision affects every part of the country, every business and every family. Today’s debate and vote are all about control, which must ultimately rest not in Ministers’ hands but in our hands. It is up to us to make sure that that happens.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Until now, with the exception of some interventions, I believe that all contributions have been, in one way or another, in support of amendment 7 and its correlative amendments. I hope, Sir David, that you will allow me a little leeway with timing to address my points, because I do believe that the debate has so far been one-sided.
I want to start by talking about the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who was characteristically good-humoured and articulate, and the fine speech from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I will then turn to amendment 7 and the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). They all brought the cat out of the bag very well. As I will explain in a moment, I distinguish between what the Opposition are after and what my right hon. and learned Friend is after.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central and the Opposition spokesman in effect said this. The House of Commons voted by a vast majority for a referendum, the people by a narrow majority voted to leave and the House of Commons voted by a vast majority to trigger article 50, which says:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply…from the date of…the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification”.
That has been accurately described by some on the EU side of the negotiations as an inevitable process to leaving, but the Opposition say that the House should be capable of telling the Government that they must seek to reverse the process by seeking—not necessarily by obtaining, because we cannot guarantee that they would obtain—
Sir Oliver Letwin
Yes, that is what the right hon. Gentleman said. The logic of what he was saying carries us remorselessly there, and I will come on to explain why.
Sir Oliver Letwin
The right hon. Gentleman cannot continue to shake his head with conviction. His logic carries him there because he defines a meaningful vote as one that gives the House the capacity to reject either a deal it does not like, or the possibility of exiting with no deal. This is not a matter of opinion or value; it is a matter of logical fact. The only alternative to accepting a deal that we do not like or refusing to accept no deal is to leave the whole matter aside and not exit the Union. We either exit without a deal or we exit with a deal. If the deal is rejected but the Government are told that we cannot leave without a deal, we cannot leave.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. I just wanted to expose the logic very clearly, because there are no other logical possibilities. I challenge him to explain what the other possibility is.
Hilary Benn
I set out—very clearly I thought—in my speech what the other possibility is. For the avoidance of any doubt on the right hon. Gentleman’s part, I have said repeatedly in this House that we are leaving the European Union at the end of March 2019—and, indeed, I voted for the article 50 legislation. I was discussing today the terms on which we will leave. It is perfectly possible for Parliament to look at the terms and say, “We do not like them; we would like different ones,” and to give the Government different instructions, provided that there is time. That was my point.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Of course it is possible for the House of Commons to tell the Government that it does not like the terms, and of course it is possible for the Government to go back and ask for the terms to be changed, but it is also possible—
Sir Oliver Letwin
Please, allow me to continue. It is also perfectly possible, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central knows, because he is a fine logician, for the other side in the EU negotiations to reject such alternative terms. We therefore hit the question that he cannot evade: under those circumstances, is he or is he not hoping—the Opposition spokesman made what he was hoping for perfectly clear—that Parliament will have the right to tell the Government that they cannot leave on terms that Parliament does not accept? I really think that that is important, if we are to be honest about this, because that is what the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition spokesman are suggesting.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I have no doubt that it is also what the right hon. Lady who is now seeking to catch my eye wishes to suggest. I will let her do so, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford).
Yvette Cooper
The logic of the right hon. Gentleman’s position is that he wants to rule out any possibility for Parliament even to ask the Government to go back to the negotiating table. Of course he is right that, in the end, this is about a negotiation, and the 27 other European countries will have a view and such a negotiation will take place. The logic of his position, however, is that he wants to rule out any say for Parliament at all, or any attempt by Parliament to ask the Government to try to get a different or better deal, or to change the terms, and that makes absolutely no sense at all for anybody who believes in the role of Parliament.
Sir Oliver Letwin
First, the right hon. Lady has said nothing to contradict my point about what she and other Labour Members are arguing, and secondly, as a matter of fact, that is not a correct characterisation of my position. I am perfectly happy that Parliament should ask the Government, if there is time, to go back and reconsider the terms they are negotiating. I have no problem with that at all. The question is what happens if they cannot succeed in negotiating those terms and, in the end, we reach that crunch point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am not going to give way to anyone except my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
Vicky Ford
May I take my right hon. Friend back to what he said about article 50? It is true that that says:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless”—
I repeat, unless—
“the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
That is exactly the point. If we are close to a deal but, for example, struggling to get the last vote through the European Parliament, the 28 countries may wish to take a little more time.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. Friend makes my point for me. The very point I am making is that no UK Government and no UK Parliament can guarantee that the other side would agree to any such thing.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will give way to the Opposition spokesman in a moment.
There therefore can arise circumstances in which the choice, in the end, is between accepting leaving with no deal and not accepting leaving. I continue to believe—it is important that there is honesty on this point—that Opposition Members are essentially arguing that this House should have the ability to derail the process.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think that that is a fair characterisation of my argument. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is a possibility, in certain circumstances, of sending the Government back to ask for the deal to be changed. It is possible that that might be turned down, so it is not certain, but it is possible. Does he think that that should be an option, and if so, if he votes against amendment 7, what other mechanism might we use to send the Government back to at least try to improve a deal that this House felt was sub-optimal?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am very happy to answer that question, and it will bring me neatly on to the point I want to make about the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. The answer, of course, lies in the combination of the proceedings on the resolution that will have to be agreed by this House, during which it will be perfectly possible for this House, both in debate and in the way it votes, to tell the Government, if there is time, to go back and try again; and of the proceedings on the withdrawal and implementation Bill, during which again, if there is time, the House could reject the proposition and ask the Government to go back.
We then come to the nub of what happens if there is no time anymore because the Government cannot get a renegotiation and cannot get an agreement—a further prolongation—of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford describes. The question arises of whether Opposition Front Benchers are recommending, in those circumstances, that leaving without a deal is the possibility it needs to be for article 50 and the referendum to be respected. That is a crunch question that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich cannot avoid.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief, and then leave it there, but I want to pick up on two of the right hon. Gentleman’s points. First, I think there will be time. Last week’s joint agreement makes it clear that there must be time, in accordance with our own procedures, to look at the withdrawal agreement and then ratify it.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there is a possibility, on the basis of the Government’s commitment to a motion, to send them back to renegotiate, but that is not what his Secretary of State says. The Secretary of State says of the motion it is an up/down deal, and that a no vote would be the end of it—leaving without an agreement; not going back to the negotiating table.
Sir Oliver Letwin
There is no possibility of precluding Parliament from making such a resolution one way or the other. That is up to Parliament, and it is up to the Government of the day at that point to respond as they choose. No Government would sensibly respond in the way the hon. Gentleman describes, so I do not think that that is a realistic possibility.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will give way to each of my hon. Friends, but let me say that I will not then give way again before I turn to the main part of my speech, which is about amendment 7.
Mr Djanogly
My right hon. Friend will be aware that all parties are aiming for next October for the negotiation of the final deal, but the Secretary of State has said that he will keep negotiating until March 2019 and that, if necessary, he will go on after that into the implementation period, so there should be time one way or another.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree with my hon. Friend. There may well be time; I am not in any way denying that. The point I was trying to make is that Labour Members have alleged that it is proper for Parliament to be able to have what they have described as a meaningful vote. They have made it perfectly clear that what they mean by a meaningful vote includes the ability to tell the Government that they cannot continue to leave the European Union if the terms on which they wish to leave are not acceptable to Parliament. That is a logical fact, and people can agree with it or disagree with it. I do not in any way impugn the motives of Labour Members; it is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to think. It is just that we ought to be honest about the fact that that is the proposition they are putting forward, which is in marked contrast to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield in his amendment 7.
Mr Baron
May I suggest that amendment 7, as presently drafted—this is central to my right hon. Friend’s point—has a major deficiency, because it could leave things in a permanent state of limbo? There is no incentive on the EU’s side to help to negotiate a good deal that is acceptable to this Parliament, which means that we could be left in deadlock for a period of years. I raised that point with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but he did not cover it in his speech.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, which I will come back to in a moment.
In turning to amendment 7, let me start by saying something on a personal level. I have been in the House for exactly the same length of time as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield—I think we entered it on the same day, as it happens—and I have served with him in a number of capacities both in opposition and in government, and I have the highest personal regard for him. I have invariably found that when he says something he means it, and I have never found him to be one of those who plays games. Moreover, although I profoundly disagree with him about his amendment, for reasons that I will put forward, I think his motives in producing it are totally honourable and straightforward, and deserve the respect of everyone in the House of whatever persuasion they may be.
There is a reason, however, why I think the amendment is a very bad one. I want to expose an extremely important point about it, which began to come out in the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend and others. It would not have the effect that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central or the Opposition spokesman seek: it would not actually make it impossible to continue the article 50 process and leave without an agreement. There may be some Members on either side of the House who are tempted to vote for amendment 7 on the basis that it would have such an effect, but it plainly would not.
What amendment 7 would prevent is the issuing of orders under this Bill until another Bill that the Government intend to bring forward has been enacted. If it was agreed and we had not been able to pass the withdrawal and implementation Bill, it might in certain circumstances create the inconvenience of our not being able to issue orders to implement a withdrawal agreement to which the Government had signed up. However, not being able to implement the provisions of an agreement in domestic law does not prevent us from signing and ratifying the agreement and does not prevent us from leaving the European Union. Anybody on either side of the House who imagines that amendment 7 would have the effect of creating what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central called a meaningful vote is under a severe logical illusion. It would do no such thing. The Opposition have tabled, I think, a new clause that would have the effect of giving that power to Parliament, but amendment 7 would not do it.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My right hon. Friend perfectly clearly sets out that a serious constitutional impasse is possible if this House does not pass an agreement, because article 50, even if it is delayed a bit, will eventually lead to our leaving. That assumes—he does not do so, but some of the more hard-line Eurosceptics do—that there are people in the EU who want no deal. I have never met any such person, because actually they would suffer from having no agreements on flights, security, policing and all the rest of it. As has been said, we are inevitably dealing with hypotheses and nobody, whatever their views, really has the first idea where we will be in 18 months’ time, but his suggestion is a most unlikely consequence. If this House rejected a deal, the British Government would go back and say, “We’ve got to have a better one.” I personally would guess that the other 27 nation states would reconsider and see whether they did not have to give a better one in order to the get the deal that they had already tried to sign up to.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I think that is a very possible eventuality, which takes us back to our earlier discussion. I certainly agree that if, upon a resolution, the House refused to accept the withdrawal agreement suggested by the Government and agreed by the EU, it is very likely that the Government would go back and try to renegotiate it, and it is very possible that they would succeed in doing so. I do not deny any of that. My point is that amendment 7 would not force that result, because all it would do is, under certain circumstances, stop certain kinds of orders being issued under this Bill.
Mr Grieve
I picked this amendment with some care, precisely because I wanted to avoid the suggestion that by tabling it I was trying to sabotage Brexit. I was trying to prevent the potentially abusive use of a power in clause 9 when the Government were saying that they were going to do something different. That was the purpose behind the amendment. It was also, if I might say so, to prod the Government into responding, which I very much regret they have failed to do.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted by my right hon. and learned Friend’s intervention, because I agree that he has succeeded in doing that. He has not created the so-called meaningful vote that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and the Opposition want. He has instead pointed out an issue with the use of the order-making power in this Bill. The question is: is it a good amendment in those terms? We have accepted that it is not a question of creating or not creating a meaningful vote, to use the term used by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, but just a question of trying to get the Bill into good order—a pursuit in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I have joined on many occasions during Committee proceedings. However, I think that on this particular occasion, this particular amendment is not a particularly good way of doing that. I will explain why I think that is the case, and I hope that the Government will instead come forward with another way of achieving the same effect.
It is a very odd situation indeed to have an amendment to what will become a section of an Act that refers to another piece of primary legislation as the basis for an order-making power in the first piece of legislation. In fact I think it is virtually unprecedented.
Mr Grieve
The Bill is unprecedented, because it is asking us, in the light of what the Government themselves say they are going to do, to sanction a power that undermines a further statute that the Government intend to pass, which should be the source of power for removing us from the EU.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Now I am beginning rather to agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Therefore, my suggestion is that if that is the purpose of his amendment, it would be far better that it come back as a Government amendment on Report that achieves that effect in a different way and directly, without the gross inelegance of referring to another piece of legislation. It should mainly limit the power in clause 9 to things that are urgent and immediate, and perhaps even specify what sorts of things they might be.
As a matter of fact, I rather share my right hon. and learned Friend’s inclination to believe that clause 9 in its present form came forward before the Government were clear about the need for the implementation and withdrawal Bill, and that Ministers and officials have so far been quite hard pressed to identify exactly which powers are required in clause 9 under the new dispensation of that forthcoming Bill. The Government therefore have a good opportunity to promise from the Dispatch Box today that they will come back on Report with an amendment that is correctly phrased in such a way as to limit the order-making power in clause 9. That would avoid the possibility—this is the point that I want to make to my right hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Friends—of suggesting that we are in any way creating a launch pad for the efforts of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and Opposition Front Benchers to create what they call a meaningful vote, which is in fact an ability to trigger us not leaving.
Mr Grieve
There will undoubtedly be an opportunity at the end of this process, if this House were so minded, to reject a deal. I have to say—my right hon. Friend may agree with me—that ultimately the House could bring this Government down, if it had to or wanted to do so. That is our constitutional ability.
My right hon. Friend’s main point does not find favour with me, because the only way we will get something sensible on Report is by getting amendment 7 on the statute book and on the face of the Bill. I asked repeatedly for an engagement along precisely the lines that my right hon. Friend has identified, and it was consistently rejected. That is why I will vote for amendment 7, and if I may say so, I would encourage him to do likewise.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am surprised by that, because my right hon. and learned Friend has a long and distinguished record of voting for good law. I do not think that this is good law, for the reasons I have identified. I think it really would be better if we had a correct amendment at a later stage of proceedings.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current plans create the risk of parallel legislation, with an Act of Parliament dealing with our withdrawal agreement going through at the same time as all sorts of orders, because there is no trigger mechanism for, or constraint on, the order-making power? Therefore, is not my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the former Attorney General, doing the House a service by seeking to avoid the risk of parallel proceedings, which is something that this House never does?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that we ought to avoid the possibility of parallel proceedings, but my suggestion would certainly achieve that. If the Government were to come forward at a later stage with an amendment that made it clear that clause 9 could be used only for urgent things of a specified kind, that would prevent the possibility of parallel proceedings.
Anna Soubry
May I suggest another way forward, which is that we agree to the amendment and then, given that this is Committee stage, the Government can go away and fine-tune it, which is what they thought it needed? They had the opportunity to the table their own amendment, but they did not see that commitment through and table one by 3 o’clock on Friday. There is another way. Let us vote on and accept the amendment today and put a meaningful vote in the Bill; and if it needs a twiddle and a tweak, we can come back on Report and I am sure we will all agree to that.
Sir Oliver Letwin
But if my right hon. Friend agrees with me that our purpose in this case is not to create a so-called meaningful vote but simply to ensure that clause 9 is not used to create parallel proceedings or to give carte blanche, it would clearly make sense for the Government to make that undertaking rather than to accept an amendment that has an unnecessary effect.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Looking at this matter independently, as one does these days, it strikes me that my right hon. Friend’s argument raises a serious question about why clause 9 needs to be in the Bill at all. We are going to have a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, and if the Government cannot say what it is that might be urgent, why should we have this clause at all?
Sir Oliver Letwin
Now that there is to be an implementation and withdrawal agreement Bill I do not personally yet understand the need for clause 9. However, the right way to deal with that is for the Government either to say that they will consider getting rid of clause 9 or to make the kind of restricted amendments on Report that I was describing. In any of those ways, the problem would be resolved without the need for this kind of tension, and that would surely be desirable.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. In a sense, he unmasks my strategy. I have spent the whole time trying to be sotto voce about this, trying to get some common sense into the Government, which I have been unable to do. It is for that reason that, I very much regret, there really is no alternative to amendment 7. It may be inelegant—although I do not think it is—but it does the business. It would stop the Government doing something that they should not be doing. I could not agree with him more that clause 9 could be removed entirely. It would very sensible if the Government were to do that, but if I had suggested that they would have been upset with me, and it would have made the relationship and the negotiation even harder. In the spirit of conciliation I avoided that brutality and came up with something different.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Speaking personally, I do not think there would be anything very brutal about the Government deciding on Report that it would be sensible to not have clause 9 in the Bill, given that there will now be a separate piece of legislation to achieve the same effect.
Chris Bryant
I hope that means the right hon. Gentleman is now calling on the Government not to move that clause 9 stand part of the Bill, and that, if they do not do that and instead insist that clause 9 does stand part of the Bill, he will vote against it. That is the obvious logic of what he is saying.
Sir Oliver Letwin
It was with some regret that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I have never known him to take a position that was not partisan and slightly ludicrous, and that was a classic example. Here am I irenically trying to achieve a result that would be in the interests of the nation—good legislation that has the effect my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield agrees he is trying to achieve, but which would not have the disadvantage of enabling the Opposition Front Benchers, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and others, including the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to achieve the meaningful vote they want to achieve. But what does he want to do? He wants to create some trouble. Well, that is fine—that is what happens in Parliament. My suggestion, however, is not that the Government should be defeated tonight or engage in some huge reversal, but that they should make the sort of change they often make in Committee and on Report—there is, after all, much time to consider the issue on Report if necessary. I want them either to make an adjustment to clause 9 or remove it. That would overcome the difficulty without creating a platform for ending our withdrawal, which is I think the subterranean motive of many on the Opposition Benches—although not, I stress, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will give way two last times and then I really must sit down, because I have said everything I wanted to say and I am now just responding.
Heidi Allen
I am afraid I am little overwhelmed by the legal expertise all around me—I will just speak very plainly. Does my right hon. Friend not understand the difficulty and the trust issue when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has been trying for weeks and weeks, with all good intentions, to engage the Government in this process and has failed? There comes a point when enough is enough and the voice of Parliament has a role in saying, “Put this in the Bill.”
Sir Oliver Letwin
I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not agree with her. There is a well established process for Bills in this House that includes a Report stage. If one wishes to table an amendment in the House of Commons that the Government will not accept, it is perfectly possible to do so on Report. There is no reason to force the issue in Committee. As a matter of fact, the Bill will proceed through the other place, where there will be many, many proceedings. I do not have the slightest doubt—I am sure all my hon. Friends would agree—that it will send messages back to this place, so that will give us another opportunity. I do not stress that, though; it is enough that we have the Report stage. I quite agree that there is a mischief here, but I think it is a restricted mischief and I do not think the amendment is needed to deal with it. There are other means of dealing with it. It could be done on Report, and I therefore do not think that “enough is enough” applies now.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman has been digging a hole for himself on clause 9 quite successfully. The way he has been speaking, he seems not to understand that the amendment would only giving the House the possibility of a vote. Given the way the Brexiteers have been winning every vote, if a vote was held on a deal the only reason it would be lost is if it was a terrible deal for the UK. His argument is the equivalent of somebody setting sail on the Titanic and refusing to take any lifeboats.
Sir Oliver Letwin
It is very odd—it is as if the hon. Gentleman has not been here, but I have seen his body here all the time. The fact of the matter is that the House has had a series of votes, it is going to have a further series of votes, and then it is going to have a whole pile of votes on, inter alia, the new implementation and withdrawal Bill. In fact, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is totally in agreement with that. There is no question of whether we give the House a vote. It is going to have a vote. The question is: what is the articulation of that with clause 9? That is what those of us who are being serious about this have been trying to discuss.
I really feel that I have come to the end of my remarks. I apologise, Sir David, that I am long past time. I hope you will accept that it is because I was answering points from other Members.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
We have been discussing new clause 3 and amendment 7, which is about process in this place and, as has been said, whether there is any point in clause 9 if there is going to be a withdrawal agreement Bill. The problem is that, if clause 9 remains in the Bill, the Government will still have powers in the interim to make changes, including to the Bill itself. That means that, when the Bill completes, the Executive could simply change it in any way they wanted.
On the issue of having a vote that is meaningful, if the only option we have is the deal that comes back or no deal, frankly, that is Hobson’s choice. What should have been happening is what the Prime Minister categorically refused: a running commentary. Other Governments in Europe have sent people back to the negotiating table to try to make changes when legislation has been enacted. It is important that we remember the paucity of the debate running up to June 2016. We did not explore all the impacts. There was one debate in this Chamber on the EU and the economy. There was no debate in this Chamber on the health or social impacts, or on the loss of rights and opportunities. We did not have that. We did not air these issues—it is like having the Brexit debate now.
I want to speak to amendment 143, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which looks for a signed agreement to protect EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU.
Antoinette Sandbach
On a point of order, Sir David. I am not able to hear what the hon. Lady is saying because behind me there seems to be an inordinate racket being made by one of my colleagues. I wonder whether it would be in order for you, Sir David, to make the point clear that this is an incredibly important debate and Members of Parliament should be able to hear what is being said.
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
The hon. Lady is entirely right. We should be courteous to each other. I should also add, while I am on my feet, that I said at the start that with so many people wishing to speak, if people spoke for seven or eight minutes each, everyone would be called. It is now down to three or four minutes.
Dr Whitford
Thank you, Sir David. I hope, as my party’s Front-Bench representative, and perhaps as the only SNP Member who will get to speak, that that timing does not apply to me.
I also wish to speak to amendment 241, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues, and which would preserve reciprocal healthcare and social security rights under the social security co-ordination regulations 883/2004 and 987/200, and to amendments 270 and 271, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and which would prevent the Executive from using clauses 8 and 9 to reduce the rights of EU citizens in this country.
There was supposedly a breakthrough last week. The phase 1 agreement having been achieved, some level of agreement was meant to be fixed, but unfortunately it was then unpicked on “The Andrew Marr Show”. Moreover, we are still hearing the phrase, “No deal is better than a bad deal”, which completely undermines the agreement made last week. I make this plea: having reached a phase 1 agreement on citizens’ rights, this issue should now be taken out of the negotiations and a deal to give them security should be brought forward in the upcoming immigration Bill, and not left another year for the withdrawal agreement Bill.
It has been a year and a half already. Many Members know that my husband is German. There are many people here with EU spouses. We have friends who have been in extreme anxiety and uncertainty for a year and a half. This is not happening in March 2019; it is happening now. Ten thousand EU nationals have left the four NHSs because their children are being bullied and they feel insecure. They are going home “to be safe”. That is an appalling indictment of the current situation.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly strong point, and one that gets lost in all this debate about article this and article that: these are real people’s lives. Does she share my anger at the way the Brexit Secretary has played fast and loose with people’s lives? He went on “The Andrew Marr Show” and completely ripped up an agreement that people thought on Friday was done and which would have a big impact on their lives.
Dr Whitford
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Among other things, we are talking about preparing for a future deal, but the suffering and anxiety of EU nationals and EU national families in this country is already happening. They should have been given surety the morning after the vote, but instead we heard phrases such as “bargaining chips” and “playing cards” and were told they were key in the negotiations.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that young early-career researchers in the academic sector, for example, are highly mobile and can easily move elsewhere? We should be rolling out the red carpet for them to make sure they stay, but instead we are treating them worse than dirt on our shoes.
Dr Whitford
I absolutely agree. As I said, we have lost 10,000 EU nationals from our health services. We have seen a greater than 90% drop in the number of EU national nurses registering to come here. It is not just about protecting the people already here. For the four NHSs across the UK, the workforce is one of their biggest issues, yet we are sending out such an unwelcoming signal that we will struggle to attract anyone else.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I agree with many of the hon. Lady’s points, but is it not vital that we send out the clear reassurance, which the Prime Minister gave at the Dispatch Box to all our NHS and care staff, that they and their families are welcome to stay, that we want them to stay and that their rights are now guaranteed?
Dr Whitford
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, but unfortunately it is not enough to come to the Dispatch Box every couple of months with warm words of welcome to EU staff, when in between women who are raising families here, with British partners or partners of EU origin, are being turned down for permanent residency because they have not taken out private comprehensive health insurance. We have had 100 EU nationals sent “prepare to leave” letters. Friends of ours tried to get citizenship for their three children, who were born and grew up in Scotland: the eldest and youngest were given passports; the middle child was refused. I am sorry but the experience of EU nationals on the ground over the past year and a half has been horrendous. If the phase 1 agreement last week is to mean anything, we must incorporate it into the immigration Bill to give them certainty now, instead of telling them they might have to wait another year before they find out what their future will be.
To exercise the right to live anywhere, access to healthcare and social security is crucial. It has made such a difference, not just to EU nationals here, but to our pensioners who have settled in the sunny uplands of the northern Mediterranean. What position will they be in if they cannot access healthcare? We must recognise that freedom of movement was not a one-way street; our young people and professionals have been able to take advantage of it for the past 40 years. We are taking that away from the next generation, which is something that I find terrible.
The Government say, and it is in the phase 1 agreement, that they accept keeping regulations 883 and 987, so let us bring that in. Let us get that down on paper and get it passed, because saying to EU nationals, “You’re welcome to stay, but there might be no deal, which means you’ll have no legal standing and you won’t be able to use the NHS,” is no use to anyone.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
In relation to the points and the amendments from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), does my hon. Friend agree that, without the transparency of knowing what we are progressing to, many of the items that she is talking about cannot be agreed in the House? We leave ourselves open to the accusation made by Kathy Sheridan in The Irish Times this morning that the Government are
“failing to establish in advance what questions should be asked. Of utterly disdaining an alternative, unifying vision while obsessing about trade, blue passports and colonial nostalgia.”—[Interruption.]
Dr Whitford
Okay, I am just going to move swiftly on. It was a speech, so my hon. Friend has had his chance to get that in.
There are multiple agencies that are important for the nations across the UK, but my particular interest is of course health. We know that the European Medicines Agency is moving to Amsterdam, but the much bigger issue is the UK coming out of the European Medicines Agency. This is a body that has massively reduced bureaucracy, streamlined the launch of new drugs and meant that the pharmaceutical industry has to go through only one registration process for 500 million people. That is why drugs are launched in Europe at much the same time as America and about a year before Canada and Australia. Given some of what is going on in NHS England—including the budget impact assessment, which can allow expensive drugs to be delayed for three years—what I am hearing from those in the pharmaceutical industry is that they see the UK as a hostile market and that they may not come six months later or a year later. It may take longer than that because they only see the point in paying the extra cost to register when they have a chance of their drug being used in the NHS.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is making an important point. Is she also mindful of the fact that, at a critical time for the future of the pharmaceuticals industry, there is currently no certainty even on cross-border production, which many of our companies are involved in, including GlaxoSmithKline in my constituency?
Dr Whitford
I agree. Processes such as quality control, batch certification and lot release must take place in the EU. Several centres in Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom will have to move.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Whitford
I must make progress. A long queue of Members are waiting to speak.
The EMA also leads on research, especially on rare and paediatric diseases. It simply is not possible for a single country to carry out such research. My amendment 351 is intended to ensure that we continue to participate in clinical trials under the clinical trials regulation that will come into effect in April, and maintaining standards of data protection is crucial to that. If we rush into a race to the bottom, we will end up as pariahs and we will simply not be able to co-operate with others.
I support amendment 300, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and which concerns Euratom, but I want to clear up one point. The issue of access to a secure supply of medical radioisotopes was raised by the Royal College of Radiologists, but was dismissed by the Government because the isotopes are non-fissile. It is true that they are non-fissile, but we had a catastrophic shortage between 2008 and 2010 as a result of which I, as a breast cancer surgeon, could not carry out my bone scans. The new technique of sentinel node biopsy which was being rolled out had to be delayed and stalled, and I would have to choose which of my patients might have access to the one dose of technetium that we had to do a bone scan. That is why the Euratom Supply Agency set up the European Observatory on the Supply of Medical Isotopes, and it managed the situation.
We face real challenges in the coming years. The reactors that produce molybdenum, from which we get technetium, are not in the UK. We do not produce any of that stuff, and we do not yet have a replacement technique as those reactors go offline. It is important for the Government to realise that, if we are not part of the observatory, if we are not participators, the Euratom Supply Agency will have no obligation to us. It might help us, but we will be at the back of the queue, and that will affect patients.
New clause 44, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), calls for an assessment of the impact of Brexit on health and social care and on workforces, especially social care workers. The percentage of EU nationals working in social care is even higher than the percentage in the NHS, but they will not qualify for tier 2-type visas. They are often not highly paid, but we rely on them utterly.
Staying in the single market and the customs union would solve all our problems, including the problem of the Irish border, but consideration of that is still being ruled out. I call on the Government to step back from creating all these difficulties, and reconsider the possibility of our staying in the single market and the customs union. The EU is not just about trade; it is also about rights and opportunities, and about co-operation.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I am very grateful, Mr Amess—[Hon. Members: “Sir David Amess.”] I am so sorry. I should remember that nearly everyone who is speaking in this debate has a knighthood.
I am very grateful, Sir David, for the chance to speak in this important debate. It has been extraordinarily interesting and, actually, enjoyable. I want to make a brief detour on amendment 7, because the dialogue between my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) was absolutely terrific. Listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset took me back—to a certain extent—to meetings that I had with him when I was a Minister. You could not go in and order a cup of coffee without engaging in a two-hour debate about exactly what was meant.
In the end, however, the answer emerged, and it emerged in this exchange. Notwithstanding all the technical debate, it is extremely simple. Clause 9 was written before the Government realised that they would have to put the withdrawal agreement into a statute, and now that they have to put it into a statute, both clause 9 and, potentially, amendment 7 have reached their sell-by date. The offer from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset is serious and real: to come back, effectively, with a rewritten clause 9 which tells Parliament exactly what the Government need to do as we implement the withdrawal agreement in legislation. Do they need some powers—I could understand that—to do some things that are essential preparatory work? I thought my point was good enough to stimulate—
Mr Rees-Mogg
What my right hon. Friend is saying is spot-on: clause 9 gives some powers that trouble even Eurosceptics. I have never felt comfortable with the self-amending part of the Bill, and the solution advocated by my right hon. Friend, and proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), is very attractive.
Mr Vaizey
I can barely stand up again, because I am slightly overwhelmed by the outbreak of consensus.
I shall end this section of the speech with some unashamed flattery, as I look at the triumvirate of titans on the Treasury Front Bench: three Ministers for whom I have the utmost admiration, including my constituency neighbour, the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland). They have heard this debate, and they are thoughtful and effective Ministers and I am sure they will have taken the mood at least from a certain part of this House about the brilliant opportunity for a solution to this Gordian knot.
Mr Clarke
Before my right hon. Friend tries to urge us all into withdrawing these amendments and waiting for the Government to bring forward their own amendments on Report, let me say that we have been trying to do that through 70 hours of Committee stage. It is no good regarding the Committee stage of this House as an interesting opportunity for Members of Parliament to talk to each other and for Ministers to get up and say they will think about it; we have two days for Report and Third Reading, and the plain aim of the Government is to just enjoy going through this slightly tumultuous and interesting debate and sail on to the House of Lords with the Bill largely intact as it stands. That has been their obvious tactic from a very early stage.
Mr Vaizey
I bow to my right hon. and learned Friend’s wisdom and experience on that point. I am a consensus merchant and simply thought there might be a way forward, but I totally understand that votes might have to be exercised tonight in order to stiffen the Government’s backbone to provide a solution. But nevertheless it has always been the case proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that the Government will have an opportunity on Report potentially to alter his amendment.
Mr Vaizey
If they can justify it, of course.
The second part of my remarks, which will be as brief as possible because so much time has been taken up, is about amendment 300, standing in my name, which has the largest number of signatories of any amendment to this Bill. I am astonished that only four of them are Conservatives, but I think that reflects the standing in which I am held in my own party; I could not even persuade the leader of the rebel alliance, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, to sign my Euratom amendment, and I really do not want my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset to talk about bad law when he comes to look at it.
The point of the amendment is simply to put the issue of Euratom under parliamentary scrutiny, and I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) in her excellent speech about the importance of Euratom in our medical life, and her own real experience at the chalkface in her extraordinary work. So Euratom is not an esoteric issue; it affects us all. It has been debated in the House before and I shall not spend a lot of time talking about how extraordinarily successful our nuclear industry is. My own personal interest comes from the fact that although Culham is not in my constituency, many of my constituents work there, and it depends on Euratom. I thank the Government for last week’s announcement of £86 million of investment in Culham for two new centres of excellence for the testing of components and for fuel storage; that is a real vote of confidence in Culham.
The point, of course, about Euratom is that nobody voted to leave it. Euratom was not in the European Union Referendum Act 2015, and was not on the ballot; it falls under a separate treaty. So the British people did not have a chance to have a referendum on our membership of Euratom.
The reason we are leaving Euratom is technical. Legal advice, which we have not seen, deems Euratom to be inextricably linked to the European Union and therefore an article 50 notice would be defective if it did not include Euratom. However, the mood of the Government and, I think, the House is that we are leaving Euratom on a technicality, not because we object to being governed by Euratom. There is no mood among the general population to leave Euratom as far as I am aware, and I think that only one hon. Member has managed to stand up and say that there is a plausible reason to leave it.
Mr Vaizey
The implications of leaving Euratom, some of which have already been identified by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, also extend to our nuclear industry, which provides 20% of this country’s energy. At the moment, we simply cannot move nuclear material around unless we are members of Euratom. So when we leave Euratom, we will have to have, in effect, a Euratom-style arrangement to allow us to move goods around. “Goods” can mean a variety of things. We imagine highly radioactive canisters being moved in special trains at the dead of night, but the movement of goods also involves mundane things such as heat pumps, motors, spares and other components, all of which, because they are part of the civil nuclear ecosystem, have to be moved under the terms of these treaties.
Euratom covers not only objects but the freedom of movement of people. We depend on our membership of Euratom for a nuclear power industry, for our medical industry—isotopes have been mentioned—and for the Joint European Torus at Culham, where Britain has done extraordinarily well. Huge advantages have been made in robotics and other sciences, and there are £500 million-worth of contracts already in ITER, the successor to Culham, thanks to the expertise we have built up here.
Let me make it clear that, throughout this process of our technical move to leave Euratom, Ministers have been absolutely brilliant in engaging with me and other hon. Members who share my concerns and have similar interests. They have bent over backwards to do what they can to accommodate our concerns. Looking forward, we need Ministers to give us clarity on a number of issues. We need nuclear co-operation agreements with other countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and possibly the European Union as well—and they need to be in place by March 2019. These agreements can be complex, and they can depend on the legislation in other legislatures. For example, the US Congress would have to pass a new nuclear co-operation agreement with us. We will also need a new safeguards regime, and this will come in through the Nuclear Safeguards Bill as a contingency, although I understand that the Government might want Euratom to continue to cover the safeguarding role.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. As he knows, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee published a report today on our future relationship with Euratom. The cross-party Committee agreed that we needed as close a relationship as possible with Euratom, in part because of the safeguarding issue. Dr Golshan of the Office for Nuclear Regulation said in evidence to the Committee that our safeguarding would not be at Euratom standards by March 2019, notwithstanding the Nuclear Safeguards Bill that is going through Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that until we have reached Euratom standards, we need either a transition period or a close association with Euratom to ensure that there is no deterioration in standards in our civil nuclear sector?
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Lady and her Committee have published an excellent 45-page report this morning, and I read it when it was hot off the press. It makes all the points that I want to make about the need to have as close an association as possible with Euratom, particularly in regard to safeguarding. What worries me about the Office for Nuclear Regulation is that, while the will and desire are there, this is another job that cannot be done overnight. It will need to triple the number of inspectors over the next four years, for example. Training a qualified inspector takes between 12 and 18 months; it takes five years to train an unqualified one. The ONR already needs another £10 million just for recruitment and IT, not even for specialist equipment. Some people argue—in fact, I think it is in the BEIS Committee report—that the specialist equipment at Sellafield, which is currently owned by Euratom, would have to be replaced, at a cost of £150 million.
We need clarity on the nuclear co-operation agreements, clarity on the safeguarding regime and who will conduct it, and clarity on whether we will reach International Atomic Energy Agency standards, which the ONR is currently aiming for as a realistic target—Euratom’s standards are higher. We also need free movement of nuclear workers in the broadest sense, and I am not talking about nuclear scientists; I mean the people who actually build nuclear power stations. For example, I think the UK has 2,700 registered steel fixers, half of which will be needed to build Hinkley Point C. That kind of specialist construction worker will come under the category of nuclear workers. As for the future of our continued international co-operation, a particularly live issue at the moment is the extension of funding for the Joint European Torus, which is currently going through the Council for the fiscal years 2019-20, and the European Union is keen to get clarity from the Government on our intentions.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The key point about that work programme is that Austria will be taking over the presidency of the Council of the European Union next year. That is incredibly worrying and means that the timeframe to which we are working is July 2018, not later, which is one of the reasons why we need parliamentary scrutiny of what is happening.
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Lady is entirely correct because Austria is an anti-nuclear state, and there is some suspicion that some difficulties may emerge if the matter is not wrapped up before the Austrian presidency.
The amendment’s purpose is to provide parliamentary scrutiny of the important process of replicating the effect of a treaty that nobody wanted to leave. My challenge to Ministers is to engage with the amendment, and I look forward to hearing from the Dispatch Box whether the amendment is acceptable or whether they have an alternative way of providing the House with a strategy. On that note, after 14 minutes, I will sit down.
Chris Bryant
Sir David—for you are indeed beknighted—it is good to take part in this debate immediately after the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). However, I am slightly saddened that he was so disparaging of all the Opposition Members who have signed his amendment. If we are just cast aside with such casual, reckless, gay abandon, we are never going to do that again, are we?
The British way in parliamentary matters has always been that we govern by consent, not by Government fiat, so Parliament should never be conceived of by a Government as an inconvenience that has to be avoided if possible. Parliament should be seen as an essential part of how we carry the whole nation with us. The Government should have more strength in Parliament than they do if they try to circumvent Parliament.
Getting the process right, as several hon. Members have already said, is absolutely essential. We are going to be deciding what many assume will be a long-term settlement for this country for generations to come. We cannot simply try to go ahead with a railroaded version of that settlement that only carries 52% of the country, or perhaps even less by then—who knows?—because we will in the end undermine the very institutions that people have been trying to say should be sovereign. I say to the Government that no amount of jiggery-pokery will sort things out. At the end of the day, parliamentary shenanigans will do far more harm to this country’s political institutions than we should countenance.
The Government already have phenomenal power and—I have used this figure before, but it is true—this is the first time in our history that more than half of Government Members are now either Ministers, trade envoys or Parliamentary Private Secretaries and are beholden unto the Government in some way or other. We have more Ministers than Italy, France and Germany put together, so the Government’s hold on Parliament in our system is already phenomenal, yet they have introduced clause 9, which is truly exceptional. I have tabled several amendments, which I will not address because I do not think there is any great point. The honest truth is that I would prefer to see the whole clause out of the Bill.
The moment I saw clause 9, I thought, “If there is a real reason for this, surely by now the Government would have argued why they have to have these powers.” Now the Government say a Bill will be introduced on the agreement and its implementation. If there really is a need for those powers, clause 9 should be in that Bill and not in this Bill at all.
I love all four of the Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench to death, and obviously the safest thing to do today is for one of them to stand up—they could stand up one after another, as in “Spartacus”—and say, “We will not support this. We will not urge the Committee to consider taking on this clause as part of the Bill, because we know we do not really need it.”
People might ask, “If the Government do not really need clause 9, why does it matter if the clause is in the Bill at all?” The problem is that every single Government in the history of the world have always used every power they have to the umpteenth degree. It is a temptation, and we should take temptation out of the Government’s hands if they are not prepared to take it out of their own hands. Let us bear in mind that the Bill will allow the Government to change the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice is standing up! Oh, he’s not.
Admittedly, changes to the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts by secondary legislation would have to be made via the affirmative process and there would be a vote in both Houses.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the 16th century, but I cannot imagine for an instant how the hon. Gentleman could support such a change.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I have said, I have my doubts about parts of clause 9, but it says that a Minister of the Crown may, “by regulations,” do things
“for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement”.
It is hard to see how that could change the Representation of the People Acts. The hon. Gentleman slightly overstates his case.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman entices me down the road of one of my amendments. Previous legislation allowing Governments such extensive powers, such as the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, has made it clear that, when tabling statutory instruments, Governments have to argue the case for why those statutory instruments are necessary. In this case, the Government have not even added that provision to the Bill, which is what makes me suspicious.
A doubting Thomas is a good man, but he should follow through on his doubts. I hope that means the hon. Gentleman will be joining us in the Lobby tonight, although I have a sneaking suspicion the smile that just crept across his face indicates that he has no intention of doing so.
There has been much talk about what is a meaningful vote. I read theology at university. My theology professor, John Macquarrie, was a wonderful man who had a rather strange half-American, half-Scottish accent. He was asked by a student, “What is the meaning of God?” And he answered, “You should not ask me, ‘What is the meaning of God?’ You should ask me, ‘What is the meaning of meaning?’” That is the kind of existential debate we are having today.
What does it mean to have a meaningful vote? First, I would say that the vote cannot simply be on a fait accompli. It is not meaningful to vote on something after it has already happened and it has already been decided. It cannot just be a vote on a treaty because, as I have already tried to explain, the provisions on treaties in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 state that the Government do not have to provide for a vote on treaties, because it is not an affirmative process. They merely state that, if the House says within 21 sitting days that the treaty should not be agreed, the Government have to have another go, if they want to. That is a problematic process for us.
In addition, a treaty is unamendable. One thing everybody has been arguing in this debate is that we need to be able to send the Government back to negotiate again if we think the deal is not good enough. This cannot be simply be on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is what Hobson, the 17th century stable owner said: “You can either take the horse closest to the door or you will not take a horse at all.” It is like Henry Ford’s saying:
“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”
My fear is that the Prime Minister will want to be a stable owner trying to persuade everybody to take the horse closest to the door, and I do not believe that will be a meaningful vote.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not concede that there was a meaningful vote on 23 June 2016, when people voted to leave the European Union? The problem with the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) is that it could be, and no doubt is designed to be, used to try to overturn and frustrate that meaningful vote. [Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend laughs, but it is a shame he does not have the courage of his convictions to admit that that is what his game is. If people in this House use that amendment for those purposes, the backlash from the British public will be like none seen before, and he should beware of that consequence.
Chris Bryant
Plenty of Members have plenty of courage about their convictions and have demonstrated it effectively in recent weeks. I do not think the hon. Gentleman should be deriding others because they have chosen to take a different direction. I am not sure whether he has been here for the whole debate—he might have missed a few minutes or indeed most of the hours. He is right that I am a remainer and I would prefer the country to remain in the EU—I admit that openly—but my constituents voted to leave and the country voted to leave, and we are going to leave. But we have to make sure we take the whole country with us, and we will not do that by a parliamentary process that gives far too much power to the Government and does not allow for proper scrutiny in this House.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in my call to the Secretary of State, which I have made in this House, to set out a timetable whereby we understand what the process is and how he conceives the process of decision making being? That would give us all some certainty about when we would have that meaningful vote and whether we could amend things.
Chris Bryant
I would love to, but the truth is that the Government do not have the foggiest idea when anything is going to happen. They have suggested that something might be available in October 2018—perhaps it will, but perhaps it will not. This reminds me of the hymn we used to sing:
“God is working his purpose out, as year succeeds to year”
The Government are trying to work out what their purpose is, day by day, hour by hour. They have no idea at the moment, which is why we have to make sure we get the process right before we engage in it; otherwise there is a danger that we will be railroaded without making proper, good decisions.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he was focused on getting the best possible process. Should we not be focused on getting the best possible deal in our negotiations? We know the EU does not want us to leave, so if he puts a process in place where the EU can simply knock a deal back to this Parliament, does that not give the EU the incentive to give us the worst possible deal, on the basis that we are more likely to reject it? We will simply have endless negotiations.
Chris Bryant
That is where we disagree. I believe that we will get the best possible deal only if we have the best possible process; the two go hand in hand. Indeed, if the Government introduced a Bill to implement an agreement and they started to lose votes on individual elements, they would probably then go back to Brussels and say, “You know what? I cannot get this through Parliament, so you’re going to have to give me a better deal.” At that point, I think that our colleagues and friends in other countries in Europe would improve the deal. I believe we would end up with a better deal.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s argument with great interest, because I was waiting for the “or”. He has just asserted what would happen if we did not have a good deal, Parliament rejected it and the negotiators were sent back, but then what? If it is felt that the best deal has been offered, what is his fall-back procedure? We would leave with no deal whatsoever.
Chris Bryant
Obviously, if the Government cannot get their deal through Parliament, they may be in trouble. That is a certain truth. However, if the Government get nearly all their deal but key amendments are carried by the House—for instance, on immigration, the financial deal or the rights of EU citizens in this country or elsewhere—we could help to strengthen the Government’s arm, not weaken it at all. When I was Europe Minister, my experience was that when something was on the table in Brussels that I disagreed with and did not want to see implemented, the strongest argument I had with Brussels was, “I won’t be able to get that through the British Parliament.” If we have a system in which a deal does not have to go through the British Parliament in line-by-line detail, the Government will be weakened in the negotiating process.
Anna Soubry
Is not that the whole point about what happened last week? After what happened on the Monday, when things all fell apart and were ghastly, we saw an absolute desire and it was clear that everybody, including the EU, came together to make sure that our Prime Minister got a deal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we talk to people, we hear that it is now absolutely clear that the leaders and all the various other people from the other EU countries accept that we are leaving? They have heavy hearts about it, but they know that we are leaving and it is now simply a question of sorting out the deal. Of course, it is not as simple as all that, but they have accepted that we are leaving. People really have to stop the conspiracy stories and the myths.
Chris Bryant
I agree. As I have said before, I also believe that there is a significant degree of agreement among all parties in this House, and probably in the House of Lords as well, about what the final agreement should look like. If the Government abandoned the strategy that they have so far adopted and decided to search for that consensus—“We’re going to try to get 650 MPs through the Division Lobby in favour of the final deal”—they would stand a better chance of getting the best deal for Parliament.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Bryant
No. The hon. Gentleman can point and hail as many cabs as he wants, but I am not going to give way to him again because others wish to speak.
All too often, the Government have urged us to accept clause 9 and the related measures on the basis of trust alone. As has already been said, it is just too difficult to see how we can put that trust in their hands. For a start, they have systematically ignored resolutions of the House over the past seven years; they have regularly refused to allow annulment debates on statutory instruments so that they could be meaningful—they have refused to do that even when they have guaranteed at the Dispatch Box that they were going to do so; and they have insisted on having majorities on all Committees. I fear that if we allow the Government to have excessive powers, they will tend to use every single one of those powers. The truth is that they seem to want a carte blanche.
I wish the Government welcomed the role of Parliament in this process, but I just do not detect that. The devil will be in the detail. The Government cannot just bamboozle the people with verbiage that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever: “Brexit means Brexit”, “a red, white and blue Brexit”, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, and all the rest of it. It is a denigration of the English language, let alone anything else.
What we actually need is a Bill, with words in it that have legal effect, because, in the end, this is an existential matter for Parliament. Are we really a sovereign Parliament if we surrender our power to the Government? Not really. Are we really a representative democracy if MPs are denied a truly meaningful role in the process? Not really. Are we really a United Kingdom Parliament if we carry only 52% of the country with us? Not really.
Dominic Raab
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who made some very serious constitutional points with great colour and eloquence. I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this debate through their various amendments and speeches. My approach over the course of my speech—I suspect that it will take me an hour to get through it—will be to take clause 9 first, and then to come on to clauses 16 and 17 as well as schedule 7.
It may be helpful to hon. Members who want to intervene to know that I will first explain the function of clause 9 and why it is necessary, and then set out some of the illustrations that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) suggested were required. I will come on to talk about the limits, and then I will address the amendments, including amendment 7, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). The key issue will come down to timing, so I will also touch on that, but first, let me set the scene.
Clause 9 highlights the interaction between diplomacy at the international level and the domestic legislative preparation for Brexit. The Government are committed to securing the best deal that we can with our EU partners for the whole United Kingdom against the very acute time pressure set out under the article 50 process imposed on us.
Clause 9 enables regulations to be made for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement. It is now, as hon. Members have said, a supplementary provision to give us agility in the negotiations and the flexibility of legislative procedure to deliver the best deal under time pressure. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union announced to this House on 13 November the Government’s intention to bring forward new primary legislation in the form of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to give effect to the major elements of the withdrawal agreement. That will include citizens’ rights, the implementation period, the financial settlement and the other issues wrapped up within the exit negotiations.
Dominic Raab
May I just make a little progress?
I am not sure whether every hon. Member has had a chance to read the written ministerial statement that was published today—it is entitled “Procedures for the Approval and Implementation of EU Exit Agreements”—but it is worth taking a look at it with regard to some of the concerns that have been expressed. We intend to introduce the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill after there has been a successful vote on the final deal in Parliament. Notwithstanding that, it remains essential that clause 9 stands part of this Bill. We do not yet know the precise shape or outcome of future negotiations, and it is important that the necessary legislative mechanisms are available to us so that we fully implement the withdrawal agreement in time for the exit date.
Dominic Raab
I will make a small amount of progress but then, of course, I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
There will be a wide range of more technical separation issues that will need to be legislated for in time for our exit on 29 March 2019. Some will be better suited to secondary legislation, and it would not be practical to account for the sheer volume of all these issues in primary legislation. It is of course not uncommon for the principles of an international agreement to be implemented, at least to some degree, through secondary legislation. To give just one example, the Nuclear Installations (Liability for Damage) Order 2016 implements the 2004 protocol to the convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy.
As for how we implement such secondary legislation, clause 9—this is the crux—offers a material benefit in terms of timing. We would be able to start—not complete—laying some of the statutory instruments soon after reaching agreement with our EU friends alongside the passage of new primary legislation. It is impossible to say with 100% precision at this point all the technical regulations that will be required to implement the withdrawal agreement before the full terms have been negotiated. That is obvious, and is accepted by Members on both sides of the House. However, some regulations might be required, and some will require a lead time of several months, so we need to reserve the ability to use clause 9 as soon as practically possible after a deal has been concluded. If we waited for further primary legislation to receive Royal Assent, that might be too late and we could be too squeezed for time, even in the scenario in which we reach an agreement in October, as is our current aim.
Dr Whitford
Does the Minister recognise my point about the situation that EU nationals are in now? Will the Government consider moving their issue into the immigration Bill, which should be coming imminently, rather than leaving them in limbo for another year?
Dominic Raab
All hon. Members should heartily welcome the agreement we have reached on the principles that will protect the 3 million EU nationals in this country—we want them to stay and to know they are valued—and the 1 million British expats abroad. Of course, there is still a significant amount of detail in the withdrawal agreement that will need to be worked up, so the hon. Lady may be putting the legislative cart before the diplomatic horse. Can we at least recognise that we have made substantial progress—and substantial progress from the EU’s point of view—which is why we are proceeding to trade talks?
Dominic Raab
I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman shortly. He has been very patient and I did say that would take his amendment. Sorry, I meant that I would take his intervention, not his amendment—just teasing.
Clause 9 is not intended to be used to implement major elements of the withdrawal agreement. Its role will be to assist with making regulations to deal with the more technical separation issues that are better suited to secondary legislation. There will be a large number of such regulations and they will need to be in place in time for exit day.
Mr McFadden
The Minister said that the House would vote on a resolution. This morning’s written ministerial statement also refers to the House voting on a resolution on the final agreement. What would the Government’s response be if the House were to vote against that resolution? What would it mean for Parliament and for the country?
Dominic Raab
I will come to that. It is very clear that we would not be able to proceed with the withdrawal agreement, but that does not mean that we would stop Brexit from happening. That is set out very clearly in the written statement, which also repeats points that have been made before in statements at the Dispatch Box.
Dominic Raab
I am just going to make a bit more progress.
I will address the point raised by the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, because I think he was on to something regarding the need to spell out and illustrate, albeit not necessarily exhaustively, the kinds of scenarios in which clause 9 remains relevant in the light of the proposed primary legislation. Let me offer a few illustrative examples.
Clause 9 may be required to legislate for the position of ongoing administrative proceedings when we leave the EU. This is a broad basket of technical issues, including the technical aspects of ongoing proceedings on competition and anti-trust issues under regulation 1/2003, for example, which sets out the co-ordination between the Commission and national competition authorities. Another example is the ongoing procedures on concentrations between undertakings in mergers under regulation 139/2004, and the allocation of jurisdiction between the EU and national authorities. These detailed and technical issues do not need to be put on the face of a Bill, but they must be legislated for in time for exit.
Another area for which clause 9 could be used relates to the privileges and immunities afforded by the UK to the EU—its institutions, bodies and staff—post exit. Privileges and immunities are a standard feature of international law, and are generally considered necessary for the proper functioning of international organisations. Privileges and immunities for the EU are currently implemented under protocol 7 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. After exit, the EU will continue to require privileges and immunities to cover any functions it has, although the precise contours may differ according to the deal that we strike. Our agreement on privileges and immunities will need to be implemented in domestic legislation.
Antoinette Sandbach
The point is that clause 9 is so widely drafted that it could apply to absolutely anything that could be linked with EU withdrawal. I am sure that the Department for Exiting the European Union has done a great deal of analysis—indeed, the Minister is showing that in his speech—of the areas that may be affected at the point of withdrawal. Surely that is the point at which the Government need to come to the House and, rather than speculating about what might be affected, actually identify that to us so that the powers can be limited precisely to those areas for which the Government need them.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive way she makes her point. Of course, until we have the withdrawal agreement, we will not know precisely the nature of the technical—
Dominic Raab
May I at least give the answer before my right hon. and learned Friend jumps in?
That is why the agility that clause 9 gives us is important. I do not mean to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) in a lawyerly way, but it is not quite right to say that clause 9 can legislate for anything in the context of departing the EU. It relates only to the withdrawal agreement, and I think she said it related to withdrawing from the EU.
Another illustration of what clause 9 could be used for is the spelling out of the technical detail of how ongoing UK cases at the European Court of Justice should be handled, and how the UK courts should treat resulting judgments. Some of that might be done under this Bill, and some under the withdrawal agreement, but we will need to clarify things such as the types of cases that would be in scope and the precise procedural points in terms of whether a case could be considered to be pending, among others. Without that clarification, how such cases should be treated might not be clear. We would run the risk of legal uncertainty, as well as uncertainty for the individuals involved in those cases.
I do not want to make too much of that before my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield jumps in. He is quite right—he has made this point before, and he may want to hear me out before I take his intervention—that, in 2016, there were 23 preliminary references from UK courts and just one infraction case against the UK. So we do not expect this issue to affect large numbers. None the less, for those affected, it is still important to get this right.
Mr Grieve
I want to understand this, because it is rather important. We are going to enact a withdrawal agreement Bill—I think that is what it is called. I would expect that to have statutory instrument powers—the very statutory instrument powers we can consider in relation to the scope of the withdrawal agreement when deciding what we then enact by secondary legislation to take us out. I begin to wonder whether, in fact, it is the Government’s intention not to have any statutory instruments made under that agreement at all, but to seek to make them entirely through the mechanism of clause 9 before we have had the opportunity of considering what we actually want. That is why clause 9 is, I have to say to my hon. Friend, so mischievous. While I would be prepared to listen to some great exception, abandoning the normal legislative process in this way seems to be utterly undesirable, so I would press my hon. Friend on what is going to happen with this withdrawal agreement Bill. Are we going to have secondary legislation under it?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. I should just say to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury that I will come on to talk about the restraints on the exercise of clause 9 later. However, in relation to my right hon. and learned Friend’s point, if we waited for the withdrawal agreement Bill not just to be introduced after the withdrawal agreement has been signed but to be fully enacted—if we waited for it to complete its full passage—we would not have time to deal with the volume of technical secondary legislation that we need to put through.
Dominic Raab
No, that is not right. We would be required to wait for the withdrawal agreement Bill to be enacted, so that is not right.
Dominic Raab
No, I am going to make some progress.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is engaging with this very seriously and constructively and that he is frustrated, but there is no getting around the timing issue that we have.
Dominic Raab
No, I am going to make some progress.
Nor is there any getting around the long tail of technical, regulatory secondary legislation that we will need to get through if we want to provide the legal certainty that will make for a smooth Brexit.
Dominic Raab
I will give way to the right hon. Lady later, and I am coming on to talk about her amendment.
I just want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about illustrations of what this power will be used for, because I hope that that will serve to assuage some of the concerns. The power could also be used to legislate, for example, for the status of goods that have been placed on the UK market at the time of our withdrawal, subject, of course, to what we agree with the EU on that. That could include a whole range of very technical, detailed measures to ensure that EU products continue to be made available in the UK, with no additional requirements on relabelling; to define what is meant by “placed on the market” for those products that benefit from the measures agreed; or to establish measures to facilitate continued oversight of those products. Again, these examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. However, I hope that I have at least addressed the kinds of cases that we are talking about, and also given an idea of the scale and volume of the technical separation issues that will need to be legislated for in time for exit day. Clause 9 will make an important contribution to a smooth Brexit in precisely those areas.
Yvette Cooper
Timing is the crucial issue. Given that there are many examples of an accelerated process being used to get primary legislation through this place on many different matters, including in a single day when that has been necessary, why would it not be possible, if time was starting to run out, to have a very simple one or two-clause Bill that would do the bits of things on which the Minister needs to get agreement and to put the secondary powers in place, and therefore at least have a vote on primary legislation? Why is it not possible to do that very quickly to deal with the concerns that have been expressed?
Dominic Raab
It is just not practicable. I will come on to address the timeframe for how we are going to approach the agreement, the meaningful vote on a resolution, and then the withdrawal agreement Bill.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does not my hon. Friend think that there should be a trigger within clause 9 to require the consent of the House to the overall withdrawal agreement that is reached before the powers are exercised? Otherwise those powers are unrestrained, and that seems wrong. Does he have a view on that?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. and learned Friend touches on a very important principle. I hope that I will be able to give him satisfaction on that precise point later.
Having dealt with the technical scope of the power and some illustrations of the scale of what it is going to be used for, and before I address the timing issues, I want to touch on the limitations and parameters—
Dominic Raab
I will give way to my right hon. Friend later. If she will just be patient, I want to make a bit of progress, given the time available.
It is worth looking very carefully at the limitations and parameters constraining the exercise of clause 9. It can only be used to implement the withdrawal agreement, and even then subsection (3) makes it clear that it cannot be used to levy taxation, to make retrospective provision, to create relevant criminal offences, or to repeal or amend the Human Rights Act 1998. Paragraph 6 of schedule 7 further requires the affirmative procedure in a whole range of scenarios, from the establishment of new public authority functions to the imposition of any fee exercised by any such authority. Critically—I am not sure that all hon. Members have picked this up—the power endures only until exit day. Its operation is shorter than that under clause 7. On the Government’s current expected timetable, it would, in practice, be used for only about six months, so it is not the open-ended power that some have suggested.
In addition, the Government have accepted the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) to establish a sifting committee to advise on the scrutiny procedures used for secondary legislation under the Bill. That will apply to this clause. That is on top of the Government amendment tabled last week that mandates Ministers to provide explanatory material for all the statutory instruments made under the principal powers of the Bill. We are listening. We are committed to making sure that Parliament plays a crucial role—a fully transparent scrutiny role—in the exercise of clause 9.
In sum, the power under clause 9 is required to legislate domestically for the large number of more technical separation issues that must be settled in time for exit day if we are to have the smooth Brexit that, whether we voted leave or remain, we all agree is crucial from here on in. The regulations—
Dominic Raab
I will just finish this point before I finally give way to my right hon. Friend, who has been very patient.
The regulations will be subject to the established methods of parliamentary scrutiny, with additional scrutiny provided by the new sifting committee. This is a time-limited and constrained power, but it is also an important power to help us to prepare for a smooth Brexit.
Anna Soubry
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill was drafted before the general election on 8 June? If I am wrong about that, could he please tell us when the Bill was drafted?
Dominic Raab
As someone who was brought into government reasonably recently and on to the Committee even more recently, I would have to check. I am happy to provide that clarity by the end of proceedings. I suspect that the process has been an iterative one, but let me see whether I can come back to my right hon. Friend on that.
Clause 9 is not just an important part of the procedural toolkit; it serves a much bigger function that we must not overlook. It sends a message of clarity and confidence to our EU partners that we are ready, willing and able to conclude and implement a deal. By the same virtue, it sends an equally important message to our citizens and businesses that we are equipped to secure a smooth legal transition. I understand the concerns raised through the various amendments, and we should debate them. I will come on to them, and I hope that I will be able to give hon. Members some further reassurance.
Chuka Umunna
May I ask the Minister two questions? First, in respect of the statement made by the Brexit Secretary this morning, can the Minister confirm that the withdrawal agreement Bill is not guaranteed to come before the House for a vote before exit day? All the statement says is that the Bill will be introduced before exit day.
Secondly, why do the Government find so objectionable the idea of activating, if necessary, the third part of article 50, which allows for the Government to ask for an extension if we run out of time as a result of the many unforeseen practical problems? Ministers are talking from the Dispatch Box as though that third part of article 50 did not exist. Why was it included, if not to allow for an extension if the time expires and we have not achieved what we want?
Dominic Raab
I have enjoyed having proper debates with the hon. Gentleman both during the referendum and since. I point out that, as the written ministerial statement makes clear,
“the substantive provisions will only take effect from the moment of exit.”
I know that he wants to drag me down into the territory of the no deal scenario and Parliament’s ability to send the Government back to renegotiate. As a former Foreign Office lawyer who spent six years in that Department and worked on EU matters, in practice I think it unlikely that that would be meaningful in any way, shape or form. The point has been made in the debate that if that looked likely, we would be positively incentivising the EU to give us, and we would end up with, worse terms. [Interruption.] It is not pure speculation; it is grounded on six years of working as a lawyer in the Foreign Office and conducting negotiations. [Interruption.]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) should not have been shouting in the first place, and he definitely should not have been shouting over me as I called for order. We are having a very detailed discussion here, which does not lend itself to shouting from Members on one Bench or the other.
Dominic Raab
Thank you, Mrs Laing. Many of the amendments that have been tabled have focused on the exact nature of the regulations that will be made under the power in clause 9. The exact use of the power will, of course, depend on the content of the withdrawal agreement that we reach with the EU. That agreement will be debated and voted on by this Parliament. The Government have made a clear commitment on that, and it should not be prejudiced or pre-empted now. There has been a lot of talk about a meaningful vote in this House, and the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) has raised the matter again. I will come on to that, and to the key issue of timing. May I say to hon. Members gently, and with the greatest respect, that such a vote would be pretty meaningless in any event if we were not ready to implement on time the deal that we want to do with the EU?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I thought a moment ago that the Minister was rejecting the idea of a meaningful vote, but I am delighted to hear that he is getting on to it. Does he accept that it is perfectly likely that as the negotiations come to an end, the Government will want to enter into a deal, but they will have given in to pressure from the right wing of the Cabinet and Back-Bench Members of the party and rejected various things on offer from other EU members? That is a far more likely scenario than no deal being the other EU members’ preferred option. In such a case, it would be absolutely essential that the first thing we had was a parliamentary decision on a meaningful vote. We could then legislate, once that particular British issue had been resolved where it should be resolved—in Parliament.
Dominic Raab
From my experience, I must say that I think that is a rather rose-tinted perspective on EU negotiations. I should also say that the same arguments were made about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister going into the phase 1 negotiations, yet we are on the cusp of formal ratification of the joint report dealing with the first phase issues. The Prime Minister has made some difficult compromises and shown flexibility precisely to get the deal that I think my right hon. and learned Friend welcomes—I also welcome it—even though we were on different sides during the referendum campaign.
I turn to new clauses 3 and 75, which attempt to remove clause 9 wholesale from the Bill. They would undermine one of the important strategic objectives of the Bill, which is to provide the legal means to implement the withdrawal agreement thoroughly in domestic law. I hope I have explained the important, albeit residual, role that clause 9 stands to play in light of the separate primary legislation covering the withdrawal agreement. To remove clause 9 would increase the legal uncertainty, and I hope that the new clauses will not be pressed.
I want to spend a little bit of time focusing on amendments 7, 47 and 355 and new clause 68, but particularly on amendment 7 in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. May I say at the outset that I do not think he has any ulterior motive in tabling the amendment? I have had a number of constructive conversations with him, and I look forward to more in the future. By dint of that, I hope he accepts that I have followed through on every assurance I have given him, and that I have not failed to live up to the undertakings I have given him. It is in that spirit that we on both sides of the debate need to proceed as the Bill goes through the House.
Amendments 7 and 355 call for a separate statute to be enacted approving the withdrawal agreement before the powers in clause 9 can be used. There are a number of problems with doing so. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) mentioned the constitutional issue, and I agree with him about that. From a practical point of view, however, the crucial problem is the effect that amendment 7 would have in significantly curtailing the timely advantage that we will gain from clause 9. One of the key benefits of the clause is the ability to start to use it reasonably swiftly after the withdrawal agreement has been reached.
To add an unnecessary Bill to the parliamentary agenda—in addition to Parliament’s meaningful vote, as set out in today’s written ministerial statement, and on top of the new withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill—would be restrictive enough. However, to make the first use of the powers in clause 9 wait until the additional legislation has fully passed through Parliament would unduly compress the time we will have to prepare the legislative groundwork, and would risk greater uncertainty. With the greatest respect in the world, I am afraid that is why the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is defective.
Dominic Raab
If I may, I will finish my comments on this amendment, and I will then let my right hon. and learned Friend critique them in the round. I suspect such a critique is coming.
In rare and exceptional cases, we may need to exercise the powers in clause 9 to pass statutory instruments before the final enactment of the primary legislation, which will be on the date of exit. Let me give an illustration of why it may be necessary for operational changes to be in put in place before that point. An example is where specific statutory authority is needed for a monitoring body to supervise the implementation of the terms of the agreement on citizens’ rights, if that cannot be done in advance under other primary legislation. Such a body would need to be set up beforehand so that it was ready to operate on day one, but we may not know its precise content and contours until relatively late on in the negotiations.
Yes, the potential scope for reliance on clause 9 has been reduced by the Government’s commitment to primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period, but it is still important to retain it. The fetter imposed by amendment 7 would risk materially damaging responsible preparations for exit, including in sensitive areas such as citizens’ rights. I know that that is not the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend, to whom I am very happy to give way.
Mr Grieve
I am again most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He will know—I touched on this in my comments—that when this issue was first raised, I suggested that one possibility might be to allow statutory instruments to be laid and voted on by this House prior to the enactment of the further statute, but not allow them to be brought into force until that further statute had been enacted. That would allow the House to stop the statutory process if it was not happy with it. As I understand it, the further statute has to be enacted before the date we leave, because without it we do not have the powers to pull out. In those circumstances, I find it impossible to understand why my suggestion might not solve his problem. I think he will agree that that is where our dialogue stopped. If he actually wants to do something even before that, I have to say to him that, as a matter of principle, I object.
Dominic Raab
My right hon. and learned Friend is right about almost everything; the only point he is not right about is that I think he will find that my suggestion to him was the appropriate way to deal with that. I will come on to give him precisely the assurance he is asking for, although we have not had a chance to get it on to the face of the Bill. I would argue that a political assurance, which I will give him on top of the others that have been given, ought adequately to address his concerns.
With the genuine and material risk of my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment in mind, I hope I can go further, bridge the gap and reassure hon. Members, and assuage any residual concerns they may have about the operation of clause 9 in practice. I want to provide three very clear assurances to the House.
First, secondary legislation passed under clause 9 will either be affirmative or considered by the Committee established under the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. Secondly, the Government are committed to publishing such statutory instruments in draft as far as possible, as early as possible, to facilitate maximum scrutiny, which is another point we have discussed.
Thirdly, we expect that the vast majority of statutory instruments enacted under clause 9 will not come into force until exit day, when the withdrawal agreement comes into force. But I can give my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, and the Committee, the concrete assurance that, following the timeframe set out in today’s written ministerial statement, none of the SIs introduced under clause 9 will come into effect until Parliament has voted on the final deal. I hope that that provides important reassurance and is sufficient for hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
That approach has two advantages. First, it retains our ability to use clause 9 in time to fully implement the withdrawal agreement. It also squarely addresses the concern, fairly and honestly reflected in amendment 7, that there should be a meaningful vote—the critical point made by my right hon. and learned Friend—and that we should not bring new law implementing the withdrawal agreement into effect if Parliament votes that agreement down.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady, as ever, sums up the situation very neatly. Clause 9 is absolutely necessary to make sure that we can fully implement the withdrawal agreement and provide legal certainty. The problem with amendment 7 is that it emasculates that ability because of the time pressure it places on us. That is why, with the greatest respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, it is not an effective amendment and we cannot accept it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dominic Raab
We have only two hours left, and I want to make some progress, but I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I think that my hon. Friend is suggesting a route to solving the problem raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). Could not the requirement that the resolution be sanctioned by the House before the implementation of those orders be put into a revised version of clause 9 on Report?
Dominic Raab
I would hope that the assurances we have made, along with the written ministerial statement, are adequate, but there is nothing stopping any hon. Member coming back and having another go. We have—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda is sitting there tapping knowingly. He has been talking about the separation of powers between the legislature and the Executive, and now I am being asked to correct homework for hon. Members. That is not necessarily the course on which to proceed. What I will do, as we have done all along and as I think as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield knows, is to continue to discuss all these matters with my right hon. and hon. Friends as we progress. The important point to understand—we have not had a huge amount of time to go into the details of what the compromise assurances might be—is that at the moment amendment 7 is defective and would have very real consequences for our ability to deliver on the deal we do with our European partners.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Does that mean, therefore, that the Government would accept an amendment on Report that put on the face of the Bill that there would be a vote, as is stated in the written statement, on a resolution in both Houses of Parliament that would cover the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship? Is that what the Minister is saying?
Dominic Raab
What I am saying is that my hon. Friend has had an assurance, given by me at the Dispatch Box, that I hope addresses his concern. If hon. Members want to come back on Report with further amendments, I will continue to give them proper consideration. I think all hon. Members who have dealt with me directly have found that I have been true to that commitment.
Dominic Raab
No, I am not going to give way again.
Amendment 47, tabled by the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, is slightly different in that it would make the use of clause 9 dependent on approval of the withdrawal agreement by both Houses without specifying statute. Similar timing concerns apply. We would need to retain the option to ready statutory instruments before such approval, but I have made clear, and I make clear again, that they would not enter into force until Parliament had held its meaningful vote.
New clause 68 replicates the provisions of amendment 47, with the addition that the Government must seek the approval of Parliament no later than three months before the date of exit. We cannot bind ourselves to such strict sequencing constraints when the latter stages of the negotiations remain unknown. To do so, in fact, would be irresponsible. It is also a vague and arguably defective new clause, I say with the greatest respect, because it is not clear whether by the “conclusion” of the agreement the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) means finalisation of the text, signature, ratification or entry into force. For those reasons, I hope hon. Members will not press their new clauses and amendments.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make some progress.
Amendment 116 would require a referendum on accepting the deal or remaining in the EU before the clause 9 power could be used. I do not think that is feasible, and it is not desirable. The Government are clear that the British people have voted to leave the EU. We will deliver on their direction. We will deliver on their mandate. Frankly, this is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to block Brexit and defy the result of the referendum, in contrast to some of the other, legitimate, concerns raised across the House. If hon. Members wanted to hold a second referendum on the terms agreed with the EU, the proper time and place to argue for such a requirement was when the EU Referendum Act 2015 was passed. I therefore urge that the amendment not be pressed.
New clause 4 would require separate legislation to set the exit day, and new clause 66 states that the exit day cannot be set before Parliament has given its approval for the terms of the withdrawal agreement. The Government accept the case for legislative prescription of the exit day for the sake of finality and legal certainty, so I hope that the new clause has been rendered unnecessary.
New clause 19 and amendment 55 mandate that the power in clause 9 cannot be used until the publication of the withdrawal agreement, and that it should not be available until all other exit Bills have passed. It is clear that regulations cannot be made under clause 9 until an agreement exists and its contents are known. It is not necessary, then, to require on top of that that the agreement be published and placed in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries before the power can be relied on. It is of course standard practice to lay international treaties before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Equally, it is not right to tie the use of this power to the publication of other primary legislation passed in this Session. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) not to press the amendment.
Amendment 361 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is the Chair of the Justice Committee.
The amendment would create a separate power to legislate for the implementation period. I hope that the Government’s announcement of a separate Bill—primary legislation—covering the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period addresses his concern.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am grateful for that. It was intended as a probing amendment, particularly to ensure that these issues were ventilated. Given the assurances in previous days of the debate, I obviously will not push it. While I am on my feet, however, may I ask the Minister to reflect again on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)? I really think that the Government would find a means of resolving these matters if they were to bring forward their own amendment in the form suggested.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I hope he understands how, in good faith, I am seeking to engage with hon. Members on all sides of the House. It was my suggestion that the assurance would be made to him. We will reflect further as we lead into Report—
Robert Neill
I mentioned the wrong constituency name. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford would not at all want to be involved in that matter. The Minister knew who I meant. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) who made the point, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend’s point is well made.
I turn now to equalities legislation. Last week, the Government tabled amendment 391 to schedule 7. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that the Government had not come back with any amendments in response to requests. This is a clear example of where we have listened and returned. The amendment will require Ministers to state in writing, when using the powers in clauses 7 to 9, whether they amend equalities legislation and that they have
“so far as required to do so by equalities legislation, had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010.”
Dominic Raab
The right hon. Gentleman is quick off the mark. I am about to address his point. When the Bill was introduced, the Government published an equalities analysis of the Bill, and I can reassure the Committee and him—I know that he raised this on a previous day—that, as promised, we will make a similar statement in relation to all other Brexit primary legislation that has been or will be introduced to this House. I pay tribute—if she is here—to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee, for raising this important issue and for her advice in helping us to address it in a sensible and practical way.
Dominic Raab
The amendment has been tabled, and I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the assurance now that the same formula will be applied to all Brexit-related primary legislation, so he can take that one to the bank.
I turn now to amendment 19, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda. I understand his position and what he is trying to establish, but if the regulations made under clause 9 were to lapse two years after exit day, it would set a very rigid legislative timeframe for the Government and risk unnecessary disruption. If the two-year deadline expired unmet, it would create holes or risk creating holes in the statute book. I sympathise with the intentions behind the amendment, and I just wonder whether it was intended to tempt Eurosceptics on the Government Benches, but it is too rigid a fetter on Parliament’s ability to manage its legislative priorities between now and 2021, and it would risk exacerbating the very uncertainty that the Bill is designed to reduce.
Amendments 74 and 75 attempt to tie the use of clause 9 to our continued membership of the single market and the customs union. The Government have been clear that we are leaving the EU, and that necessarily means we are leaving the single market and the customs union. The amendments rehash old ground. The Government are clear that we are seeking a deep and special partnership with the EU, including as frictionless free trade as possible, and that will inevitably be linked to the withdrawal agreement. It is good news that we are moving to the negotiations on that area, following the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Prime Minister. The amendments, with the greatest respect to their SNP authors, would be counterproductive on their own terms, because they would undermine our ability to secure and implement the withdrawal agreement, which itself will be necessary for agreeing the future partnership agreement and maintaining barrier-free trade.
Charlie Elphicke
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s argument on clause 9. It seems to me that the initial intention was to do the withdrawal agreement by regulation, since when the principle of a withdrawal agreement implementation Bill has been conceded. Under the circumstances, is not the proper thing to withdraw clause 9, to prevent Opposition Members, particularly from the SNP, from using it as a Christmas tree to put Brexit-stopping measures in place?
Dominic Raab
The problem is that clause 9, although now of residual use and scope, remains vital if we want the smooth Brexit that hon. Members in all parts of the House profess to want.
In fairness, we have spent a lot of time on those amendments. I want now to turn to amendments 142, 143, 275 and 156 and new clause 38, which seek to restrict the use of clause 9 with respect to citizens’ rights. As the Prime Minister reiterated in her speech in Florence on 22 September and since, we value the contributions of EU citizens living in the UK. We want them to stay. That is why the Government repeatedly made it clear that securing the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK on exit, and equally the rights of UK nationals living on the continent, was a top priority. I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming the fact that the joint report by the UK and EU negotiators published last Friday forms the basis of the agreement after the first phase of negotiations, which will cover the rights of EU citizens here and British citizens on the continent, giving them the security, the assurances and the confidence they need.
Again, I acknowledge the vital contribution that EU citizens make to our economy and our social and national life. We will ensure that EU citizens living in the UK at the date to be specified in the light of the negotiations will be able to apply for settled status under UK immigration law once they have completed five years’ residence here. In the light of the agreement reached, I hope that hon. Members will not press those amendments.
New clause 38 and amendment 156, meanwhile, cover the specific issue of Irish citizens’ rights. Maintaining the common travel area with Ireland, protecting the reciprocal rights of British and Irish citizens, is a primary objective for the UK and has been since the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech in January. The common travel area arrangements between the UK and Ireland and the Crown dependencies, and the associated rights, have existed for many years. They pre-date the UK and Ireland’s membership of the European Union. Although it extends to the whole of the UK, the value of the common travel area and associated rights is clearly most felt in Northern Ireland. These arrangements facilitate, among other things, the north-south co-operation provided for in the Good Friday agreement and daily life on the island of Ireland.
There is a strong appetite on both sides of the border and in all parts of the UK to maintain those rights. They are distinct from EU membership and are already provided for by domestic legislation. The joint report by UK and EU negotiators safeguards these interests. Given that agreement and the strong commitment from both the UK Government and, in fairness, the European Commission that these arrangements are protected and will be protected, new clause 38 and amendment 156 are unnecessary, and I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press them.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I just want him to clarify a very important issue. We are talking about clause 9 and amendments to it. The Minister and his colleagues will know that any regulations that could be made under clause 7 are restricted, in that they cannot create new criminal offences, cannot have retrospective effect and cannot affect the Human Rights Act. Those exemptions are mirrored in clause 9, apart from the reference to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the protections given to the Good Friday agreement. In the light of the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on Monday about the commitments to the Northern Ireland Act and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, why is there such a glaring omission in clause 9, in terms of the protections offered to the Northern Ireland Act?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. There is absolutely no intention to use clause 9 in any way that would disrupt the Belfast agreement. The short answer to her is that these are just different technical devices, dealing with different technical aspects of withdrawal.
Lady Hermon
Forgive me for correcting the Minister. I do not mean to be rude, but clauses 7 to 9 extend to Northern Ireland, so these powers will also be extended to Northern Ireland—schedule 2 extends them to Northern Ireland—so if we had an Executive up and running again, Ministers in a devolved Assembly could make regulations that affected the Good Friday agreement. The protection to the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—has to be written into clause 9, so I suggest that the Government take it away tonight, redraft it and come back on Report with something that satisfies everyone in this House, including the Minister.
Dominic Raab
It is important that any changes that may need to be made to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure that the UK can honour its international commitments can be made. Any such changes could be made only to ensure ongoing compliance with our international obligations, and could not substantively change the agreed devolution settlement or deviate from the terms of the Belfast agreement. I should be happy to write to the hon. Lady and spell that out in more detail.
Vicky Ford
As a new Member, I have listened intently as many Members on both sides of the Committee—some who voted to remain and others who voted to leave—have talked about the fundamental flaws in clause 9. The rest of the world is watching how we regulate at the moment. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will come up with amendments to clause 9 on Report?
Dominic Raab
As I said earlier, clause 9 retains the residual necessity to provide us with agility in these negotiations. I think that I have given the assurances on substance that Conservative Members and, I believe, some Opposition Members wished to hear. If other Members want to table amendments on Report, I will of course continue the dialogue in which I have engaged all along.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make some progress, because I have been on my feet for some time.
Dominic Raab
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have given way to him already. I am going to make some progress.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) knows better—and he also knows better than to raise his eyebrows because I have called for order. He does it often enough, and it is not his job.
Dominic Raab
A number of Members have tabled amendments seeking to maintain the UK’s membership of EU agencies, institutions and international agreements, as well as our participation in EU programmes and access to EU systems and databases. They also seek to ensure that measures are put in place so that we are ready domestically to thrive when we leave the EU. Those amendments include amendments 196 to 199, 241 to 261, 276, 224 and 225, and a number of others.
The Government recognise that a large number of the UK’s relationships with non-EU partners and international organisations are linked to our membership of the EU, and specifically to the Euratom treaty, which deals with nuclear co-operation. Maintaining close links after we leave is important, and in many cases will be in the interests of both the UK and the EU.
Mr Vaizey
I know that my hon. Friend has been on his feet for 50 minutes. We should be happy to have another 50 minutes, because he is doing brilliantly. He has just mentioned Euratom. As he knows, amendment 300 was signed by more Members than any of the other amendments. I hate to keep asking him to come back with proposals on Report, but will he give a commitment that the Government will at least publish a strategy for their future relationship with Euratom by then, and that the strategy will be updated quarterly so that we can maintain progress? As I said in my speech earlier, Ministers have been brilliant on this issue, but we do need to partner with them.
Dominic Raab
The Government intend to present a written ministerial statement to Parliament before Report which will set out our vision, or strategy, for a close association with Euratom. I hope that the commitment to that statement will reassure my right hon. Friend, and that he will not feel the need to press his amendment to a vote.
Dominic Raab
I want to make some progress, but I will give way once to the hon. Lady.
Rachel Reeves
On the subject of amendment 300, will the Minister confirm that the Government intend any implementation period for leaving the EU to apply to leaving Euratom as well?
Dominic Raab
That will be addressed in the written ministerial statement and the strategy that will be forthcoming very shortly, and the hon. Lady will have an opportunity for scrutiny then.
We will work with the Commission on addressing those international agreements when the parties have a shared stake, and a shared interest, in continuity. Similarly, the Government recognise the need to maintain a strong relationship with the EU in the future. We are seeking to forge a deep and special partnership with our EU friends, and our relationship with the EU’s agencies and bodies on exit will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. No final decisions have yet been made on our future relationship with the EU’s agencies and bodies after leaving the EU, and we are carefully considering a range of options. Where there is a demonstrable national interest in pursuing a continued relationship with an agency or other EU body, the Government will look very carefully at whether and how we can pursue that, and of course it is a matter for negotiations.
That brings me to why these amendments are, while well-intentioned, unhelpful. The first reason is because negotiations are ongoing and we cannot allow our negotiating position to be prejudiced or pre-empted. The Government are working to achieve the best possible deal with the EU. We welcome the constructive and thoughtful amendments from hon. Members, but we cannot accept any that might undermine the Government’s negotiating position or restrict our room for manoeuvre, not least in terms of striking the kind of arrangements that hon. Members in tabling these amendments want to see.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make some more progress, if I may.
Secondly, the Government have committed to ensuring that the withdrawal agreement with the EU can be fully implemented in UK law by exit day. The clause 9 power to implement the withdrawal agreement will be crucial in achieving this in the way I have described. This power will help to ensure we are in a position to swiftly implement the contents of the withdrawal agreement required to be in place for day one, ensuring maximum legal certainty upon exit. Again, I respectfully remind hon. Members that, if the UK is unable to implement the withdrawal agreement in time, that risks us being unable to meet our obligations under international law and scuppering the prospects of the very deal I think Members on all sides want to achieve.
To ensure a smooth and orderly exit, it is essential that appropriate legislative changes have been made by the point of exit. We want to give ourselves the capability to make those appropriate changes swiftly, and to support businesses and individuals and make sure the country is ready. The power in the Bill enables that, and those aims will be put at risk by these amendments.
I now turn briefly to amendments 227, 228 and 229, which prevent the clause 9 power from being used until a number of economic assessments have been published. The Government have been undertaking rigorous and extensive analysis to support our exit negotiations, to define our future partnership with the EU and to inform our understanding of how EU exit will affect the UK’s domestic policies. The Government have already established a process for providing economic and fiscal reports. The OBR independently produces official forecasts for the Government and is required to produce detailed five-year forecasts for the economy and public finances twice a year at autumn Budget and spring statement. Those forecasts reflect publicly stated Government policy at the time that those forecasts are made, and that includes policy on leaving the EU.
We have been very clear that we will not disclose material that might undermine the UK in the negotiations. In particular, in any negotiation, information on potential economic considerations is very important to the negotiating capital and negotiating position of all parties.
The Government want to get the best deal for the UK and hope—and, indeed, are confident—that this House is united in that goal, even if the means to achieve it may differ on some aspects of detail, and we do not want the UK’s negotiating position to be undermined. For that reason, we cannot support those amendments.
Amendment 230 requests an assessment of the broader responsibility of the Treasury. That is unnecessary. The Treasury’s core purpose is to be an effective finance and economics Ministry. As a finance Ministry, the Treasury will continue to account for public expenditure and manage the public finances. As an economics Ministry, it will continue to prioritise policy that reduces obstacles to growth, and manage key relationships with finance Ministries overseas. The Government do not see the UK’s withdrawal from the EU changing those core responsibilities of the Treasury, and an assessment to confirm that would be a waste of valuable public finances and is unnecessary.
I turn now to amendments 262 and 263. The Government recognise the huge importance of the legal services sector to the UK economy; it contributed £24 billion in 2015. The Government also recognise that legal services underpin many other important parts of the UK economy, including financial services, manufacturing and the creative industries. We propose a bold and ambitious partnership between the UK and the EU, and we will prioritise securing the freest trade possible in services. The Government are committed to securing the best deal for the legal profession.
In the Government’s July position paper, “Ongoing Union judicial and administrative proceedings”, the Government also made it clear that leaving the EU will end the direct jurisdiction of the European Court. At the same time, the UK is committed to minimising uncertainty and disruption for individuals and businesses, including those arising from changes in the treatment of cases pending at the time of exit. That is why we want an agreement on an implementation period based on the existing structure of rules and regulations, so that there is only one set of changes. The laying of such reports, as proposed in the amendments, would delay and impede the important legislative work necessary to prepare the legal services sector for all possible negotiation outcomes, and I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment 343 would prevent regulations from being made under clause 9 before the Secretary of State had laid before Parliament a strategy for a food standards framework after EU withdrawal. The UK has a world-leading set of standards on food safety and quality, backed up by a rigorous legislative framework. The Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and other relevant Government bodies are working closely together to ensure that the regulatory regime for food safety remains robust as Britain leaves the EU. The Government are committed to ensuring high food standards at home and promoting high standards internationally. There will be opportunities to build on our world-leading reputation for quality and standards, but it would not be appropriate for the Government to tie their use of the clause 9 power to the publishing of any individual or particular reports.
The purpose of clause 9 is to incorporate the withdrawal agreement fully and comprehensively into UK law, so that we can fulfil our obligations under the withdrawal agreement and under international law. The power is not intended to be used to report on the Government’s post-exit domestic strategy. To caveat the power or to define it in that way would cause uncertainty, both for our EU partners and for businesses and citizens in this country. I hope that I have addressed as many of the amendments relating to clause 9 as possible, and that clause 9 will now stand part of the Bill unamended.
I shall now turn briefly to clauses 16 and 17 and schedule 7. Clause 16 gives effect to schedule 7, which provides for the parliamentary scrutiny of the secondary legislation made under the powers in the Bill, including under clause 9. The Bill attempts to strike a balance between the need to prepare our statute book in time for the end of the article 50 process and the need, on the other side, for Parliament to undertake proper scrutiny. The Bill does this using long-established parliamentary procedures. These are the usual procedures that have been used by all Governments for decades with no dilution of the normal scrutiny process.
However, the Government have always said that we would listen and reflect on the concerns raised by the House. We understand the concern that there might not be enough scrutiny of the instruments made under the Bill. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), made it clear in the Committee yesterday that the Government would support the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), which I hope will be supported by the whole of this Committee.
These amendments draw on the Procedure Committee’s expertise and its recent interim report, and will ensure that the House has an opportunity to challenge the appropriateness of the use of the procedure for instruments made under the three main powers in the Bill. The amendments do this without undermining the certainty that we wish to provide. For instruments brought forward under clause 9, as with the other powers in the Bill, this means that where the Government propose the negative procedure for an instrument, the House will be able to recommend that it should instead be debated and voted on as an affirmative instrument, giving an even clearer voice to this House in scrutinising how these powers are used. Other instruments, if not made using the urgency procedure—which I will come to—will be affirmative, guaranteeing the opportunity for a debate on the instrument.
Schedule 7 sets out a series of triggers for the use of the affirmative procedure. These are for some of the substantial uses of the power or for those where more complex decisions are required—for example, creating a new public body, creating new fees or other charges, or creating new powers to legislate. The Minister responsible for the instrument can also choose the affirmative procedure even where the instrument does not meet any of the tests in schedule 7. We have taken the same approach to changes to either primary or secondary legislation. Some changes to primary legislation can be mechanistic and minor, and adopting the affirmative procedure for small corrections to primary legislation would be impractical. Instead, the requirement for affirmative procedures is based on the type of change rather than the type of legislation in which the change is being made.
In rare cases, there are urgency procedures, both in the Bill as introduced and in the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee. I can assure the Committee that we would only use those procedures very sparingly—for example, in cases where there was a clear practical reason to have a correction made in time for exit day or for a particular other day when limited time was available. Such a situation could arise, for example, because the content of a particular statutory instrument was dependent on a negotiation that took place nearer the end of the exit process. I know there are amendments on the paper today, such as those in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie)—I am trying to see whether he is still in his place, but no, he is not at the moment—which seek to restrict the use of this power to “emergency” situations. I hope the Committee will understand that the word “emergency” is not quite right in these circumstances, and that “urgency” is the more accurate description if we are to ensure that we have legal certainty.
Finally—I am grateful to the Committee for its patience—clause 17 is designed to make consequential and transitional provision to other laws as a result, not of our exit from the EU, but of the operation of the Bill. It contains powers to ensure that the Bill is properly bedded into the statute book and could be used, for instance, for housekeeping tasks such as revoking designation orders.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
This debate started with an extremely eloquent and passionate contribution by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on the meaningful vote that this House has been promised, on the timing of that vote, and on how we can ensure that the Government do not proceed with the detail of the withdrawal agreement, and probably the ultimate trade agreement, without the consent of this House. My hon. Friend the Minister has spent an extremely valuable hour taking us through the foothills of the drafting of the Bill and the administrative procedures that might be necessary before we leave. I asked him for a political argument if he wants to resist the idea, put forward by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that this House demands a meaningful vote before the Government actually start enacting the outcome of any agreement they have made, so does he have a little time to address that? Is there anything left in his notes that covers that?
Dominic Raab
I welcome the chance to reiterate what has already been said and what is already set out in the written ministerial statement: we will guarantee that there will be a meaningful vote in this House, and that none of statutory instruments introduced under clause 9 will enter into force until we have had that meaningful vote. That squarely addresses the substantive issue that my right hon. and learned Friend is getting at. He criticises me for dealing with all the other amendments, but it is only fair in the proper course of parliamentary proceedings to ensure that all amendments from all hon. Members are fairly addressed.
Dominic Raab
I will not. I am going to finish, because I have been at it for well over an hour and I want to make my final points and give other Members the opportunity to have their say.
Orders under clause 7 will designate Ministers so that they can exercise the power in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to implement EU obligations. Once the 1972 Act is repealed, designation orders will be redundant, so we need to be able to tidy up such laws on the statute book. Hon. Members will know that consequential provisions are a standard part of many pieces of legislation, even legislation of constitutional importance such as the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 or the devolution Acts. Equally, transitional provisions are a standard way of smoothing the application of a change in the UK statute book.
The Bill already includes the lengthy schedule 8, which contains consequential amendments, but some more may be needed, and it will take time for departmental experts to identify and correctly resolve others. For example, the Bill amends the definition of “enactment” in the Interpretation Act 1978, and Departments will need to review all the references to “enactment” across the whole statute book to identify any that need amending as a consequence of the Bill. That is not a novel use of a consequential power, because the definition of “enactment” was inserted into the 1978 Act by the Scotland Act 1998, and the consequential power in the 1998 Act was then used to amend other references as a consequence. The Government are therefore taking a normal power to make these and other important but technical consequential amendments as they are identified.
Hon. Members will know that transitional, transitory and saving provisions are standard ways to smooth the introduction of change to the statute book. As with clause 9, it is important that we can provide legal certainty to everyone in the UK, from businesses to individual citizens. For example, the Bill removes the UK from the direct jurisdiction of the Luxembourg Court, but the UK will remain a full member of the EU up until the very moment of exit. The power could therefore make specific provision for court cases still before a court on exit day. Again, schedule 8 introduces some of those measures, but Government will need some residual flexibility to ensure that we do not create uncertainty as we leave. I can reassure the Committee that the Government cannot abuse such powers. Case law and an array of legal authorities provide a very narrow scope for the exercise of the powers, which are necessary to ensure that we can enable a process of exit from the EU that promotes maximum certainty. I commend clauses 16 and 17 and schedule 7 to the Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Now that the Minister has spoken and taken a great many interventions, many of the issues before us have been fully discussed. I appreciate there are a lot more amendments to be spoken to, but the Committee will know that a lot of people have just risen to indicate that they wish to speak, and we have less than an hour and a half left.
I cannot impose a time limit in Committee, but if hon. Members speak for more than three minutes, they are depriving someone else of the opportunity to speak. That might indeed be the intention of some hon. Members, and there are many hon. Members who prefer to listen to their own voice than to give any time to others. We shall see in the next hour and a half which is which.
I am sure I can rely on Seema Malhotra to behave properly.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mrs Laing. I will do my best but, with short notice, I may struggle to bring my speech down to three minutes.
It is a pleasure to follow many hon. Friends and hon. Members in lending my support to new clause 3, amendment 7 and new clause 66, which speak to the intention of Members on both sides of the Committee to engage constructively and thoughtfully on the role of Parliament and on when, and how, Parliament has a say on the fundamental issue of the withdrawal agreement.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to address my new clause 69 and to thank the 40 hon. Members from both sides of the Committee who put their name to it. New clause 69 seeks to lay out a simple road map to provide clarity on the role of Parliament in the final months before Brexit.
The Government put out a statement today, setting out the role of Parliament in approving the agreements and how the agreements will be put into force. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments, I will lay out why the statement does not go far enough in addressing this fundamental issue—the Minister also did not adequately address these points.
The Brexit Secretary said in his written statement—there is no disagreement with this—that:
“A Withdrawal Agreement will be negotiated under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union…whilst the UK is a member of the EU. It will set out the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU…as well as…any implementation period agreed between both sides.
Article 50(2) of the TEU sets out that the Withdrawal Agreement should take account of the terms for the departing Member State’s future relationship with the EU.”
We believe that partially parallel process is soon to be under way.
Michel Barnier has said that he wants to have the withdrawal agreement finalised by October 2018, which is indeed the Government’s stated intention. The Prime Minister said today that she fully expects the vote to be “well before March 2019.” The Government have committed to holding a vote on the final deal as soon as possible after the negotiations have been finalised, and the Brexit Secretary’s statement says:
“This legislation will be introduced before the UK exits the EU”.
I very much hope that all goes according to plan. It is in the interest of the country for there to be an orderly, stable and predictable Brexit process that enables businesses and families to plan ahead and do all they can to manage the risks of transition. If the Government are as confident of that as they would wish us to believe, I hope they are able to confirm today that they will accept amendment 7 and respond to the points raised in my new clause 69, which seeks to do nothing other than include in the Bill the commitments the Government made in their stated policy intentions. Although I will not be pressing new clause 69 to a vote, I reserve the right to bring back the issues at a later stage.
Legislation is not passed to plan for when things go well but to provide protections and a route map for action when things do not go well. There may well be an honest intention to reach a deal by October 2018, but there is no guarantee. I am not attempting to talk down the Government’s negotiation attempts, but there has been a consistent view—indeed, reiterated by the Prime Minister today—that she fully expects a vote before March 2019. That is not a promise, because we know it cannot be.
I am also representing the views expressed by the Brexit Secretary on 25 October 2017, when he said we could go up to the 59th minute of the eleventh hour. The Government may have sought to row back on that, but the experience suggests and the reality is that it may well end up being the case.
Michel Barnier said this morning that negotiations are difficult and “tough” and that he wants steps to be taken for an “orderly withdrawal”. He has stated today that a full trade deal will not be possible by the time the UK leaves the EU. With only 15 months left to Brexit day, we must recognise that in these complex times the unpredictable can happen, and that in those circumstances, which none of us would wish to see, we need to have planned ahead effectively. We need certainty for Parliament, for our constituents, and for business and industry about how we will proceed.
My new clause states that in the event of no deal being reached by October 2018 or a deal not having been passed by both Houses of Parliament by February 2019, with a month to go the Prime Minister must: seek agreement with the EU to extend the article 50 time period; or seek agreement with the EU to finalise the terms of the withdrawal agreement through the period of transition after the article 50 notice expires and the EU treaties cease to apply to the UK; or seek agreement on any other course of action in line with a resolution of this House. This is important as it gives an opportunity for timely—I repeat, timely—engagement of this House, which is critical in order for any vote to be meaningful.
My new clause does not specify which of those the Government should seek to do, but it sets out three clear options that could be vital in keeping order and stability in the weeks and months before exit day. Let me be clear also that this is not about an unnecessary extension of the process; it is about allowing provision for and clarity on the circumstances in which it may be called upon, most likely for a short period of months. That can only be helpful in managing the risks of Brexit, particularly in the event that a deal is well under way but has not been finalised. It would certainly not be against the spirit of the referendum result, and at the time could precisely be in the national interest.
I do not believe that in truth this approach should be any great distance from Government policy, and it simply picks up on paragraph 3 of article 50, which states:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
I do not believe there has been any suggestion from the European Council or elsewhere that such a request would not be agreed to if it were proven to be necessary.
In the light of aspects of stated Government policy, new clause 69 and amendment 7 should be nothing other than helpful. I wish to make a few points on this, Mrs Laing, which I shall summarise. The Government have made it clear that they will want to see a vote of this Parliament—after a challenging journey on that policy, they made that commitment in their manifesto in May. As has been stated today, however, the challenge is that it is not clear, and there certainly is no consensus on, what constitutes “meaningful”. Indeed, there has been a difference in view on this. First, the Secretary of State said:
“The House will have the opportunity to vote on any number of pieces of legislation before we get to the end and then will have a vote to decide whether what it gets is acceptable. I cannot see how it can be made more meaningful than that.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1222.]
Yet, five days later, his deputy Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), said:
“Let me say this. It will be a meaningful vote. As I have said, it will be the choice between leaving the European Union with a negotiated deal or not. To send the Government back to the negotiating table would be the surest way of undermining our negotiating position and delivering a worse deal.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 273.]
This is surely the crux of the issue about the ability of Parliament to influence this Government and the negotiations to get the best deal for our country.
That brings me to my final point, which is about the issue of no deal. If the Government were to proceed on the basis of no deal, that itself would not be after a vote of this House. No deal obviously would bring huge risks to our economy and it would have a legally questionable status, and those views of stakeholders are of no surprise to Ministers in this House.
I would rather we were not in this positon and I would rather not have had to table the new clause, but I believe strongly that it would provide important safeguards for the country and for people in our constituencies, who will be picking up the pieces if we crash out of the European Union. Parliamentary scrutiny and sovereignty are our duty and responsibility. I may not push for a vote today, but I reserve the right to bring my new clause back to the House, depending on what further comments the Minister makes. The House deserves a definite timeline for a vote, and to be confident of the meaningfulness of that vote.
Mr Jenkin
I have listened to this entire debate with close interest. I think that we are all agreed that we want an orderly process for leaving the EU, which means a sensible withdrawal agreement along with a clear and detailed commitment to an EU-UK trade agreement and a period of implementation, but I also think we all agree that if no satisfactory agreement arrives, we still all voted to leave the EU. Well, we nearly all voted to leave the EU: I respect my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), but he voted against the triggering of article 50, as did some others. Those of us who voted to trigger article 50 voted to leave on 29 March 2019.
Stephen Kinnock
Article 50 clearly states that an extension can be requested, so when we voted to trigger it, we voted to trigger a clause that included the possibility of requesting an extension.
Mr Jenkin
I will come back to the way Parliament interacts with the process, but it would be really rather foolish for this House and the Government to premise all their plans on the basis that that request would be acceded to, because it would require unanimity. I have not heard a single public statement from the EU or a European diplomat that suggested for a moment that they would countenance extending the deadline. Of course, why would they? The deadline written into article 50 is to their advantage. I expect that the hon. Gentleman would have voted for the Lisbon treaty, which contains article 50, but I did not vote for it. I have always thought that article 50 was a snare and a trap. It sets a deadline, against which we are now negotiating, and that is the only prudent way to negotiate.
I loathe secondary legislation that amends primary legislation expressed in Acts of Parliament. It is an odious practice that has entered the legislative process in this House—this is by no means the first Bill that contains so-called Henry VIII clauses—but I can justify such powers as a basis for reversing the effects of our membership of the EU. It may seem to be an irony, but it is by the process of secondary legislation that we have been gradually integrated into the EU.
We have seen order after order coming under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. More often than not, it was a “take it or take it” option: we did not even have a “take it or leave it” option once it was expressed in EU law. The advantages of allowing secondary legislation under this Bill are that, first, the legislation will ultimately be answerable to the House; secondly, the powers are temporary; thirdly, they can be subject to revision or annulment at any future time; and finally, they are underpinned by the democratic authority of a referendum.
On a “take it or leave it” vote, I do not remember debating a single new treaty that was offered to the House on the basis that we could amend the treaty by passing an Act of Parliament. Whether to accept the Lisbon treaty was a “take it or leave it” decision. We were told that if we did not accept the treaty, it would create such chaos that it would force us to leave the EU.
I do not doubt the bona fides of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others on the Government Benches, but my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) exposed very ably the fact that there are people in the House who want to use amendment 7 as a means to extend the negotiation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was absolutely explicit on that point. I appreciate that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), did his best to avoid answering the question, but he made it clear that he thinks the deadline will have to be extended.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend meant all that stuff about my challenging the result of the referendum.
Mr Clarke
I am sorry; I misheard my hon. Friend. I do not think for one moment that we will have completed any of these negotiations by March 2019, but I will wait to see. There are perfectly clear arrangements in article 50 for the time to be extended. I have met several other European politicians, including some of those involved in the negotiations, who rather expect that to happen.
Mr Jenkin
As I say, it is not something that we can bank on.
May I just deal with this question of what is a meaningful vote? I cannot find anything clearer than the ministerial statement that was issued this morning. It says that
“the Government has committed to hold a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded.”
It continues:
“This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship. The Government will not implement any parts of the withdrawal agreement—for example by using clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—until after this vote has taken place.”
That seems to provide the assurances that my right hon. and learned Friend is looking for and that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice has repeated already from the Dispatch Box.
Anna Soubry
Does my hon. Friend agree that, to be meaningful, there has to be some time between that vote and such time as we leave the European Union? That is the whole point. A meaningful vote comes before something that is basically to be rubber-stamped. That is the whole point of “meaningful”. When does he anticipate that we will have that vote?
Mr Jenkin
The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do that the intention is to try to conclude an agreement by October 2018, but, again, there is no guarantee of that fact, in which case the resolution will be tabled soon after 2018. May I just point out that amendment 7, proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, is trying to create a meaningful vote by turning this resolution of both Houses into a statute?
Mr Jenkin
Yes, a statute has been promised, but not as a means of second-guessing the negotiations. At what stage in the passage of the statute does my right hon. and learned Friend expect the Government to use that moment and say, “Oh, well, they haven’t agreed with this bit of the agreement; we’ll have to go back.” Is it during the passage of the statute that the negotiations would have to continue? Making this decision a statute does not alter the discussion about a meaningful vote.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I think that he may misunderstand the position. The House will have an opportunity, at the time that it is asked to move a motion approving the deal, to express its view, but it will also have an opportunity to express its view during the passage of the statute. Both those are necessary pre-conditions constitutionally for our leaving the European Union. I cannot help that; that is just how it is. Let me reiterate: the purpose of my amendment is to prevent the powers in clause 9 being used until this key statute has been enacted. That is the purpose.
John Redwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a process completely driven by Parliament? We have an Act of Parliament to send the letter, an Act of Parliament proposed now to withdraw and then another Act of Parliament to implement any agreement. The whole thing is completely under parliamentary sovereignty. Will he also confirm that we must have the date in the Bill to ensure legal continuity, as, under international law, we are leaving at the end of March because of the treaty?
Mr Jenkin
It is wishful thinking that the deadline will be extended. Where I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is over the fact that, somehow, he thinks that the withdrawal agreement is necessary for us to leave the European Union and that the statute for the agreement is therefore necessary. Unfortunately, it is not. He voted for article 50, which triggered the process of leaving. Everything else is for our domestic legislation. Let us hope that there is a withdrawal agreement, but, actually, this Bill is what is necessary to provide legal continuity. Unfortunately, requiring another Act of Parliament before provisions of this Bill come into effect is just muddying the waters.
As the Minister has already demonstrated very forcefully, this is not an effective amendment. If my right hon. and learned Friend wants to table a different amendment, as colleagues almost seem to be suggesting, that might be a way to resolve this. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends on this point. There is a summit tomorrow. This is not the moment to try to defeat the Government—[Interruption.]
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mrs Laing. Are summits now to be sovereign over Parliament?
Anna Soubry
On a point of order, Mrs Laing. I will put up with all sorts of things, but I will not have an hon. Member saying that I have said things that I have not said. Will my hon. Friend retract what he said, because I have not said, “It’s too late”? What I have said is that we have been speaking to the Government for months. This matter was first raised in this place in February and we are still waiting for a resolution.
The First Deputy Chairman
The right hon. Lady knows that that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is about to conclude his speech, and the more that other hon. Members shout at him and interrupt him, the less chance other Members will have to speak.
Mr Jenkin
I think that some people in this House might be trying to delay Brexit, some of whom may be supporting the amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, but I perfectly accept his bona fides and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage. I simply conclude that there is an opportunity for the discussions to continue. It is not necessary to bring this matter to a vote this evening.
Chuka Umunna
I will try to do this in three minutes, and I have three principal points. I do not want to speak for long because the points I will make in support of amendment 7 and new clause 3 have already been made very well by the right hon. and learned Members for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and others.
My first point is that if taking back control does not mean passing amendment 7, I do not know what does. We were told that we were leaving the European Union to reassert parliamentary sovereignty, and it seems to me that that is exactly what amendment 7 would do. Clearly, the Government are refusing to accept it. We have heard nothing from the Dispatch Box that suggests that they are prepared to concede on this, forcing the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield to press the amendment to a vote. That brings me to my second point.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and others who are supporting his amendment have been attacked, as he mentioned earlier, not just in this place, but beyond. They have been called mutineers and saboteurs, and have faced all the rest of the abuse. Ministers and other Tory Members of Parliament in particular who have been attacking them have absolutely no right whatever to do so because the reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman tabled his amendment was that he felt that it was in the national interest.
Now, the Brexit Secretary has voted against his party over 90 times. The International Trade Secretary has done so 19 times; the International Development Secretary, five times; and the Leader of the House, who was here earlier, seven times. Actually, look around the Government Benches. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has voted against his party 73 times; the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), 64 times; the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), 95 times; and we cannot, of course, forget the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has voted against his party more than 100 times. So none of these people can now lecture people who are seeking to do the right thing in the national interest on this amendment. None of them can lecture people about rebelling on this or any other matter.
Antoinette Sandbach
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is deeply insulting for those who have time and again voted against their Prime Minister and their Government to suggest in this crucial Bill, which will help to set the future course of this country, that it would be wrong for us to do the proper scrutiny and to apply for votes in this House?
Chuka Umunna
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right.
As my third point, before I quickly wrap up, I want to be absolutely clear about what I believe we mean when we talk about a meaningful vote. For all the technical points that have been made from the Dispatch Box today and for all the high-quality legal debate we have had in this Chamber, the fact of the matter is that we cannot have a meaningful vote on the terms of our withdrawal unless it comes before we leave the European Union. Nothing said from the Government Dispatch Box today or at any other time has committed us to ensuring that we have that vote before we leave.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, who is no longer in his place, talked about time. The reason for the third part of article 50 allowing for an extension is so that people can extend the time if they run out of time to make the practical arrangements for a country’s withdrawal from the European Union. With all due respect to the Minister and his seven years as a Foreign Office lawyer, or whatever his experience, we do not know, unless we ask the question, whether we will be able to get the extension provided for in that article. It is pure speculation on his part to suggest that, somehow, if we run out of time by 29 March 2018, our EU partners will not be reasonable enough to grant us the time to follow the correct procedures in this Parliament.
In a way, my final point was made just now by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). We have a duty as legislators to properly scrutinise things that come before us. We will not be forgiven by future generations—of course, many of these people did not vote for us to leave the European Union—unless we scrutinise what the Government are doing to ensure that we get the best deal for these people. Of course, there are many issues that weigh on our shoulders. Everybody here will say they are acting in the national interest, and they act on behalf of their constituents, but let us be honest: there are other issues that always play on people’s minds. How will this affect me and my political journey? How will it affect my party? However, the hon. Lady was absolutely right: this is one of those moments when we have to do the right thing by the country—and nothing else.
Mr Baron
I rise to address amendment 7, in particular, which I hope the Committee will reject if it is put to a vote. However, may I first quickly put on record an exchange I had with the Father of the House—I am sorry he is not in the Chamber. In his usual courteous manner, he suggested that I had misquoted him when I said he had once said:
“I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe.”
He suggested I had got the quote from social media, but, in reality, it is given in volume 23 of the International Currency Review from 1996. I thought it wise to put that right, if only for the record.
I note the amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and I see that he is also not in the Chamber. He once suggested that, having been the only Conservative to vote against going into Libya, I was leading the charmed life of a rebel. I think he now knows that when we vote against our Government, we are not leading a charmed life—it is a pretty awkward situation sometimes, and I think he is now finding that out for himself.
Amendment 7 has several flaws. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) set out a number of them. He also spoke about the importance of having clarity of intention when addressing this issue, but I want to raise an additional point that has not been covered. Amendment 7 is fundamentally flawed because it leaves open at least the possibility—given that the EU does not, in reality, want any member to leave—that as there would be no incentive for the EU to negotiate a good deal that this Parliament could accept, we could find ourselves in a permanent state of limbo, deadlocked in unproductive negotiations for months and months with no incentive for the other side to pursue a constructive deal. Members should reflect hard on that practical flaw as they go through the Lobby, assuming that the amendment is put to the vote.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the incentive would be to make sure that the deal was as bad as possible so that we would be left in a limbo whereby we cannot leave, yet cannot move on?
Mr Baron
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are trying to negotiate a good deal, but it takes two to tango. The amendment leaves open the door for the other side not to try to negotiate a good deal, knowing that it could drag out the negotiations and therefore prevent, at least until this Parliament were to accept the deal, our leaving the EU. If that was the case—
Mr Baron
I will in a second if I can just finish my point.
If that was the case, it would be an outrage with regard to the result of the EU referendum, in which over 17 million people voted to leave with the best possible deal. Those 17 million people had no third option on the ballot paper. There was not an option of staying in a semi-permanent state of negotiating limbo while talks progressed over a period of months and maybe years; it was a very clear yes or no. In addition, such a limbo—
Antoinette Sandbach
I am slightly confused by the point that my hon. Friend is making. I thought that taking back control meant taking back control to this Parliament, but that is clearly not his argument. In fact, he almost seems to distrust parliamentarians, despite the fact that we voted for the referendum and to trigger article 50.
Mr Baron
I can help my hon. Friend with her confusion, because the point is very simple. If an amendment suggests that the option is left open for the other side in any negotiation not to negotiate in good faith, so that this Parliament does not sanction the deal because it is not a good deal, that will delay our exit. It is very straightforward. It takes two to tango in a negotiation. I suggest that she reflects on that.
While most of us want a deal, those who criticise the Prime Minister’s position that no deal is better than a bad deal create a series of straw men to support their case. The term “no deal” itself is something of a misnomer, because it creates the idea of some sort of cliff edge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trade flows regardless of trade deals. The UK would simply revert to using the same WTO rules that govern its trade with countries such as the United States, China, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil—hardly unimportant countries.
As for the trade deals themselves, the next straw man is the suggestion that the UK would find it difficult to negotiate them in sufficient time. If Australia can negotiate trade deals with China, South Korea and Japan within 18 months, there is no reason why the UK cannot do likewise. If anything, a trade deal with the EU will be easy to negotiate because many of the trade barriers have already been removed.
The suggestion that inward investment would suffer without a trade deal is another straw man. That is to ignore the fact that investment is about relative advantage, as anybody who has worked in the City or in industry will understand. Our much lower corporation tax rates, our more flexible labour market practices and policies, the strength of our R and D and science, our language and our time zone more than compensate for having to pay an average WTO tariff of 3% to 5%, particularly given that the currency has already depreciated.
Tonight I will be supporting the Government and rejecting amendment 7. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we will be leaving the EU—that includes the customs union and the single market—in March 2019, and that the European Court of Justice will have no further jurisdiction over British law. I support the stance that no deal is better than a bad deal, and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That includes any proposed financial settlement.
My final point is that there is another reason why I support the Government, and it relates to trust. We are not privy to the ups and downs or the ins and outs of the negotiations, so one has to make a judgment as to whether the individuals concerned are honourable. I believe the Prime Minister to be honourable in what she has said. Having known the Ministers involved for many years, I also trust them to deliver the best possible deal. I suggest that those who support proposals such as amendment 7 should trust the EU a little less and their own Government a little more. Our Government have, after all, made concessions in good faith.
Tom Brake
Perhaps I could suggest a handicap system for Members who observe the advisory time limit on speeches.
If the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) thinks that the European Union is keen to drag things out, he has clearly not spoken to many EU diplomats. They want this to be over; they are not as obsessed with Brexit as he might be.
I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for his rational discourse in relation to amendment 7. Unlike me, he cannot be described as wanting to stop Brexit. He does not want to, but I do—democratically, with a vote on the deal. That is covered by amendment 120, which we will vote on next Wednesday. But he and I are certainly in the same place when it comes to the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, and legislative rigour and accuracy. He set out cogent arguments in favour of amendment 7, and he described the extent to which he has bent over backwards in the last few weeks to try to secure agreement from the Government on a way forward, but failed to do so.
The Minister’s main argument against amendment 7 was time pressure. The Government have, to a great extent, inflicted that problem on themselves, whether through the general election that they called, by triggering article 50 when they did, or by refusing to entertain the option of extending the article 50 process. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said that EU had not offered such an extension but, as I understand it, the UK has at no point ever asked for one. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield set out a very neat solution to the problem that the Government outlined, and the Minister did not manage to convince the very experienced senior Members who were sitting behind him. He might not have seen it, but the body language and facial expressions of those behind him reinforced the point that, frankly, the Government have not deployed very cogent arguments in favour of opposing amendment 7. I look forward to voting on that amendment, and to Parliament taking back control.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will not be voting for article 7, because I think it is a mistake—[Interruption.] I am extremely grateful; I mean amendment 7. The amendment calls for legislation to be put in afterwards, which is a very unusual thing for a Bill to do—I believe it is unprecedented. If people do not like clause 9, they should vote against it, rather than voting for this unusual amendment.
I want to make it clear, however, that I very much accept the good faith of those who argue for amendment 7. Those of us who opposed the Government when they were very pro-European should not criticise Members such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—Disraeli pronounced the constituency name slightly differently—when they decide to take the reverse position of the one we took in previous years. What they are doing is completely reasonable.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a quite natural solution, which is to put the assurance given at the Dispatch Box into the clause when the Bill comes back on Report?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend’s speech was absolutely brilliant. He got to the heart of all these matters, and indeed he provided a solution, which is that there should be such a good-spirited compromise that places some faith in the Government, as it is reasonable for Members of Parliament to do. We should recognise that it is better to have a clear response on Report that covers the whole problem than to agree an amendment that is constitutionally abnormal, because we should not agree to such amendments.
I follow the Minister’s argument that there are circumstances in which clause 9 could be useful. If an agreement comes relatively late on, I understand that there will be an urgency in getting statutory instruments presented. There also will be a Prorogation before May 2019, so there might be a delay in the proceedings on the withdrawal and implementation Bill and therefore a need for urgent action. If we pass a motion, as may be legislatively required, to accept the proposed statutory instruments, that will both maintain parliamentary control and give the Government the flexibility that they are likely to need.
This issue becomes very significant because, as we leave, we will want legislative continuity and clarity. The date has been set, and that has been debated, but the key is that the date has been set by previous decisions of Parliament. It is in no sense an erosion of parliamentary sovereignty, because the date is set out in the Act triggering article 50 and in the Act incorporating the Lisbon treaty into UK law. The timeframe was set under voluntary Acts of Parliament requiring things to be done by 29 March 2019. It therefore follows that there is some pressure on time, so it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to ask for such flexibility.
I conclude on the vote at the end—the final meaningful vote. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), as he so often does, made an elegant point when he said that this is a metaphysical decision for us about the meaning of meaning. The issue is that Her Majesty’s Government have already promised that we will have a vote on the deal before the European Parliament does, but there is no deal until the European Parliament has voted. The European Parliament has to agree to the deal—as part of the article 50 package, this is decided by an enhanced qualified majority vote, subject to the approval of the European Parliament—but we have already been promised a vote before the matter is voted on by the European Parliament.
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend is probably right, but my understanding is that the definition of withdrawal agreement clearly says “whether ratified or not”, so we do not have to follow the European Parliament. However, unless we get a meaningful vote, it may well end up being able to vote on something that, frankly, we will not be able to vote on.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but the Government have already said that we will have a chance to vote on the withdrawal agreement before the European Parliament.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Well, that vote must by its nature be meaningful. As we know, it is very easy to have a meaningful vote: we just table an Humble Address, and then it is binding on Her Majesty’s Government, as is quite clear from all previous parliamentary and constitutional procedure. We can engineer a meaningful vote even if the Government are trying to be a bit slippery, which I happen to doubt very much, because I think Her Majesty’s Government would never dream of being slippery—they would not know how to be slippery. It is hard to think of a Government in the whole of history being slippery.
In the whole schedule leading to the ratification and approval of the withdrawal agreement, there is a requirement for a vote in this House. There is also a requirement, now agreed with the European Union, that there will be a withdrawal and implementation Bill—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is getting impatient, but this is a very important matter. The rights of Parliament will absolutely and clearly be preserved, and I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, because his is a solution with which I think everybody can be happy.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The votes we will have at 7 o’clock will be the most important since this House voted to trigger article 50. Those of us who want to have any real influence over how we leave the EU must vote for a meaningful vote in Parliament. That is not being guaranteed. We will not have a meaningful vote on either the initial withdrawal agreement and the very broad terms—which is all they will be—of our future relationship with the EU, or the full agreement governing our future relationship with the EU, which the Government have finally admitted can be legally concluded only once the UK has left the EU.
On the first issue, all that is being offered is a take-it-or-leave-it vote on whatever the Government agree, with no guarantee that the actual vote will take place before exit day. The written ministerial statement is clear that the legislation—not the vote—
“will be introduced before the UK exits the EU”.
In reality, it will be a choice between giving the Government a blank cheque and in effect turning this Parliament into a rubber stamp, or taking a leap into the abyss.
What meaningful say will this House have if the alternative to rubber-stamping the Government’s deal is no transition agreement, meaning that our businesses will face a cliff edge; no deal for EU citizens living here or for UK citizens abroad; and no deal on the Irish border, which is so vital for protecting the Good Friday agreement? The sword of Damocles is over our heads, and we should say no.
A meaningful vote would give this House sufficient time and mean that it would not face a last-minute threat. It would give this House the power to send the Government back to the negotiating table, and the power to request that the remaining EU27 extend the article 50 deadline if we needed to get a better deal. That is also why it is so important not to have a fixed time and date in the Bill—because we may well need all the flexibility we can get.
The final overall trade deal with the EU will govern the UK’s future relationship with the EU for decades to come, but what is on offer is even worse. The written ministerial statement says that
“the agreement governing our future relationship…may take the form of a single agreement or a number of agreements covering different aspects of the relationship.”
It is pretty clear what will happen in the EU27 countries. The statement says that
“agreements on the future relationship are likely to require the consent of the European Parliament and conclusion by the Council. If both the EU and Member States are exercising their competences in an agreement, Member States will also need to ratify it.”
What do we get here? The statement says that the Government will introduce further legislation only
“where it is needed to implement the terms of the future relationship”.
There is no guarantee of any legislation, apart from when the Government deem it necessary, and there is no ability to disagree to or amend those deals, only to implement them.
That is unacceptable. MPs must have a meaningful vote on the initial withdrawal agreement and on the future trade agreement or agreements—and that must be on the face of the Bill. Nothing that the Prime Minister or the Brexit Minister have said today, or in the Brexit Secretary’s written ministerial statement, have addressed those concerns at all. Even if they had, words and assurances are not enough. The Prime Minister is not in a position to give us those assurances—indeed, no one on the Government Front Bench is, because they may not be there when our future trade and other deals with the EU are agreed. It will be many years before that happens. They have not addressed any of those points, and I say to hon. Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches that this is the time to put country before party. If we want an influence and a say over the future of this country, I urge them to vote for amendment 7.
George Freeman
This House and the people voted to leave in the referendum, and I respect that. Like the vast majority of hon. Members across the House, I am committed to making a success of Brexit in the spirit of a Brexit that works for the whole country. I strongly support the Prime Minister in her endeavours, her Lancaster House speech and her Florence speech. Indeed, I was proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) described me as a model convert to the cause. We have to show those who did not vote for Brexit that this is a moment of national renewal that will inspire renewal economically, culturally and politically. That brings us to clause 9.
The people of Mid Norfolk voted to bring powers back to Parliament. They want Parliament to be given the powers to scrutinise legislation, and they want to stop the process of European legislation too often passing through unscrutinised and this House passing bad legislation. Do not take it from me, take it from my hon. Friends who I suspect I am going to disagree with tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) put it beautifully:
“This referendum gives the British people the great opportunity to restore their precious but damaged democracy.”
He went on to say that
“the sovereignty of the British people required a sovereign Parliament that they could dismiss and they could influence”—[Official Report, 9 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1099.]
in the legislation that we pass. Clause 9 goes right to the heart of whether we have that power. Do not take it from me, take it from the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has argued that clause 9 could enable significant constitutional rights, such as the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK, to be implemented in domestic law by negative procedure regulations, even if that requires amendments to primary legislation. The Committee also criticised clause 9 for providing the ability to amend provisions of the Bill through secondary legislation, saying that it was “wholly unacceptable”. The report argues that clause 9 is the widest Henry VIII power in the Bill.
It is for those reasons, I think, that we have heard doubts about the clause this afternoon, in a most fascinating debate, from hon. Members who, like me, support the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) described the clause as containing “mischief” and urged the Government to take heed and recommend a compromise. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) has said very eloquently and very consistently that he is not comfortable with the clause. We all know what happened—the clause was drafted before the Government, laudably, promised to give this House a vote. That having been done, as my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), a former Attorney General and a former Solicitor General, have made clear in legal terms rather more powerfully than I can, the clause makes no sense.
This afternoon we have heard Back Benchers on all sides ask Ministers to provide clarity on why these extraordinary powers are needed. We have not heard the answer. In such circumstances, the all-important trust that goes right to the heart of this issue—between Back Benchers and Front Benchers, between Parliament and the Executive, and between the people and their Parliament—is stretched. Those who fear a conspiracy against Brexit—a conspiracy to use the scrutiny they have fought so hard against them. However, to turn that back around on those of us who want to reassure the people of this country that this is not a conspiracy against them but a moment of renewal inverts the logic of this moment. To hear only a traditional stubbornness from the Front Bench—one that I have shared in my time on the Front Bench; we know the brief, with civil servants saying, “Don’t give an inch”—without any reason or explanation is worrying. If this was simply some technocratic measure to do with a minor implementation of minor secondary legislation, I dare say the Committee would not be worried, but this is a Committee of the whole House for good reason: this goes right to the heart of the protection of our liberties. One of the worst aspects of the problem we are all trying to solve is Parliament passing legislation without scrutinising it.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Crausby)
Order. I remind Members that if they keep their contributions short, more hon. Members will be called.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Brexit has had many titles, but in my view it is fast becoming the Laurel and Hardy Brexit, because it is one never-ending fine mess—a multifaceted fine mess, indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) keeps a running total on how time is passing. It is 530 days since the Brexit vote, when apparently all the voters knew what they were voting for, yet we are still working out what it meant—there are Committees in this place trying to work out what it meant. He also tells me that there are 470 days to go before the cliff edge. The fine mess and the vanity are coinciding with the Government’s avoidance of a meaningful vote. They are tied to the timescale of article 50 as laid out in the Lisbon treaty—a strange place for a Brexiteer Government to be.
To me, it is pretty obvious. If the vote is between a deal and a crash-out, a deal wins. If the vote is between a deal and the status quo, with access to the single market, the status quo wins. Surely nobody is going to put the country—our constituents, themselves and their families—into a worse situation than we have now or raise the possibility of higher trade tariffs with up to 94 countries, as well the base load of the 27 EU countries. Another question: is this going to be a transition deal or a maintenance deal? Last Monday, the Prime Minister said she did not want two cliff edges, so it looks as if there is going to be a maintenance deal.
Opponents of amendment 7 are treating it as if it somehow aims to block Brexit or remove powers from their hands. It does not block Brexit. This is a Brexiteer Parliament, unfortunately. It is rolling over to article 50. Both Front-Bench teams want out of the single market and out of the customs union. The amendment, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), would put power in the hands of parliamentarians. To reject the amendment would be like setting sail on a cruise liner, striking an iceberg and finding out you had refused to bring any lifeboats. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) fears that the other side will not be incentivised to make a deal. If that situation arises, deal with it then—do not tie our hands now for the sake of actions we might want to take in the future. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) finds himself deferring, I think, to the European Parliament, which is a very interesting thing.
My final plea tonight is to wider society. As Chair of the International Trade Committee, I have companies coming to me moaning and telling me about Brexit. They have to step up to the plate and take part in this debate. We should have had impact assessments tonight, but we did not get any—they are more elusive than Donald Trump’s tax returns. Companies in the City have to start informing this debate. They should have been doing it before now, because it would have helped tonight. My plea is aimed at boardrooms across the UK: they must get their voices heard, because if they do not, they will go down with this lot here.
Sir Oliver Heald
Parliament should have a meaningful vote on the EU withdrawal agreement before it is implemented. Clause 9, which is the subject of amendment 7, allows Ministers to implement the EU withdrawal agreement by secondary legislation. That was always a mistake. The courts were never going to accept a situation whereby the EU withdrawal agreement was brought into our law by secondary legislation—major constitutional legislation brought in by statutory instrument.
The Government, to be fair, acknowledged that. After presenting the Bill to Parliament, there came a point where they said, “No, we will need a Bill to implement the EU withdrawal agreement.” That is right, but what a mess. In my view, Parliament is entitled to have a meaningful vote on the agreement before the powers in clause 9 are used, so there needs to be a trigger in clause 9; otherwise, once the Government have reached agreement with the EU, they would be able just to start laying legislation.
Of course, we have had some welcome commitments tonight and during the day, but on something as important as this, where there are very significant powers involved, I feel that as parliamentarians and lawmakers we should have a say and the Bill should reflect what the Government are saying. If they are saying, as I believe they are, that what I have described will not happen until Parliament has approved the agreement, it should say that in the Bill. Indeed, it was noticeable that those who do not agree with the amendment, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), all agree that the provisions are flawed. It has been some time now that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has been saying, “Come forward with your own amendment, O Government, so that this is in the right order and it has the protections that lawmakers would expect in the Bill.”
I am sad to vote, as I am going to, for article 7—[Interruption.] I said “article”, just like my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. I am sad to vote for amendment 7, but I feel I should and that it is an important principle that, when we make the law, we get it right in the Bill.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I rise to speak to amendment 355, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends and sets out our position that an affirmative vote by devolved bodies prior to enactment is required.
If the process of Brexit could be summed up in one word, it would be “control”. For me, taking back control also means bringing the exercise of powers as close as possible to the people. The final deal will be subject to ratification by all EU member states, the EU Parliament and sub-state parliaments, variously numbered at 33, 37 or 38—take your pick. By the same token, I believe that the constituent parts of the UK should have the same final say as our counterparts in the EU. The final deal with the EU should be approved in statute passed by both the Westminster Parliament and the devolved Administrations, hence amendment 355.
We have repeated our arguments many times for remaining in the European single market and customs union. Wales’s goods-based, export-led economy relies on its close links with the EU single market, with 67% of all Welsh exports going to the EU and the single market sustaining 200,000 jobs. We already know that the stakes are high for Wales, so Wales must have a stake and a say in the final deal. I will not revisit the arguments I have made during previous debates on the Bill about the constitutional intricacies of the Sewel convention, but I wish to say to my Labour friends that not giving the devolved Governments a stake in the final deal risks subjecting our nation to policies, and indeed an ideology, that have so far caused our country grievous harm.
To conclude these brief remarks, the whole argument boils down to control. Following the referendum, the principle of returning control is not at issue. What is at issue is where that control lies. The minority Government party asserts that finally control rests here and here alone, but if the UK is a shared enterprise, based on mutual respect between Westminster and the devolved Governments, that party should also accept my amendment 355, which, to adapt a phrase from the Father of the House, is the fundamental minimum for a devolved parliamentary democracy.
Kevin Hollinrake
I have listened carefully to the many esoteric legal arguments that have been advanced this evening. I am afraid that my comments will be far more prosaic and practical. I was on the remain side of the referendum debate, but, like most of my colleagues, I am now focusing on trying to secure the best possible deal, and that deal must centre on what a meaningful vote would be.
What does “a meaningful vote” mean? If it means “deal or no deal”, I think that that is a recipe for securing the best possible deal, but if it means “deal or no deal, or go back to the negotiating table”, perhaps indefinitely and with no time limit, I think that that is counterproductive. It would be detrimental, and would undermine our negotiating position. I am not suggesting for a second that that is the desire of those who promote a meaningful vote of that kind, but I think that that would be the effect.
Rather than looking only at the legal context, we need also to look at the political, economic and financial contexts. Of course the negotiations were always going to be difficult after 44 years of integration with the European Union, but they will also be difficult because of the European Union’s position. The EU clearly does not want us to leave, which is understandable for some of the reasons that I have given, but also, primarily, it does not want others to leave, and that must be its priority during the negotiations. If this were a marriage of equals and therefore a divorce of equals, that meaningful vote with those three different options would be fine, but that is not where we are. Of course, the EU also recognises that 75% of Members of Parliament were on the remain side of the argument.
We have to look at the EU’s perspective as well as that of the UK, which is why I think that the Prime Minister was not only right to offer a fair deal in her Florence speech, but right to say that we would not be afraid to walk away with no deal. That gives the EU one chance to get this right, whereas a meaningful vote-plus would give the EU many, many chances to get this right—to give the worst possible deal to get it right. Its incentive would be to put the worst deal on the table initially, knowing that Parliament would reject it and keep going back to the table. That cannot be the right negotiating position.
None of us wants to leave on the basis of no deal. WTO rules would clearly not be in the country’s interests, and it would not be in my own interests outside Parliament either. Nevertheless, I do not want to be locked into an organisation that simply will not let us leave other than on disadvantageous terms.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Let me say to him that—reflecting the mood of the Committee, having taken advice, and, in particular, having listened very carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)—the Government are willing to return on Report with an amendment on the face of the Bill clarifying the undertaking and assurance that I gave in my speech that statutory instruments under clause 9 will not come into force until we have had a meaningful vote in Parliament.
Kevin Hollinrake
I hope that the Minister’s intervention will satisfy some of my colleagues.
Let me end by saying that I will be supporting the Government this evening. In my view, it is time for us to grit our teeth and simply get on with it.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I rise to speak about my amendments 293, 294 and 295, which deal with the issue of who decides exit day, but rather than making the speech that I originally prepared, I will keep my remarks brief and broad.
The Prime Minister’s decision to set the exit date and to write it into law is another panic move, and it puts her into a self-tying straitjacket. It is a sop to the hard Brexiteers, and it creates a rod for the negotiators’ backs. It weakens, rather than strengthens, the UK’s position in the crucial nine months that are left for us to negotiate a good deal. Eighteen months after the referendum, we have seen the bluff and bluster on the withdrawal agreement. The Foreign Secretary has gone from telling our European partners to go whistle to being little Tommy Tucker singing for his supper to the tune of £40 billion. We have seen a tug of war take place on EU citizens’ rights, and a deal on no hard border with Ireland taking place in frantic late-night phone calls—a deal that the Brexit Secretary later undermined by calling it a mere “statement of intent”, which has caused all sorts of problems.
Antoinette Sandbach
Throughout the referendum campaign, leave campaigners spoke about taking back control, and it was seemingly a powerful message that resonated with the electorate. There is no doubt that the message, which was one of the crucial undertones of the campaign, meant bringing powers back to this Parliament, not to the Executive. That is why amendment 7 is so crucial.
It may be stating the obvious, but it cannot be reiterated enough that the Government are presiding over a monumental task of immense importance for the future of this country. In any such change, it is imperative that Parliament maintains close scrutiny and oversight of the process—of all aspects of the withdrawal agreement, from security co-operation to ease of trade with our European partners—so that we, as Members of Parliament, can best represent our constituents. These aspects must be scrutinised and debated by this House. If we are not given a say on that detail, we cannot fulfil our responsibilities to our constituents, and those responsibilities are the most motivating factor behind my support for a meaningful vote on the deal.
Clause 9 provides sweeping powers to the Government to deal with some residual situation, as the Minister described it, that he would like to retain control over. I am afraid that I am not willing to vote to give away the parliamentary sovereignty that I exercise on behalf of my constituents for some residual control to the Executive. If the Minister needs that power in relation to the withdrawal Bill, he needs to come back to this House and ask for it and explain why. I am afraid I found his explanation at the Dispatch Box today utterly unconvincing. Although I am grateful for the indication he has given about Report stage, unless that amendment is submitted in manuscript now, or amendment 7 is accepted, I will vote for amendment 7 tonight.
We have been pushing discussions with this Government for weeks and we have made our point very clear. I fully back the Prime Minister. I support her in trying to get the best deal for Britain, but I will not give away parliamentary sovereignty to the Executive on the basis of a request for them to have residual powers in this Bill.
Mr Grieve
While I was briefly out of the Chamber, an announcement was made of a Government concession, but I have to say, it is too late. I am sorry, but you cannot treat the House in this fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) may agree with me that the best way of getting progress in this area is by moving amendment 7 and thereafter we can co-operate with the Government in trying to achieve its aim.
Stephen Kinnock
I rise to support amendment 7, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I have listened with great interest to all the excellent speeches and interventions by right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon and, for me, three key themes have emerged. First, there is real disagreement about the meaning of “meaningful”. Secondly, there is confusion about the terms of article 50. Thirdly, there is an issue of trust.
On the first point, it is crystal clear that this vote cannot be meaningful if it is binary. It has to be taken on the basis of us having an opportunity to instruct the Government to extend article 50 if necessary. On the second point, article 50 clearly gives the Government the opportunity to seek an extension of the period, and there is no reason whatever why the EU27 would reject that request. It is enshrined in the treaties, and for that to have meaning, they would clearly have to listen to our request. Why on earth would they not accept that request if it was in our mutual interest to do so?
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a moment comes in one’s life when, on the most important issue that this nation has faced in decades, we have to set aside party differences and even party loyalty and be true to our principles and to what we believe in? It could be that that moment is now.
Stephen Kinnock
I agree absolutely with the right hon. Lady. I pay tribute to her and to a range of other right hon. and hon. Members across the House. This is not an easy choice to make. It is always difficult in these circumstances when there is a huge amount of interest and focus on what we are about to do in this House. It is essential that hon. Members stick with their principles, and sometimes that means putting country before party. I pay tribute to every right hon. and hon. Member who will do that this evening. This is indeed a matter of trust. The challenge that we face is that if this provision is not put on the face of the Bill, we will not have the confidence and the assurance that we in this place can indeed take back control and reassert the sovereignty of this place, which is what 17 million people voted for on 23 June 2016.
Stephen Kinnock
I am afraid I must push on, because we are moving towards the deadline.
Having paid tribute to those right hon. and hon. Members for what they are doing this evening, I commend the terms of amendment 7 to the Committee. I will be honoured to go through the Division Lobby with those right hon. and hon. Members this evening.
Charlie Elphicke
The Committee will know that, from my point of view, we cannot get out of the European Union fast enough. Time and again, I have said that we need to be ready on day one and be prepared for every eventuality, deal or no deal—or, should I say, regional deal or global deal—but we must remember why we are taking back control. It is because of the vision we have for our country and because of our values. Those values include the rule of law, natural justice and the sovereignty of Parliament. The rule of law exists to ensure that executive power is not abused, and that is why I object to clause 9. It is not right that a measure of this sort should be put through by any form of statutory instrument.
I welcome the fact that the Government are going to bring forward a withdrawal agreement and an implementation Bill, and nothing I have heard today has indicated to me any sense of urgency or any reason why a statutory instrument will need to be put through in a hurry. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stay up all night long to pass legislation to get us out of the European Union as soon as possible. For that reason, I urge the Government to withdraw clause 9, and I have to say that I will not be able to support it on stand part.
Mr Lammy
I am coming up to my 18th year in the House. During that time, we have had serious votes on going to war in Iraq and in Syria, and on different occasions, parliamentary sovereignty has asserted itself. On the war in Iraq, we thought we had the information, but it turned out that we did not, and we went to war. On Syria, despite some strong arguments to intervene, we chose not to. I also remember sitting through the night for the 90-day detention legislation under Tony Blair, and this House resisted the move to a 90-day detention period for those arrested for terrorism offences. Tonight, we are again being asked to make a very important decision that will affect the future of this country.
I might say that the sovereignty of this Parliament is why we are here in the first place, so I applaud the Government Members who are standing by their principles and remembering the importance of coming back to debate in this House. This is about timing. We may have had a discussion about what is meaningful, but I think we all know what is meaningless. It is meaningless to have a debate and a vote in this House after the decision is made. For all those reasons, I hope that we will return after the vote on amendment 7 and find that we really have given back sovereignty to the UK Parliament.
Vicky Ford
The Government have now made it clear that the House will have a final meaningful vote on the EU withdrawal agreement before the UK leaves, which is extraordinarily important because the last point in the process of withdrawal is actually the vote in the European Parliament. My former colleagues—the ones who are trying to help us get an amicable agreement in that Parliament—have told me that unless there is a full democratic process here, there will be people who try to scupper the deal in that last vote in the European Parliament. The rest of the world is watching how we legislate, and transparency is important.
I am new to British legislation, but I have heard it time and again from Members as diverse as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that the powers in clause 9 are inappropriate, too strong and could mean that the Government are able to make material changes to legislation without a scrutiny process before we leave. I am therefore extremely pleased that the Minister made his announcement at the last minute. If he would like to, I would love him to intervene once more to ensure that everybody has heard exactly what he said.
Dominic Raab
I am delighted to intervene again and, reflecting the mood of the House, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are willing to return on Report to put an amendment on the face of the Bill making it crystal clear that statutory instruments under clause 9 will not enter into force until we have had a meaningful vote in Parliament.
Yvette Cooper
This has been a thoughtful debate that has shown the strength of this House, but the thoughtfulness and strength of this House are exactly why the House needs to have a meaningful statutory vote on the withdrawal agreement before the extremely extensive powers in clause 9 are used. The Minister had an hour on his feet; we have had six hours of debate today and many months of debate beforehand, and he still has not come up with a manuscript amendment to clarify what he will do, nor have we had a commitment yet from the Government that the vote will in fact be a statutory one. The only reason that the Minister could give as to why there should not be a statutory vote on the withdrawal agreement was the timing, and yet there are so many examples of when this Parliament has used expedited procedures to get a statute in place just as fast as any resolution.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My understanding is that the Minister has just said that the Government will use clause 9, and will start legislating statutory instruments, long before the due day; it is just, having been legislated, they will not come into force until the due day. That is some kind of concession, but does the right hon. Lady agree that something better might be arrived at in the later stages of this Bill?
Yvette Cooper
I certainly think that something much better is needed, because the powers in clause 9 are unprecedented, and Parliament should not hand over such unprecedented powers to the Executive blindfold, without our knowing what the withdrawal agreement will be. There have been so many examples, whether it is the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, the Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011, the Loans to Ireland Act 2010, the Mental Health (Approval Functions) Act 2012, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 or the Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Act 2017, Act after Act that has been through an expedited process—they can be done within a week. We can do this if we need to. Timeliness is not a problem.
That is why we need a vote, and that is why Ministers should just stop arguing. They should either ditch clause 9 and agree to new clause 3, or agree to amendment 7.
In order to support the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9
Implementing the Withdrawal Agreement
Amendment proposed: 7, page 6, line 45, at end insert “, subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”—(Mr Grieve.)
To require the final deal with the EU to be approved by statute passed by Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 345, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, include regulations to match or exceed World Health Organisation air quality standards.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that the UK continues to meet international air quality standards after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 292, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) impose or increase taxation”
This amendment would prevent the imposition or increase of a tax by regulations made under Clause 8 to comply with international obligations.
Amendment 390, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) confer a power to legislate (other than a power to make rules of procedure for a court or tribunal).”
Amendment 352, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
“(5) Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation conferred or modified under this Act and its schedules must be used, and may only be used, insofar as is necessary to ensure that standards of equalities, environmental protection and employment protection, and consumer standards will continue to remain in all respects equivalent to those extant in the EU.
(6) In particular, no agreement relating to international trade or investment with the EU or with a third-party state or states shall be made that permits or requires standards of equalities, environmental protection and employment protection, and consumer standards to fall below those extant in the EU at the time.”
This amendment would ensure that in exercising the powers under this provision, the Government maintains equivalent standards to the EU, and in particular, in making trade agreements.
Clause 8 stand part.
Mr Leslie
What a privilege it is to have the opportunity to speak on such a momentous evening when Parliament has had the guts and foresight to stand up to the Executive, take back control and give hope to those who thought that all hope was lost, and to see Members from all parties working together in the national interest.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is wonderful to see so many former Ministers on the Conservative Benches discovering their love of parliamentary sovereignty when they are no longer on the ministerial merry-go-round. I have far greater respect in this place for those parliamentarians who have never held ministerial office and actually respect this place, even when things are not going their way.
Mr Leslie
I have even more respect for those who have never held ministerial office and who actually vote with their conscience, rather than looking at the ministerial ladder ahead of them and deciding to suppress their views for other reasons. Anyway, we have been there and dealt with that issue.
In speaking to new clause 20, I want to make a couple of introductory remarks. Over the last 44 years, I think, of Britain’s membership of the EU, the UK has accrued a massive array of international obligations, rights and authorisations via a series of 759 treaties—this is absolutely right—with 168 non-EU countries. Of course, after 29 March 2019, those treaties, because we have accrued them by virtue of our membership of the EU, will fall away. They will cease to exist; they will be no more; they will have ceased to be; they will have expired—they will be ex-treaties. The United Kingdom will no longer be party to those agreements with those third countries, unless of course we have made efforts to replace them beforehand to provide for a smooth continuation.
New clause 20 would require Her Majesty’s Government to publish one month after Royal Assent—we can give them that month to get themselves together—a comprehensive assessment of each of those treaties, agreements and obligations; to set out if there are any requirements they want to amend or renegotiate; and to make an assessment of whether the powers in clause 8 might need to be used. Sir David, you will know, in your eagle-eyed way, that clause 8 gives powers to Ministers, for two years at least, to make a series of orders and regulations to prevent or remedy any breach in those international treaties, as if achieved by an Act of Parliament. I pay tribute to the late Paul McClean, the Financial Times journalist who sadly died in September, who, in one of his final reports, carried out an extremely comprehensive analysis and assessment of some of these many treaties and international obligations.
Mr Leslie
That is indeed a question I was coming to. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Government have made an itemised assessment of all those 759 treaties.
Those treaties break down as follows: 295 bilateral and multilateral trade deals, whose approval is needed to recreate any multilateral arrangements that will fall away as we leave the European Union; 202 regulatory co-operation agreements, including on data sharing, anti-trust and so forth; 69 treaties on fisheries, including access to waters and sustainable stocks; 65 treaties on transport and aviation services agreements; 49 treaties on customs agreements, including on the transportation of goods; 45 treaties on nuclear agreements, including on the use of nuclear fuel with other countries, parts and know-how; and 34 treaties on agriculture.
Mr Leslie
Indeed, and after the Minister has finished the first page of his speech, on the impact assessment, he will turn it over and tell us about the contingency plans that will be in place.
Imagine, Sir David, that you are a Government Minister at this point in time and you are thinking, “Well okay, I’ve got all these 759 treaties. What are we going to do? How are we going to deal with this? How much time is it going to take to renegotiate them or at least make sure they can be carried over?” Let us assume that all the other parties to those agreements are happy simply to cut and paste them across. Of course, we cannot necessarily assume that, but let us do so. If, for each agreement, it took a civil servant one day to analyse the contents, a day to contact the third party country concerned, of which there are 160, perhaps a day to track down the decision makers in the relevant Departments here in the UK and the other country, perhaps a couple of days in dialogue with that other country—it would be pretty good if they could do it in a couple of days—and maybe a day to bring together our Ministers and their Ministers, we would be talking, on top of the costs of travelling to those other countries and legal costs, some tens of thousands of hours of civil service time.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Because the hon. Gentleman has, notwithstanding his personal views, accepted the will of the electorate, no doubt the logic of where he is leading us is to put off leaving the European Union for some indeterminate period of time until all these issues are sorted out.
Mr Leslie
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents knew all this before they voted in the referendum. I am not convinced that many members of the public, whether they voted remain or leave, actually spotted the downstream consequentials of exiting the European Union in this way. Of course, they employ us, as Members of Parliament, to answer these questions. That is our job and it is what we are here to do.
Sir Desmond Swayne
On that basis, is it therefore the hon. Gentleman’s intention to reopen the question so that the public can revisit their decision?
Mr Leslie
My view is that the British public always have the right to think again and decide the fate of this country as they see fit, but for the time being, in this Bill and with new clause 20, it is reasonable for us to scrutinise the Executive and to say, “How are you going to do it? How are you going to make sure that all the important aspects of those 759 international treaties will be smoothly transposed after 29 March 2019?”
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the other parties to these treaties may not quite have the incentive to be as quick as we might need them to be?
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As these are potentially fresh treaty discussions, other countries may wish to take the opportunity to reopen or revisit the treaty provisions. We may, of course, have entered into those agreements in different political times, so who knows what they may be?
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
As always, my hon. Friend makes a compelling case for changing the Bill. Given that the Government are battered and bruised this evening after their outstanding defeat, if the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says that they do have assessments of the impact of our leaving these international treaties, should we believe them?
Mr Leslie
I will believe the Government if they publish the assessments, and I am prepared to make an appointment to go to a private reading room in the ex-Treasury building if needs be, but this must be a bit more than an analysis of how many treaties there are: it must be an assessment of their impact and importance.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. Of course, I support his new clause.
I have long been in favour of the arms trade treaty, parts of which fall within EU competence. The EU as a whole was involved in the negotiations on the treaty, and we are a party to it as an individual country. We also have the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria as well as domestic legislation. The arms trade is one of the issues that cut across many different areas of competence, and we are party to a number of treaties relating to it. Is that not exactly the sort of issue that should be examined?
Mr Leslie
It is, and I think it is particularly incumbent on those who advocated Britain’s exit from the EU to tell us what their plan was. How were they going to solve that problem? It should not be entirely incumbent on the myriad Conservative Members who were fighting for Britain to leave the EU only to disappear when the really tough job came along of deciding how we were to pick up the pieces and ensure that the treaties could continue in some way, shape or form.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should carry out an impact assessment to establish whether they have the capacity to negotiate the treaties, given, for example, the Secretary of State for International Trade’s recent admission that they do not have the capacity to negotiate trade deals?
Mr Leslie
Indeed. For example, last time I heard, only three officials at the Department for Transport were dedicated to negotiating aviation agreements. Those three poor civil servants, although hopefully there are four or five by now, will have a heck of a job on their hands to repair all the open skies agreements and international aviation treaties—that is in just one sector, so think of the implications. But I am sure that those who were advocating a leave vote have a plan to cope with the whole scenario.
Tom Brake
I just wanted to help the hon. Gentleman. Given his position in the Chamber, he might not have been able to see that both Ministers were frantically texting earlier. I suspect that they did not have the list of treaties to which he is referring. He might need to supply it at the end of the debate so that they can start doing some work on this.
Mr Leslie
I want to make a bit of progress as others want to speak.
We in the UK are thinking that we must replace a lot of these treaties. When we leave the EU, our exit will affect not just us but the EU, because a great many of its treaties, obligations and agreements with third countries around the world were predicated on the existence of 28 members. Minus the UK, the other members may need to renegotiate their treaties as well. Ministers might not give two hoots about the implications of that, but those on the EU side of the negotiating table probably do care about it, and that will have ramifications for our negotiations.
Of course, the Foreign Secretary was always telling us that all the other countries around the world were queuing up to do deals with us. He had to fight them off as they asked, “Please may we have a new trade agreement with you?” I have not personally seen that particular queue, but perhaps when the Minister winds up the debate he will be able to tell us how many countries have been knocking on our door seeking new trade agreements.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks very little of this country if he feels that other countries around the world do not want to do trade deals with the United Kingdom. Why does he think that?
Mr Leslie
Those countries already have very good trade agreements with us by virtue of our membership of the European Union, and they are worried about losing the opportunity to have good trade arrangements not just with us, but with the rest of the EU, if those agreements are ripped up and thrown up into air, creating uncertainty. I will be the first person, as a member of the International Trade Committee, to go around the world and try to get those trade agreements, if indeed we do have Brexit, but until that point, I want the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he explained to his constituents before the referendum that all these international treaties were going to be ripped up. Did he say that to them?
Sir Hugo Swire
The hon. Gentleman needs to answer the question that I asked him first, with all due respect. He said there would be concern among many of these other countries—he did not say which—about what kind of trade agreement there would be, and about access to markets and so forth. Of course they will have concerns; we will also have concerns—that is part of any bilateral trade negotiation. Why does he think, despite these concerns, that they will not wish to do deals with us?
Mr Leslie
I hope that countries do, and we will need them to, otherwise we will literally be planting carrots in our back gardens. If we do not have trade deals with the rest of the world, we will have to produce more domestically, rather than having the living standards we have previously enjoyed. I am a very pro-trade Member of Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman should know where I stand on many of these questions. That is why I am asking what the consequences will be not just if we move away from the trade arrangements we have—the finest, frictionless free trade agreement of anywhere in the world that we have right now with the single market and the customs union—but if we then rip up the free trade agreements with non-EU countries that we have enjoyed by virtue of our EU membership. That is another 12% of our exports. Some 50% of our exports are with the EU through our existing trade arrangements, and then there is another 12%—actually, there is another 14% because there are other territories of those non-EU countries as well. That is a big chunk of our trade. I am very concerned about how effectively we can carry out the grandfathering of those FTAs with the rest of the EU.
We must also bear in mind that there are 164 members of the WTO, and they have rights of veto and objection on many occasions. In fact, we recently tried to lodge a suggestion on dividing tariff-rate quotas. This is getting technical, but that is basically dividing up the EU’s share of low or zero-tariff allowances when countries such as New Zealand or Australia try to import lamb. Amazingly, Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America have lodged an objection to the British divvy-up of those tariff-rate quotas. Of course, apparently America should have been knocking on our door, as we were at the front of the queue, supposedly, but it still lodged an objection to our very first relationship with the WTO.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend rightly raises the issue of these countries objecting to any changes to quota, because they will first and foremost seek to protect their own economies, not our economy. In the event that we get a percentage of the EU quota but for whatever reason—customs barriers; non-tariff barriers; the withdrawal of purchasing power—that quota of goods cannot be sold into the UK, those countries’ flexibility to then sell those goods to the EU is lost. That is why they are digging their heels in so early on this issue.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
There is another complication. If we are saying that we are going to have regulatory alignment on cross-border issues with regard to Northern Ireland, specifically on agriculture, given that we are in the EU orbit in that sense, how on earth can we then have WTO trade arrangements elsewhere unless we give the same conditions that apply to the Irish Republic to every other country in the world, which the EU cannot accept?
Mr Leslie
There is a big issue relating to the most favoured nation status arrangement because of clauses in the existing EU free trade agreements. If we are given a deep and special relationship with the EU, the EU will be obliged to offer the same access to Korea and to Canada under the comprehensive economic and trade agreement. There are implications to all this. If we pull one thread, all sorts of things appear.
Mr Leslie
I will finish shortly. I know that I am trying the right hon. Gentleman’s patience.
The 36 regional and bilateral free trade agreements with 63 other countries are exceptionally important, but there are also trade-related agreements, including mutual recognition agreements and standards for conformity assessments. The Department for International Trade has also said that there are multiple hundreds of mutual recognition agreements. The list is getting bigger and bigger, and it is all on the shoulders of the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Gentleman is going into great detail about the amount of time and effort that is going to be spent, and the number of treaties and trade deals that will need to be done. Does he agree with me on the broader point that we are treading water here? A huge amount of money and parliamentary time is going to be spent, and nothing else will be able to be done.
Mr Leslie
Let us think about all the important priorities for our constituents, including public service reform and living standards. This is one of the most frustrating things: we are treading water just to keep up what we already have. Indeed, things will not be as good as the arrangements we already have. What annoys me most is when Ministers try to gloss over this and pretend that it is all going to be fine, saying, “There’s no problem here. There’s nothing to see.” Lord Price, who used to be a International Trade Minister, tweeted about the 36 free trade agreements, saying that they were all fine and that:
“All have agreed roll over.”
The current Minister of State at the Department, the Minister for Trade Policy, retweeted that. However, when we ask the Secretary of State whether countries have agreed that they all roll over, we are told, “Well, we haven’t had any objections from them to suggest they might not roll over.” Will they want to renegotiate? We are told, “Well, we haven’t heard from them yet.” This is an incredible example of trying to put the best possible gloss on the situation, and to get past exit day and worry about it all afterwards. The Government will then pretend that everybody knew about this beforehand.
I will finish my remarks now because I want to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies); we need an assessment of these treaties and of what could be lost; we need an assessment of the risks and of what is at stake; and we need honesty and transparency from Ministers about the consequences. This is not what the public expected when they voted in the referendum, and that is why I urge Members to support new clause 20.
Geraint Davies
I shall speak to amendment 352, which seeks to maintain for future trade deals the EU rights and protections that are currently enjoyed in other trade deals. A problem that has already been mentioned is that we are going to move away from the comfort zone of the EU, a massive trading bloc which, on 8 December, agreed the key provisions for a trade deal with Japan that will embrace 30% of global GDP and 600 million people and that has integrated in it the Paris agreement. It does not have investor-state dispute settlement, but it does have various protections. One of my key fears about that particular agreement, which will come into effect in March 2019, is that such agreements take a long time to put together. If we want to come along after the event and say, “Can we join in?” the chances are that the terms will not be as good.
As for our negotiations with other countries, if we exit the EU and expect Chile or Uruguay or some other country to offer us the same trade terms that it has with the EU, which is a much bigger bloc, at a time when we are much weaker, we will be seen among the international trading community as a vulnerable victim of our own self-inflicted harm. They will say, “We will give these terms to the EU, but you are just a small player compared with the critical mass of the EU.” That would undermine not only the financial impact of the terms of trade, but the standards that we currently enjoy.
People will be aware that the REACH arrangements—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—mean that manufacturers in Europe are required to prove that a chemical is safe before it is sold. In America, however, manufacturers can basically sell asbestos and other harmful products, and it is for the United States Environmental Protection Agency to tell them that they cannot. The worry is that our regime and our standards may change as we are thrust into the hands of the United States, and that workers’ rights, human rights and other rights may change due to China.
The Minister will know that the widespread use of hormones in meat production in America is giving rise to premature puberty among children, and that the widespread use of antibiotics is leading to much greater resistance to them. There is also chlorinated chicken, genetically modified food and other things, and we will be under enormous pressure from the United States to accept standards that are below those that we enjoy as a member of the EU. Donald Trump stood up at his inauguration and said that he would protect the American economy from the foreign countries that were taking America’s jobs, and he has already shown in the Bombardier case that he will play tough. The United States is a much bigger player than Britain, and the competition between the EU and the US is a matched fight when it comes to the negotiation of a deal such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. We will be a much smaller player, and we will have left the conditions of the EU.
Ministers currently have quite widespread powers to sign deals. The current International Trade Secretary signed a provisional agreement for the comprehensive economic and trade agreement without parliamentary approval, and we should be drawing such powers in for parliamentary scrutiny, amendment and agreement. There is a risk that a negotiated settlement that reduces the standards that our citizens enjoy will happen outside this place. I therefore tabled amendment 352, which seeks to maintain the same standards, rights and protections that we enjoy in Europe, as protection in case we end up being asked to vote on trade deals that have all sorts of dire consequences beneath the surface for public health, workers’ rights and consumer protection.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned chlorinated chicken, and he should be worried not only that the Americans may seek to impose it on us, but that our International Trade Secretary has said:
“There are no health reasons why you could not eat chicken that had been washed in chlorinated water.”
Our own International Trade Secretary therefore seems to be advocating the consumption of chlorinated chicken.
Geraint Davies
It is an interesting idea that foxes have been eating chlorinated chicken.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, the concern is that the International Trade Secretary, even at this early stage, will look to undermine consumer standards, health standards and other standards in order to fix a deal and have something on the table to avoid the humiliation we see coming. As has been pointed out, it is in the interest of other countries to hold back from striking an early deal and to let the UK sweat. We will be in a difficult place if we do not have agreement on tariffs with the EU and elsewhere.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as well as chlorinated chicken and other items, infant formula is regulated differently in the US from in the EU? There are higher levels of aflatoxins in US infant formula than in EU infant formula, which could prove detrimental to infant health.
Geraint Davies
People will know that the EU has enormous capacity for negotiating trade deals, and we have been relying on it for the past 40 years. Over the past few years the EU has had an intricate dialogue with the United States on TTIP and with the Canadians on CETA to try to bring about some sort of harmonisation and agreement. TTIP has hit the buffers and is not going forward, but my point is that we simply do not have that negotiating capacity. If the EU’s huge capacity cannot achieve agreement in a short amount of time—it takes a long time to get these things right—what hope do we have? Very little.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the EU was able to extract additional protections on the environment and workers’ rights from the Canada deal because the EU worked together as a big bloc? At one moment it looked like the EU would be unable to extract those protections, and it happened only because Belgium and other countries insisted. On our own, we must not be able to be picked off by Canada, the US or any other country—they have already tried to pick off the EU.
Geraint Davies
That is precisely right. What we are now seeing with the Japan deal, as with CETA, is that it will now explicitly protect the right of states to set higher regulatory standards than their treaty partners; public services; the precautionary principle; labour rights; and sensitive economic areas. The deal will also make an explicit commitment to the Paris climate agreement and will safeguard policies intended to protect the environment.
With those blueprints for a harmonious future, we are now jumping ship. We will be left on our own, floating around in the sea and striking out to hold on to bits of timber for dear life. This is very frightening. Earlier we discussed the situation of a deal or no deal, but the problem is that when we do strike a deal, the EU is not there to penalise or punish us; it is simply there to respect the interests of the EU27, which it will. The EU27 will tell us what we are getting, and we will have to like it or lump it. Lump it would be much more painful—we would go on to WTO rules, which people often mention in this Chamber. People need to remember that WTO rules apply only to goods, not services. The trade in services agreement is currently being negotiated outside the WTO so, because 80% of our exports are services, a large amount of our exports will not even have trade with tariffs; there will simply be no agreement on trade. As there is ambiguity between goods and services, such as with cars—cars are two thirds services because of subcontracted labour, lawyers, payroll and various other things—it is a complex area.
A no deal situation would be catastrophic, and the Europeans know that, so they will say what they want and we will have to accept it. If that is unacceptable and much worse than the status quo, the people of Britain should have a final say with a vote on the exit deal. That is not in amendment 352—people do not need to worry about that—although the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has tabled amendment 120, which we will consider next week. Half the public already want a vote on the exit deal. Only 34% do not want a vote, and 16% do not know. As it emerges how appalling the future being created at the hands of this Government will be, there will be growth in support for such a vote.
Amendment 352 simply says that we should aim to, and would require us to, enjoy the current protections, rights and standards we have in the EU in future trade agreements, in the knowledge that those standards are going up, as I pointed out is happening in the case of Japan. All I am asking for is that we keep the current parity, so that as Europe moves up we at least stay the same, rather than plunge down into the depths of poverty, lower health standards and so on.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I have a great deal of affection and respect for the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), and he has drawn attention to a perfectly proper area of concern, to which, strangely, his remedy is merely a report—but then the mask slipped. We have heard all this sanctimonious guff this afternoon about the need for this House to take back control and about proper scrutiny—everything we heard in the earlier debates —but now we see the real motive. Of course he was assisted by others, whom comrade Lenin would have properly referred to as “useful idiots”, but now the mask has slipped.
The real motive—the hon. Gentleman made it absolutely explicit—is to reopen a question that he does not believe was given sufficient attention at the referendum. That has just been confirmed by the hon. Member for Swansea East—
Sir Desmond Swayne
Swansea West. The hon. Member for Nottingham East said that he did not believe that people should not have an opportunity to revisit their decision, and that they have a perfect right to change their mind—I accept that. I am not in favour of some sort of African democracy of one man, one vote, once. People perfectly rightly have an opportunity to do that, but if there was one thing on which both sides in the referendum campaign were agreed it was on the importance of the vote that took place on 23 June 2016. He has every right to campaign for a second referendum, and I am glad that he has made it explicit this evening in advocating for his amendment that that is the real agenda. The purpose is to delay for long enough for something to turn up. An essential ingredient of giving time for something to turn up so that people will change their minds is delay, and that is what the process of all today’s amendments has, in essence, been about.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not sure how to follow both of those contributions, but hon. Members may be relieved to know that I am going to make a brief one as I rise to speak to amendment 26, which seeks to change clause 8. I will focus on two specific points, the first being the purpose of clause 8 and the second being its scope.
The purpose of the clause, as set out in the Bill’s explanatory notes, is to give
“ministers of the Crown the power to make secondary legislation to enable continued compliance with the UK’s international obligations by preventing or remedying any breaches that might otherwise arise as a result of withdrawal.”
I say to the Minister gently that it is not entirely clear what breaches might require the clause 8 power. It is not clear to us that where breaches occur they could not, in most cases, be remedied by clause 7 or by powers contained in other legislation, for example the Trade Bill, which has already been published, or domestic legislation. I do not intend to discuss what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) said in his comprehensive speech, in which he gave a set of examples about the types of international treaties and obligations the Government will have to deal with. However, it would be useful to hear some further examples from the Minister. To date, we have heard about only one international obligation, or perhaps a couple, where the Government believe the clause 8 power must be used. As the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted, the Government have not been explicit about the sort of obligations they have in mind for this clause.
On the scope of clause 8, we have many of the same concerns that we have about the scope of the powers in clauses 7, 9 and 17. Clause 8(3) contains some, although not all, of the explicit restrictions that apply in clause 7. In any case, we believe, just as we do with those clauses—that is why we tabled amendment 27 to clause 9 and amendment 25 to clause 7—that the scope of the delegated powers in clause 8 should be circumscribed so that they cannot be used to reduce rights or freedoms.
I know that many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), wish to make speeches, so with that I draw my remarks to a close.
Hannah Bardell
The House has heard many technical and legalistic arguments focused on the economic, trade and legal impacts of our leaving the EU, but so far in the Brexit process and debate, the interests of children and their rights have been barely mentioned. That said, I was pleased to hear the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about baby milk and the related regulations.
It is important to focus on children, their rights and the effect of Brexit on their future. In all of this, our children have had very little voice or decision-making opportunities for the future of the UK. All our children depend on UK, EU, international and UN provisions and treaties to protect them and to secure their future rights. It is sad and ironic that it was this Conservative Government who refused to let 16 and 17-year-olds participate in the EU referendum.
No one said it better than my former colleague and my dear friend, the previous Member for Gordon—I know all Members miss him as much as I do—who summed up the hokey-cokey politics of this Conservative Government by saying:
“The case for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds has been demonstrated by the Scottish referendum—not as some academic exercise but on the joyful and practical experience of a generation of Scotland’s young people…Claims that teenagers are disengaged with politics or incapable of understanding constitutional issues was blown apart by the great contribution by young people in Scotland during the campaign…It is a ludicrous situation and nothing better illustrates the total lack of imagination which typifies the Conservative Party at its worst and their headlong pursuit of self-interest…It encapsulates Tory arrogance and the insult to young people will neither be forgotten nor forgiven.”
That is an extremely good point.
I remember studying, not that long ago, politics at the University of Stirling, where I learned about further EU integration. It seems very sad that the students of the future will be studying this process, our performance and the decisions that were made. I wonder what the textbooks and political history books will say and how they will read. I think they will say that this has been a political catastrophe—a series of unfortunate events.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
One key thing that future students will read about and find incredibly difficult to understand is how the same people who for 40 years argued that the EU had taken sovereignty away from this Chamber were prepared to give that sovereignty so quickly to the United Kingdom Government Executive. That is what all these clauses, including clause 8, will end up doing.
Hannah Bardell
Not surprisingly, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Tom Brake
Does the hon. Lady agree that there will probably be a chapter in the history books called “Impact Assessments”, and students will study the reasons why a Government took the most catastrophic economic decision for the country without having conducted any impact assessments of its effect on the economy?
Hannah Bardell
I absolutely do agree. It will probably say “Impact Assessments” and there will just be a blank page, because that is the reality of the situation. It will probably serve as an abject example of how not to do democracy, and sadly we will all be judged under that banner. I do hope, though, that the history books will include those of us who opposed how this process is being carried out.
It is important to reflect on the fact that, whatever people thought of the Scottish referendum, it was held up as a gold standard and that, when the Electoral Commission reflected on the referendum on Brexit, its view was that it happened in too short a timescale and that there was not proper opportunity for debate and discussion. That is important. It is sad that we set a gold standard on one referendum and then seemed to go backwards.
The other day, sitting on the Tube, reading the Evening Standard, I was quite aghast to read an article celebrating its new appointment of a journalist to Brussels. Is it not ironic that news agencies and the press are suddenly appointing journalists to Brussels? Not that long ago, I read a report that said that, out of all the countries in the EU, the nations of the UK had the worst representation in terms of journalistic reportage. So it is no surprise that, after 10 years and longer of blaming the EU for all our ills and of not properly reporting on it, people were ill-informed and we did not have a proper period for debate.
I come back to my point about children. The House of Commons Library briefing paper on Brexit stretches to almost 200 pages, yet children are mentioned only three times. The Brexit White Paper mentions children only once. It urges us all to work towards a stronger, fairer and more global Britain. Well, is that not ironic because we are going to be weaker, less equal and less outward-looking? We are going to be the exact opposite of what those right-wing Brexiteers seemed to want for us across the UK.
Alison Thewliss
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there has been no proper commitment yet to continuing with Erasmus+, which gives so many children in my constituency opportunities to go and make friends, to travel out into the world and to broaden their horizons?
Hannah Bardell
I absolutely agree. A delegation from across the EU—from Spain, France and many other countries—came to my constituency to meet and work with our children. It was so incredible to see the friendships that were struck up and the experiences that were shared. The thought that my three-year-old niece, or any children that I have, will not get to experience that is heart-breaking. We should all reflect on that. What are the young people of the nations of the UK going to miss out on because of the poor decision making and the poor decisions that are being pushed by this UK Government?
The Executive powers provided in clause 8 put current UK international obligations under serious threat. As we know, the UK Government cannot be trusted to uphold international obligations. We have seen time and again instances of them turning a blind eye to our obligations. In Yemen, for example, more than 300 incidents that could violate international law have been tracked by the Ministry of Defence since the conflict began two years ago, yet the UK continues to sell arms to Saudi Arabia.
One of my hon. Friends talked about the Trade Union Act 2016 and how workers’ rights have been rolled back. When all this power comes back, supposedly, to the UK, what faith can we have that our rights and obligations will be upheld by this Government?
We have spoken about Erasmus, regulations and what our young people are going to do. I strongly believe that the whole rhetoric in this process has been damaging. Some of the phrases that have emerged, the slogans that have been put on the side of buses and the way that political discourse has developed during this period echo, sadly, the Trump Administration. That scares me and, I am sure, many others deeply. We hear that Brexit means Brexit, that it will be a red, white and blue Brexit, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, that there are economic impact studies, there are no economic impact studies—yes there are, oh no there are not—and that the post-Brexit trade deal will be the easiest in human history. We have had a political hokey-cokey on the grandest scale and who are going to be the ones who lose out the most? It is going to be the young people of our nations who have to deal with the impact of Brexit and clean up the mess that many in this Government seem hell-bent on creating. For their sake—for your children’s sake—and for the future of all our nations in the UK, let us stop this madness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
It has been a pleasure to listen to this wide-ranging debate and to hear some of the speeches, not all of which seemed to be specifically about clause 8. I compliment my opposite number, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who very accurately described the clause.
Mary Creagh
I do have a speech on clause 8 and I would like to raise some specific points, but I am slightly concerned that the Minister might now be about to speak for 15 minutes, in the tradition that he started yesterday, and I am worried that he will not be able to respond to my specific points.
Mr Walker
I am very happy to do my best endeavours to ensure that the hon. Lady does get five minutes to make her speech; she often has interesting points to bring to these debates. Let me discuss briefly, therefore, what clause 8 is for.
As we leave the EU, it is essential that the Government can ensure that we do not breach any of the UK’s international obligations. These international obligations stretch from our promises to other nations, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), to those we have undertaken as a sovereign and responsible participant in international organisations such as the Council of Europe and global ones such as the WTO. This need to prevent breaches of our international obligations is the reasoning behind the clause.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s explanation of the scope of clause 8. Does he agree that, just like clause 7, clause 8 is limited in that it relates only to withdrawal issues and is a sunset clause?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend make a good point on the exact matter that I was going to come to in a moment; she pre-empts me brilliantly.
Clause 8 is needed—I think that this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich—because not all the UK’s international obligations that might be affected by withdrawing from the EU are implemented domestically in what will be retained EU law. Those which are implemented elsewhere are therefore out of scope of the correcting power in clause 7. In addition, there are restrictions on the use of clause 7 relating to, for example, taxation that might, in some circumstances, prevent important changes to comply with international arrangements from being made. We need this power because we need to be prepared for all eventualities.
I would like to clarify that any SIs made under clause 8 that transfer a legislative function, or create or amend any power to legislate, will be subject to the affirmative procedure, as provided for in clause 7. Therefore, Parliament will be able to debate any transfer of powers, and consider the proposed scope of such powers and the scrutiny proposed for their future exercise. Clause 8 gives Ministers a temporary and limited power, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) said, to make regulations to prevent or remedy breaches of international obligations. The provision contained in the secondary legislation must be an appropriate way of doing so and will have to pass before this House under the parliamentary procedures that we have been discussing over the past couple of days. In addition to its limited goals, the power is subject to a number of further limitations. It expires two years after exit day and, as listed in subsection (3), it cannot “make retrospective provision”, create certain types of criminal offence,
“implement the withdrawal agreement, or…amend…the Human Rights Act”.
Mr Walker
Perhaps I can respond to the hon. Lady’s intervention before she even makes it. It is important that we have the power to maintain all our international obligations. As we have discussed in a previous debate, one of those international obligations is to the international element of the Belfast agreement. We will absolutely maintain our commitment to that.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Minister for pre-empting the intervention, but he is referring to my earlier intervention regarding clause 9. Will he use this opportunity to confirm at the Dispatch Box that neither clause 8 nor clause 9, which we have just passed as amended, will be used in any circumstances to amend the Good Friday agreement by regulation?
Mr Walker
At all—by regulation or in any other way.
I will turn briefly to the amendments and respond to new clause 20 in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East. My Department is leading cross-Government work to assess and act on the international agreements for which, as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, arrangements will need to be made to ensure continuity for businesses and individuals. Any that require implementing legislation or parliamentary scrutiny before ratification will go through the appropriate, well-established procedures. We are working with our international partners to identify the full range of our agreements that might be impacted by our exit from the EU, and we will be taking their views into account. It would not be appropriate at this stage to publish the type of assessment proposed in new clause 20. Doing so would prejudice the outcome of these discussions and how any action would be put into practice.
Mr Leslie
I am just looking for a small concession. If the Minister will not do an assessment, will he at least publish a list? The Financial Times has its list of the 759 treaties. Could we have some information from the Government in the public domain about the task that has to be undertaken? That, at least, would be a welcome step.
Mr Walker
We will be coming forward with more information on this front in due course. However, a lot of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was specifically about trade issues, and we have a Trade Bill that deals specifically with those issues. If I might gently say, a lot of what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about related to the content of the Trade Bill rather than this Bill.
We do recognise the need to promote stability for businesses and individuals, and we will aim to transition agreements as seamlessly as possible. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Swansea West—I am afraid he is no longer in his place—and I would like to reassure him that this clause has nothing to do with future trade agreements. It is purely to do with our existing international commitments and how we make sure we continue to meet them in the context of leaving the EU.
Clause 8 is a very specific power, which will be available only where a breach of our current international obligations arises from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. It ensures that we will be able to continue to honour international obligations, which might otherwise be affected by our withdrawal, and it is key to ensuring that we can take our place on the global stage as a fully independent nation. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Members for Nottingham East and for Swansea West will consider not pressing their amendments.
I want to address amendment 345 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is well intentioned but unnecessary. The power in clause 8 has a narrow and specific purpose, and can be used where our international obligations might be breached as a result of leaving the EU. World Health Organisation guidelines are not international obligations; they are used to inform air quality standards in international and EU legislation, but they do not, of themselves, form an obligation to be complied with.
The UK has a strong track record on protecting our environment, and in leaving the EU, we will safeguard and improve on that. The whole purpose of this clause is to ensure that we leave the EU with maximum certainty, continuity and control, and that, as far as possible, the same rules, laws and international obligations apply on the day after exit as on the day before.
Of course, some of the existing mechanisms that allow scrutiny of environmental targets and standards by Governments will not be carried over into our law, and that is why the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced on 12 November our intention to consult on a new, independent statutory body to advise and challenge Government, and potentially other bodies—
Mr Walker
I am going to give the hon. Lady a chance to speak, so I hope she will wait.
That body will also potentially advise and challenge other bodies on environmental legislation, stepping in when needed to hold them to account and to enforce standards. The Government will consult on the specific scope and powers of that body early next year.
We have a number of amendments—from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and the hon. Member for Wakefield, whom I will do my best to give a chance to speak—that seek to place further restrictions on the use of the clause 8 power, beyond those already in the clause. These amendments give me another opportunity to restate our firm commitment to ensuring that environmental protections and the rights of individuals—particularly EU citizens resident in the UK—are maintained as we bring EU law on to the UK statute book. This commitment will be reflected in the use of this clause to ensure that, from day one of withdrawal from the EU, the UK is able to comply with its international obligations.
As we stressed during yesterday’s debate on clause 7, the defence and security of the realm is always the first duty of Government, and the Government are absolutely committed to national security and securing the right future arrangements for security with the EU. I would like to take the opportunity to reassure the Committee that we cannot see that anything that damages our national security would be an appropriate way to ensure continued compliance with international obligations. The same would be true of any change to equalities legislation.
All these amendments are well intentioned, but we have been clear in previous debates that we will preserve rights through this Bill, and not reduce them. In those earlier debates, we also set out that, by giving no definition of what, for example, an environmental protection is, or how one might judge that such a protection was being weakened, amendments along these lines risk unnecessary litigation, undermining the certainty that this Bill aims to create.
In the specific context of clause 8, which is about upholding our international obligations, it is very difficult to see how that could do anything other than require us to preserve rights and protections. Parliament has already approved the UK being party to a number of international conventions and international organisations, such as the World Trade Organisation. We are committed to these international relationships. A key part of that is ensuring that we fully comply with our international obligations. Leaving the customs union and the single market may alter the way in which the UK complies with some of these obligations, specifically with regard to the treatment of WTO most favoured nation status.
Amendment 292 in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield—I know that she wants to speak to it—does not acknowledge these changes in respect of taxation, or the fact that there will not always be a clear choice about how to comply with such obligations in future. Clause 8 gives Ministers the flexibility to make those changes. Of course, however, we will listen to what she has to say. I understand the honourable intentions behind these amendments, but we believe that this clause is well drafted to continue to meet our international obligations.
The UK is a nation whose word is its bond. This Government introduced the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. Our desire to leave the EU in this way applies both to the actions we take domestically and to our actions in relation to international partners. Clause 8 is key to delivering that, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mary Creagh
I thank the Minister for rushing through his speech so that I get the chance to have my five minutes to talk about amendment 292.
Clause 8 allows Ministers to make any regulations to prevent or remedy any breach in our international obligations as we leave the EU, but it also contains a Henry VIII power allowing for those regulations to do anything that an Act of Parliament can do. That includes amending or repealing any Act of Parliament ever passed. It is the most extraordinary and unusual power. I was going to raise the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for getting the Minister on the record on that.
The Government have been very scant on the details about the sorts of international obligations that may be affected. They have also been unable to say—I was listening carefully to the Minister—why regulations under clause 8 can impose or increase taxation. We do not want to end up in a situation where the Government can raise tax-like charges by statutory instrument. That gives away the supremacy of this place on taxation. The “appropriateness” test is too broad, and it undermines the supremacy of Parliament. We cannot have taxation by the back door.
Crucially, I did not hear the Minister say anything about tertiary legislation. We have focused a lot on SIs—the secondary stuff. Tertiary legislation enables a new public body that needs to be set up, such as a chemicals body, to charge fees. This may not be controversial at first, but there may come a time when such bodies want to increase the fees, as happened when the Ministry of Justice wanted to increase probate fees by, I think, 1,500%. Why is there a double standard in clause 8 as regards secondary and tertiary legislation? We want tertiary legislation to be given the same parliamentary control and the same time limits as secondary legislation. My amendment 292 seeks to restore the supremacy of the House on financial matters.
I want briefly to deal with the environmental regulation that the Minister talked about. The Government currently have a “one in, three out” rule. Many of our environmental regulations come from international mixed agreements signed and ratified, as he said, by the UK and the EU; some are bilateral and some are multilateral. The Environmental Audit Committee has been looking at our progress in reducing fluorinated gases. These are very powerful greenhouse gases with a global warming potential 14,000 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. They are in commercial refrigeration systems, in our car air-conditioning systems, and in 70% of the 60 million asthma inhalers that we use in this country every year. Targets for reducing those gases are set and monitored by the European Union, but we are also a signatory to the UN framework, so it is a mixed agreement. We have just ratified the Kigali amendment to reduce F-gases by 85% by 2036. That agreement is monitored by the EU, so the Bill will convert the regulation into UK law and we will need new regulations.
The explanatory memorandum states that the new regulations may be subject to the Government’s “one in, three out” rule. We cannot have the Government making hundreds, if not thousands, of new regulations that get caught under that absurd administrative rule, so I want the Minister to assure the House that it will be scrapped. I have written about that as the Committee Chair, and Lord Henley has said that there is no clarity about it and no decision has been made. That has to change.
Mr Leslie
This is an incredibly important series of discussions. We need more information on the 759 international treaties that may fall on exit day, and I am glad that the Minister indicated that more information would be forthcoming. I want to vote for new clause 22 on the European economic area and the single market, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
EEA Agreement
“(1) No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise.
(2) Regulations under this Act may not make any provision that would constitute a breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the EEA Agreement.
(3) Regulations under this Act may not amend or repeal subsection (1) or (2).”—(Heidi Alexander.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Provision of Adequate, Ring-fenced Funding for Mental Health Services
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents in my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood.
The petition declares:
The petition of residents of Dulwich and West Norwood,
Declares that there is widespread concern about the deterioration of our mental health services and that those in need of care are receiving inadequate treatment as a result; further that a revolving door of admission, discharge and readmission is emerging, instead of the long term treatment that is needed; further notes that overworked professionals do not always have the time that they would like to spend with their patients to determine the best course of treatment and most appropriate support; and further that welcomes news that the Government is putting some extra funding into mental health services, but is concerned that this is insufficient, and not ring-fenced, and that despite the increase the proportion of funding that many Clinical Commissioning Group (CCGs) are spending has continued to fall, including in Lambeth and Southwark.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to commit to providing adequate, ring-fenced funding for mental health services.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002091]
UK Flight Ban: Sharm El Sheikh
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I would like to thank Mr Speaker for granting this important debate. I take a particular interest in the matter as a co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Egypt. It is a privilege to serve alongside some excellent officers and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the other co-chairman.
In November 2015, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, took the decision to put at ban on UK flights direct to Sharm El Sheikh airport following the terrible loss of a Russian plane on 30 October that year. He declared that the UK would work with the Egyptian Government and aviation authorities to ensure that Sharm El Sheikh airport was safe before relaxing the ban. Following an inspection from the UK’s Department for Transport, a 25-point plan was drawn up to ensure the safety of the airport. The Government of Egypt and the hotel industry in Sharm El Sheikh has invested around £20 million to implement all 25 points listed. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has also issued official guidance that identifies the resort as in the green category, which means it is a very low-risk area. Yet despite the assurances from the Department for Transport and our Foreign Office, and with the UK’s 25-point plan now fully implemented, Sharm El Sheikh airport remains closed to UK flights.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does it not come as a great surprise to my hon. Friend that the ban on flights to Tunisia, which is immediately opposite ISIL- infested beaches in Libya, was lifted, whereas the Sharm el Sheikh ban has not been lifted, although it was British expertise that helped to restore that airport to its current excellent status?
Mr Lord
I agree with my hon. Friend. When the all-party parliamentary group on Egypt, of which the right hon. Member for East Ham and I are co-chairmen, visited the country recently, it was instructive to note that virtually everyone we met was aware of the continuing UK ban. Parliamentarians, Ministers and business people obviously knew that the UK was now encouraging tourism back to Tunisia, and they took it as a bit of an affront that we were not helping Egypt in a similar way. Given that the UK’s 25-point plan has been fully implemented, they find it very disappointing that Sharm El Sheikh airport remains closed to UK flights. The UK is now unique in being the only European country to operate such a ban: every other country in the EU allows flights to Sharm El Sheikh. The ban has had a significant economic impact on the resort’s tourist economy, which is highly reliant on the UK tourism trade. Hotels are operating at only 35% of capacity.
I understand that security experts in the UK and Egypt now agree that Sharm El Sheikh has one of the world’s most secure airports. In 2016, after three trips to the town, Sir Gerald Howarth, then an MP and chairman of the APPG, told UK travel companies that representatives of the Department for Transport had told him that they felt that the conditions to enable flights to resume had been met. To meet those conditions, Egypt has spent more than £20 million on improving security at the airport, replaced outdated equipment, trained 7,000 staff using the UK aviation security firm Restrata, run rigorous background checks on current staff, laid off more than 40% of the original staff and introduced a new biometric ID system for all airport employees. The Egyptian authorities have also invested £26 million in security at tourist hotspots and hotels across the nation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My parliamentary aide had the holiday of a lifetime in Sharm El Sheikh; after all, it was her honeymoon. I join the hon. Gentleman in highlighting the great bonus of the flights to home-grown tourist operators. If it is safe to do so, we should request their restart. We should encourage the Egyptian Government to continue their great protections for the human rights of Christians and those of other faiths, and ensure that the economy of Sharm El Sheikh can be reinvigorated and rejuvenated as a result of tourism from Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole.
Mr Lord
I agree with every single point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Strategically, Sharm El Sheikh is one of the easiest tourist destinations to make secure, as it is only accessible either by air or by a single road, via a tunnel. These two entry points ensure that the area is easy to secure.
Before the flight ban, roughly 1 million British tourists visited Egypt each year, benefiting the economy by a minimum of £500 per tourist. At a conservative estimate, tourism was worth £500 million. Now only 350,000 British tourists are visiting annually, which represents a vast loss to the Egyptian economy. The number of British tourists flying to Sharm El Sheikh itself dropped from 900,000 in 2014 to just 231,000 in 2016.
The impact on the local economy is acute, with 70% of the dive centres in the Red sea area closing down by early 2016 and a further 20% no longer operating to full capacity. Things are now getting a little better owing to the reinstatement of flights by all other countries, but the impact on the local and national economy is still very significant. Tourism accounts for about 6% of Egypt’s GDP and employs 12% of the population.
The ban has also had an impact on the British economy, with UK airlines losing significant revenue, which they have sought to regain primarily by shifting flight capacity to the western Mediterranean. The recent collapse of Monarch airlines has very largely been attributed to the UK ban on flights to Sharm El Sheikh, and other airlines such as Thomson and Thomas Cook have also reported losses due to that ban.
The ban may also impact the UK economy in the long term. In PwC’s latest authoritative report on the global economic order, Egypt is moving up the rankings, thanks to the wider economic reforms of President Sisi and his Government, and Egypt is a valuable trading partner for the UK, as our trade envoy there will attest.
UK companies currently invest more in Egypt than the rest of the world put together, but on that recent trip to Egypt by the APPG, every single Egyptian businessman and politician was palpably upset, and indeed rather mystified, by the continuing UK flight ban and said it was a very real impediment to the good relations that ought to exist between our two great countries.
In summary, I would like to tell the House of early-day motion 468, recently tabled by myself and my co-chairman, the right hon. Member for East Ham, because it summarises this whole issue well, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply to its points:
“That this House welcomes the successful implementation of the UK-Egyptian joint action plan and substantial investment in upgrading security at Sharm El Sheikh airport using UK expertise in transport and security services; understands that Sharm El Sheikh airport is now considered by Department for Transport officials as one of the safest airports in the world; further notes that the UK Foreign Office safety categorisation for Sharm El Sheikh is green meaning that it is assessed as safe; acknowledges the reinstatement of flights to Sharm El Sheikh from other European countries including Germany, Italy and Belgium and the resumption of holiday flights from the UK to Tunisia; and calls on the Government to review the situation urgently, taking account of updated security advice and to consider lifting immediately the ban on flights from the UK to Sharm El Sheikh.”
The early-day motion has had good support from across this House. I urge the Government to consider it carefully, and to come back to the House with a positive response.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I associate myself with everything the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) has said and congratulate him on securing the debate. We are co-chairs of the APPG on Egypt and were in that country last month, thanks to funding support primarily from the Egyptian Parliament, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which refers to that visit.
As the hon. Gentleman has rightly underlined, the No. 1 thing that almost everybody we met in Egypt wanted to talk to us about was the continuing ban on flights from the UK to Sharm El Sheikh, which has had such a devastating effect on the economy of Sharm El Sheikh and further afield. It is characterised by many in Egypt as the UK giving in to terrorism. That is how they think about it. They acknowledge that, yes, a terrible terrorist atrocity occurred—there is no question about that—and there is no doubt that there were serious weaknesses in security that enabled it to happen, but the fact that our ban is still in place is, to Egyptian eyes, a case of the UK caving in. They believe that the UK, above all countries, should not be caving in.
It is hard to understand why the ban is being kept. As the hon. Gentleman has set out, Egypt has invested heavily to implement all the recommendations on improving security that were made by international experts, most of whom were from the UK, and almost every other country has lifted its ban in response to that. Indeed, I noticed news reports this week that President Putin announced in Cairo on Monday that Russia would resume civilian flights to Egypt. It was of course a Russian passenger jet that was shot down. My understanding is that Russia is the only other country with a continuing ban. If that ban is lifted, only ours will remain in place. That is a puzzling position for us in the UK to get ourselves into.
Stability and prosperity in Egypt are key to stability in the region, and therefore greatly in the interests of the world as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman explained, UK tourism is starting to increase a bit now, but it is still less than half what it was before the ban was introduced. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly pointed out that British citizens love taking their holidays Sharm El Sheikh, and we are denying that opportunity to large numbers of UK citizens. The Egyptian economy is being damaged by this, as is the UK economy. The case of Monarch underlines that fact. No explanation has been provided, so we were unable to explain on our visit why the UK uniquely cannot lift its ban. I join the hon. Member for Woking and all those who have signed the early-day motion in urging the Minister to waste no time in lifting the ban.
The Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime (Mr John Hayes)
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) have a long-standing interest in Egypt, and I acknowledge their interest and their concern about this matter. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and welcome the opportunity to say more about flights to Sharm El Sheikh.
Hon. Members will know that in addition to being appointed three times as Minister of State in the Department for Transport, I am also a former Security Minister. This is therefore a subject close to my heart, and a matter of profound importance. The security and safety of our citizens is perhaps our most significant duty of all as a Parliament and as a Government. To that end, I know that my hon. Friend and all those who have contributed to the debate would not expect any Government of any persuasion to do anything that in any way compromised the safety and security of UK citizens, whether here in our country or travelling abroad.
The House will know that, on 31 October 2015, following its departure from Sharm El Sheikh international airport to St Petersburg, Metrojet flight 9268 disintegrated above Northern Sinai. As a result, a total of 224 passengers and crew of various nationalities were killed. Following that event, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office returned UK nationals and changed its travel advice. It advised against all but essential travel by air to or from that location. That had the effect of airlines halting all direct air services between the UK and Sharm El Sheikh airport. Flights to the UK from other Egyptian airports, including Cairo, Luxor, Marsa Alam and Hurghada, were unaffected.
Two years on, that advice remains in place, although the Government keep travel advice under constant review. For example, we recently updated the travel advice in Tunisia following the Sousse attack in 2015 and the changed security situation there, albeit in very different circumstances. Daesh claimed responsibility for the Metrojet attack, and the Egyptian and Russian Governments announced that the aircraft was brought down by an act of terrorism, as President Sisi stated in February 2016. The Egyptian authorities’ investigation has not come to any firm conclusion regarding the exact events that preceded the attack, and no perpetrator has been caught.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Woking and the right hon. Member for East Ham made the point that other countries have taken different decisions about resuming flights, which is true. Most flights to Sharm El Sheikh before the Metrojet crash were from the UK or Russia, however, and it is of course for each country to decide what security requirements they need to protect their citizens—it is not for me to comment on that—but the UK is working closely with the Egyptian Government to assess security at Egyptian airports. I can also say that the UK works with a number of other Governments to look at certain security situations, particularly where there are a large number of UK travellers, and I will say a bit more about the detail of that in the course of my remaining remarks.
Our experts on the ground in Egypt have been working closely with the Egyptian authorities since the Metrojet crash, and it has been acknowledged that the level of security at the airport has improved from where it was before—the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend both made that point. However, there is a wider range of security-related reasons, which the House would not expect me to go into in detail here, why we do not yet feel that we should resume flights.
The terrorism typified by this incident blights both Egypt and the United Kingdom, and the recent mosque attack in North Sinai serves as the latest reminder of the deplorable depths to which terrorist groups are willing to stoop in Egypt. The Prime Minister recently expressed her condolences to President Sisi over that attack, as well as her solidarity and support in the face of such a common threat. Egypt has long played a crucial role in fighting terrorism, and we stand resolutely by Egypt in that fight.
Let me be absolutely clear that this Government’s top priority will always be to maintain the safety of British nationals and those flying into the UK, based on all the information we have available to us. The House will know that aviation remains a target for terrorist groups and that the threat is constantly evolving. We must respond accordingly to ensure that the protection of the public against those who would do us harm is as certain as possible. I emphasise that that is about both detection equipment at airports, which is changing and improving all the time, and the protocols in place at airports—training, management and how equipment is deployed. All those things have a profound effect on the safety of an airport, and we are working in all those areas with countries across the world to ensure that they can be their best and do their best.
Stephen Timms
The Minister is absolutely right that being vigilant about the wellbeing of UK citizens is the both his first duty and that of the Government. Is he able to shed any light on why the assessment being made by the UK Government is different from the ones being made by other Governments including, it now seems, the Russian Government?
Mr Hayes
I made the point briefly a moment ago that the principle source of tourism to Sharm El Sheikh before the crash came from Russia and the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is the United Kingdom and Russia that are yet to resume flights. As I said before, it is not appropriate for me to go into the details of the precise security situation, and the House would not want me to. It is fair to say that, although we acknowledge that significant improvements have been made and we have been working on the ground with the Egyptian authorities, the prevailing situation in Egypt, illustrated a moment ago by reference to the recent atrocity, is difficult. It is clear to us that airports remain a target for terrorists.
Having said that, let me be equally clear that the Government wish to see the resumption of flights to the resort as soon as it is safe to do so. We understand the economic impact—the point has been made forcefully and persuasively by the contributors to the debate—of the absence of flights on the Egyptian economy, and we know that tourism is important to Egypt. Egypt, as I have already said, is an important partner in the fight against terrorism.
In the meantime, UK visitors continue to enjoy the abundant attractions on offer at other resorts and sites throughout Egypt, and I am delighted that more than 226,000 British tourists visited Egypt between January and September 2017, a 31% increase on the same period last year. UK tourists have been worth more than $220 million to the Egyptian economy so far this year, so people are travelling to Egypt in greater numbers. The shock and fear that people understandably felt deterred them from travelling to anywhere in Egypt, and we are pleased that people are returning.
We work closely and productively with the Egyptian authorities. My officials are working with their counterparts on the ground to share their expertise in establishing effective security arrangements, and there has been good progress in improving security at Sharm El Sheikh airport and other Egyptian airports that fly to the UK. My officials have visited and advised all those airports on a regular basis over the past two years. The Government are committed to supporting the Egyptian Government to improve aviation security. We have a common fight against terrorism, and it is therefore our common aim to improve aviation security.
My Department’s global work on aviation security is an important part of the Government’s wider counter-terrorism strategy to keep our citizens safe wherever they are in the world. As we have worked with the Egyptian authorities, we are working with authorities in a number of other places in the areas that I have briefly outlined. It is not only about the provision of good equipment; many other improvements can be made to secure an airport.
With more British experts working side by side with host nations in the most vulnerable locations because we more than doubled our spending on aviation security in the spending review, we can reasonably say that we have delivered on our commitment in the strategic defence and security review.
The Prime Minister led the way last year in pushing for the adoption of the first ever United Nations Security Council resolution on aviation security, which has recently been developed into a global aviation security plan that the Government are strongly supporting. My Department’s enlarged global network of aviation security experts works in partnership with many host states to strengthen the global aviation security system by identifying vulnerabilities in aviation security regimes and developing options to mitigate each vulnerability in order to deliver improvements and maintain quality assurance. This drives up both capacity and capability. As I said earlier, it is not enough just to build capacity; we have to build capability.
Stephen Timms
I understand that Russia announced this week that it is lifting its ban on civilian flights. Is there any other airport in the world to which the UK uniquely bans flights? That appears to be the position with Sharm El Sheikh.
Mr Hayes
Russia has not resumed flights, either, so the situation is not quite unique. We have not uniquely continued to maintain the ban on flights. The truth is that each case has to be considered on its particular circumstances and merits. Airport security is complex, for the reasons I have mentioned. We analyse the security situation at airports in a wide range of countries and deploy resource to those countries. We advise and deploy expertise in those places. The circumstances in each of them are different, although there are common themes, of course. It would be too simplistic to say that a formula can simply be rolled out, regardless of the prevailing local circumstances. The threats of course vary from place to place as well, so the context is also the threat, not just the circumstances of the airport itself.
My Department’s capacity development programme aims to deliver long-term sustainable change that will improve airport security, resulting in high-quality security screening. We will continue to work closely with the Egyptian Government on aviation security in Egypt. Our ongoing work includes providing training for Egyptian airport security staff, as well as other advice and support. My Department has also provided additional explosive trace detection capabilities to the Egyptian Government for use by carriers flying to the UK. We have Department for Transport aviation security experts based in Egypt, reflecting the Government’s commitment to supporting the provision of good security there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently met his Egyptian counterpart to discuss aviation security, and high levels of engagement between our two nations continue.
The Government are very grateful to the Egyptian Government for their full co-operation and the impressive efforts they have made to improve aviation security. The UK values its important relationship with Egypt and its commitment to building on our co-operation in supporting the development of Egyptian aviation security. I am sure the House will understand that it is long-standing Government policy not to comment on, or publish, details on security matters. I am therefore limited on what I can say to a greater degree than that, but I look forward to the return of flights to Sharm El Sheikh once the Government can be sure it is safe. I can assure the House that the Government are working hard to facilitate that outcome, which I know we all want to see.
Question put and agreed to.
draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, deemed applications, requests and site visits) (england) (amendment) regulations 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Alok Sharma)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.
The draft regulations will bring forward the 20% increase in nationally set planning application fees that we promised in the housing White Paper, introduce fees for new categories of development and enable development corporations to charge for pre-application planning advice. If approved by the House, as they were in the other place, the draft regulations will come into effect 28 days after they are made.
The planning application regime is the gateway to new homes, economic development and regeneration, so it is important that we support and work with local authorities to promote excellence in their services. We want to ensure that the planning system is valued, resilient and capable of providing the service that local people and planning applicants expect. We also want to provide local authorities with the capacity and capability to support the Government’s objective to build the homes we need more quickly.
I recognise that planning fees have not increased since 2012. The 20% increase in planning fees set out in the draft regulations is a significant step towards addressing the widespread concerns of under-resourced local planning authorities. It is worth noting that the increase is greater than it would have been had it been linked to inflation. In recognising the wider pressures on local planning authorities, we stated in our housing White Paper that we would increase planning fees by 20% for those authorities that
“commit to invest the additional fee income in their planning department.”
Ring-fencing the additional fees in that way will ensure that resources are directly invested to support the delivery of an effective planning system. All local planning authorities in England have accepted that offer.
Based on current activity, that uplift in planning fees could generate more than £75 million of additional fee income annually for local authorities. That is equal to the average salaries of approximately 1,600 planners and other professionals who play a role in the planning process, and should bring total planning application fee income to approximately £450 million a year. The 20% increase will keep planning application fees at a modest level for householders and developers compared with overall project costs, while providing local authorities with the necessary resources to turn around applications efficiently and effectively.
In addition to the 20% fee increase for planning applications and advertisement consents set out in regulation 2, the draft regulations will make a number of other technical changes in relation to fees charged by local planning authorities. In developing the draft regulations, we undertook a technical consultation in 2016 on proposals to increase planning application fees. The majority of respondents from all sectors supported increasing planning fees.
Let me turn to the specifics of the draft regulations. Regulation 1 sets out their scope: they apply only in England and will come into force 28 days after they are made. Regulation 2 provides for an increase in all existing fees for planning applications and advertisement consents, and brings forward four technical changes.
Regulation 3 puts in place the fee a local authority will be able to charge for a permission-in-principle application. Permission in principle is a new route to planning permission, which gives developers up-front certainty that sites are suitable for housing-led development in principle before they need to work up detailed and costly development proposals. The draft regulations will introduce a new fee of £402 per 0.1 hectare for applications for permission in principle. That follows new powers that we intend to provide to local authorities to grant permissions in principle for suitable sites on application.
The same principle applies in regulation 4, which enables any mayoral development corporation or urban development corporation to charge for giving pre-application advice. That provides the same powers to development corporations as already exist for other local planning authorities.
Regulation 5(1) amends a reference to the relevant legislation relating to permitted development rights. In effect, it changes the reference from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
Regulation 5(2) provides for a planning fee to be charged by local planning authorities for applications necessary because a permitted development right has been removed. The right could have been removed through either an article 4 direction of the 2015 order or a condition imposed on a planning permission. That change delivers a commitment made during the passage of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017.
Finally, regulation 5(3) expands the scope of prior approval applications, for which a fee of £96 can be charged. The regulations include the prior approvals required as part of the new permitted development rights that were introduced in April 2015 and April 2017. Those permitted development rights include the rights for the installation of solar photovoltaic equipment on non-domestic buildings, the erection of click-and-collect facilities within the land area of a shop, the temporary use of buildings or land for film-making purposes and the provision of temporary school buildings on vacant commercial land for state-funded schools.
We continue to keep the resourcing of local authority planning departments and where fees can be charged under review. The housing White Paper promised a subsequent consultation on a possible further 20% increase in planning fees. We published in September this year local housing needs consultation proposals entitled “Planning for the right homes in the right places”. We consulted on the potential to increase planning fees by a further 20% and how that could be targeted for authorities that are delivering the homes that communities need. That consultation closed recently, and the responses received will inform our thinking on how to ensure that planning fees deliver the resources necessary to support the high performance of local planning authorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. We by and large welcome the proposals. There are areas that we want to see the Government go further on, and I will explore some of those. I also have questions that I would like to put to the Minister, for a response today.
In particular, we welcome regulation 2, which provides for the increase in existing fees to be paid to local planning authorities. We welcome the 20% increase, which will no doubt make a difference. Without the approval of the regulations, planning departments would miss out on an estimated £70 million of additional income in the current financial year. The autumn statement contained measures intended to speed up development, but included nothing to help the resourcing of planning departments, which councils have long called for.
We also welcome the move in regulation 4(2)—that is, proposed new regulation 2B of the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012—to allow mayoral development corporations and urban development corporations to charge for advice in their area on planning applications at the pre-application stage. That reflects better the greater use of powers afforded to local mayors, without them having to incur additional costs in delivering those powers.
The heart of the issue is that the planning process is still being subsidised by general council tax payers. Those payments are being asked to cover an increasing shortfall in council budgets. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that councils have been forced to cut planning and development services by 30% when we are demanding more and expecting that more units will be built. While the regulations are welcome, they are a small step towards achieving the house building that we know our country needs.
Councils are working hard to deliver the right kind of home and they are approving nine out of 10 planning applications, but planning departments are severely under-resourced. Taxpayers are subsidising the cost of planning applications by around £200 million a year. That money could be spent on frontline services, which we know have taken the brunt of austerity.
A shortcoming of recent regulations on this issue is that they do not account for inflation. That cannot be acceptable when they are revised so infrequently. As the explanatory notes state, the regulations were last revised in 2012, which is a significant issue. It was five years ago that this issue was last brought before the House in a meaningful way. Since then, we know that the cost of dealing with applications has gone up significantly.
Under the proposals, planning authorities will probably have to wait the same time before another increase, when costs are increasing all the time. We need a fee structure with inflationary increases built in to take into account the natural increases that councils have to bear every year. If we do not do that, the additional pressures that we see year on year through normal inflationary pressures will be passed on to general taxpayers in those areas. With austerity continuing to bite, that means that frontline services will be affected.
The Local Government Association has suggested that provision should be made for fees to increase in line with the consumer price index on 1 April every year, starting in 2018. That would bring the town and country planning fees regulations into line with the Infrastructure Planning Fees (Amendment) Regulations 2017. Those insert a mechanism for fees for development consent for certain types of nationally significant infrastructure project to be increased annually in line with CPI.
Another issue is the method for setting fees. Rather than the Government setting fees, would it not be appropriate and in the spirit of devolution for local authorities to set the fees in their own areas? We know that councils provide for fees and charges across a range of council services: burial charges, trade waste, car parking charges and market ground rents. Councils do that annually as a decision of full council. I cannot see why planning fees should not be done in the same manner, as they would be held to account by the full council meeting and dealt with in the way that the schedule of fees and charges is for the range of council services.
That way, local authorities could plan for their local needs and plan ahead for the developments that they knew would come down the line. They could have staff in place, knowing that they had the security of being masters of their own destiny, rather than having to wait for Government to carry out a five-year review further down the line.
Planning authorities understand the demand for applications, but, importantly, they also understand the nature of costs that can be associated with certain types of application. An example is where there are a number of conservation areas or listed buildings due for redevelopment. The council would know that the specialist skills that were needed in the planning department were more involved than general planning and professional advice services. It would make sense to allow that local determination, taking into account the nature of planning applications coming forward, to be in the control of local authorities, which best know their area.
Colleagues at the LGA have suggested that we should explore the option of piloting full-cost recovery in some areas; I would like the Minister’s view on that. The Government could test a fair and transparent scheme and give councils the flexibility to set appropriate fees, reflecting local circumstance. To me, that is a sensible way to assess whether that is plausible and it would refine how this could be done, creating a pathway for the future.
I would also briefly like to raise concern about the changes to planning regulations set out in the autumn statement. The Treasury has now extended powers of permitted development to allow for the demolition of existing buildings, rather than their reuse. That not only bypasses any form of local consultation, but means that anything can be built without public scrutiny. That is a significant departure from the existing planning development rules and it could undermine local planning authorities even more.
Some of the examples given, such as the extension of click-and-collect facilities, seem very passive. Why would anybody want to object to what seems on the face of it a small planning matter? Click-and-collect lockers are generally installed outside convenience stores. That means that people can collect parcels 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The convenience store itself might have restricted opening hours, recognising that it could be surrounded by dense residential accommodation, so extended opening hours could be inconvenient for people who live there.
These extended permitted development rights allow for such lockers to be installed outside convenience stores, which could be by someone’s front door, with people coming 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to open the lockers for their click-and-collect parcels. The idea that the Government will not allow local people to have a say on that is not at all in the spirit of local democracy, and it is certainly not in the spirit of people being able to determine, at a local level, what type of neighbourhood they want to live in.
More generally, I will highlight the benefits of a proper, resourced planning system. We are in the midst of a housing crisis in the UK. I do not want to get into a political argument about why and what the current methods are, but we should all agree that the way to get out of the current situation is to make sure that we have proper planning departments that are resourced and valued, and that can start planning for the long term.
One suggestion put forward—I would like to hear the Minister’s view on this—is to have a proper education and investment programme for planning officers coming into local authorities. It would be similar to a Teach First-type programme, where we would identify people at university, support them and fast-track them into local authorities, and then, when they were in place within the local authority, give them continual personal development training and support.
We should also identify young people within schools who might be interested in this sector. Young people in Oldham would love the opportunity of having what is a professional and respected job, but is maybe a job they have not even considered before. We know that our housing growth requirements will require more planning officers, so it would be advantageous to reach out into our schools, open young people’s eyes a bit and offer them that opportunity.
I know the Government will say they have consulted with the LGA. That may well be the case, and I would expect it to be, but that is not to say that what the LGA said has been taken on board in the way it intended. I will make a cross-party offer. The LGA is a cross-party organisation; it reaches consensus on many of these issues and is not party political. There is no reason this place could not act in the same mature-spirited way, too. If there is room for common ground—where we can advance the planning system, making it fit for purpose and for tackling the challenges ahead—perhaps a way to do that is somewhere outside a statutory instrument Committee, where more informal conversations could take place and we could work with our colleagues in the LGA to make sure that we get this right. If we do not get this right, there is no chance that we can build the housing our country needs.
Alok Sharma
Fees for planning applications have been the subject of successive regulations since 1981, but have not been increased since 2012. The debate is about a timely and essential adjustment of the fees that local planning authorities can charge. It will still be the case that most planning fees represent a small fraction of the full cost of any development to which they relate, and because the increases are being applied across the board, they do not impact more heavily on particular sectors of business or, indeed, the community.
I want to refer to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton. First, I welcome his and his party’s support for these vital regulations and changes. I think we can all agree that we want to see local authorities, and planning departments particularly, funded and working efficiently and effectively. That is precisely why we set it out in the White Paper that we would introduce this increase in planning fees.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the need for further funding. As I noted, in our recent consultation we asked for views on an additional 20% increase, and we will of course review the feedback that we get from that. He also raised the issue of the potential linking of the fees to inflation, using the CPI. As he knows, the regulations do not provide for indexed linking, and we would of course need primary legislation to amend the enabling power. As I set out in my opening remarks, the 20% increase that we hope to implement within the 28 days means that the increase will be greater than if a link to inflation as a measure for increasing these fees had been in place back in 2012.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about local authorities having the ability to set their own fees. We do not consider that allowing local planning authorities to set their own fees is the answer to resourcing challenges, as there is no guarantee that the additional income would go into planning services or would deliver efficiencies.
There is also a risk that uncertainty in relation to fees in some areas might dissuade homeowners and small developers from undertaking development and introduce unpredictability when we need developers to accelerate the number of homes they are building. However, I fully accept that we need to keep the resourcing of local planning authorities and the circumstances in which local fees can be charged under review.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other points. He talked about trialling or piloting full-cost recovery. Full-cost recovery, by itself, does not provide a link to service improvements. Charging at cost recovery removes the incentives for local authorities to reduce their cost, if they know they can pass the cost directly on to applicants.
The hon. Gentleman raised issues around the permitted development impact of click and collect. I want to clarify that this right applies only within a shop’s curtilage. It cannot be outside someone’s home.
Jim McMahon
Will the Minister clarify whether that includes the outer curtilage—the boundary on the deeds —or just the inside of the property?
Alok Sharma
I will write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that. The key point is that the impact of this change is not quite as he outlined.
Jim McMahon
I think this is a slightly bigger issue than it has been given credit for. I understood from the advice that this does include the outer curtilage. At a local shop with a click-and-collect service, the locker could be on the outside—right near the front door of a residential property—under permitted development rights in this scheme. This is not for today, but the Government ought to go away and look at the impact of that.
Alok Sharma
If the hon. Gentleman writes to me to set out his thoughts, we will consider them. The changes we are discussing today relate to the permitted development rights regime.
The hon. Gentleman raised the interesting issue of education and investment for planners. We are working with organisations such as the Royal Town Planning Institute to support the education and training of planners through the provision of bursary programmes and other initiatives.
We have debated today regulations and an increase in planning fees that are widely welcomed by local authorities and those who seek planning permission. I reiterate that it is vital we have well-resourced, effective and efficient local authority planning departments to provide new homes and deliver economic growth, as the hon. Gentleman set out. We expect local authorities to match the recommended fee increases with an ongoing improvement of service when handling planning applications. In introducing these changes, we are ensuring that local authorities have the resources to take on and deal efficiently with all increasing demands made of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (amendment) Regulations 2017
Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017.
Chris Skidmore
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The purpose of the instruments is to modify provisions in the Representation of the People Act 2000 to enable the pilot scheme provisions to apply to combined authority elections and local mayoral elections. The provisions brought into effect in 2000 were used extensively in pilots in 2007. There has been no piloting of changes to the voting process for more than a decade, but new polls have been introduced to other local authority elections, namely elections for local Mayors and Mayors for combined authorities. However, the 2000 Act piloting provisions do not fully apply to the new polls.
Earlier this year, the Government announced that they would conduct pilots for voter identification at the local elections in May 2018 in line with their manifesto commitment to legislate to ensure that a form of identification must be presented before voting. Voter ID is part of the Government’s commitment to improve the security and resilience of the electoral system that underpins our democracy, and will ensure that people have confidence in our democratic processes.
Five authorities have indicated their intention to run voter ID pilots in the local elections in May 2018, including Woking, Gosport, Bromley, Swindon and Watford. Tower Hamlets will also pilot new security features for postal voting. Watford and Tower Hamlets will be holding local mayoral elections in addition to their local council elections.
The powers to alter electoral conduct rules for the purpose of running pilots are contained within section 10 of the 2000 Act. Section 11 enables the Secretary of State to apply measures trialled in a pilot scheme generally, taking into account any report on the scheme provided by the Electoral Commission under section 10. The sections currently make provision to conduct the pilots in local authority and Greater London Authority elections.
As I have indicated, two of the local authorities that plan to conduct pilots in May 2018—Watford and Tower Hamlets—will also hold local authority mayoral elections on the same day. Those polls are normally held in combination for the benefit of both electors and administrators, and proposed changes will allow pilots to be conducted at both. That will ensure that voters have a smooth voting experience. It would be confusing for voters if the provisions were piloted at one poll but not the other on the same day. The changes will also facilitate the effective administration of the polls.
More generally, the statutory instruments we are considering will enable pilot scheme orders to be made that are intended to improve the voting experience for voters, and to make the electoral process more secure. The pilot schemes orders will also allow evidence to be collected for statutory evaluation by the Electoral Commission on the impact of voter ID in polling stations. That evidence and evaluation will inform the Government’s decision about how most successfully to meet their manifesto commitment and introduce voter ID nationally. No pilot schemes are planned for a combined authority mayoral election—elections for metro Mayors, as the media have termed them—but the order will facilitate any pilot scheme orders for combined authority mayoral elections in future.
For the record, I will describe the detail of the proposed changes. On the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, section 10 of the 2000 Act enables the Secretary of State, as I have explained, to make provision to run pilot schemes in relation to the conduct of local elections in England and Wales by order. Section 11 allows the Secretary of State to apply those changes generally. Currently, section 10 does not enable changes to be made to the conduct of rules for local mayoral elections.
Provisions in section 11 that enable measures tested in a pilot scheme to apply generally and on a permanent basis do not encompass conduct rules for local mayoral elections. When the mayoral rules were made in 2007, provision was made to apply sections 10 and 11 of the RPA 2000 to mayoral elections. However, a further modification was needed to enable changes to be made to the mayoral election conduct rules, because they are made under the Local Government Act 2000. Sections 10 and 11 only enable changes to conduct rules to be made under that Act, which was a technical oversight. The regulations make those modifications so as to enable pilot scheme orders under section 10 of the RPA 2000 to make changes to the mayoral conduct rules. That will enable pilot scheme orders to be made that will facilitate, in the short term, voter ID pilots during local mayoral elections and, in the longer term, any other future pilot schemes.
Turning to the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017, similarly to local mayoral elections, sections 10 and 11 of the RPA 2000 as currently drafted do not enable the conduct rules for combined authority mayoral elections to be modified. When the combined authorities mayoral order was made in 2017, provision was made to apply sections 10 and 11 of the RPA 2000 to combined authority mayoral elections. However, a further modification was needed to enable changes to be made to the 2017 conduct rules, made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. That, again, was a technical oversight. The order makes those modifications to enable pilot scheme orders under section 10 of the RPA 2000 to make changes to the combined authority conduct rules for the purpose of conducting pilots.
We are also taking the opportunity to address a technical issue concerning subscription of candidates’ nomination papers at combined authority mayoral elections. The order will amend the definitions of “elector” and “local government elector” to clarify who may subscribe a nomination paper. A subscriber must be of voting age on the day of the poll and they must be on the local government register of electors on the last day for the publication of the notice of election, which must be published no later than 25 working days before polling day. It also includes new versions of the form of the nomination paper for use by candidates at a combined authority mayoral election as a consequence of the changes.
The provision for the combined authority mayoral elections did not contain the limitation of the register being the one produced by the last day for publication for the notice of election, which is the case for other polls. That meant that administrators had to check subscribers on the register both up to that date and beyond it, which opened up scope for confusion and error as that was unlike the position for other polls. The change brings the provision in line with that of other polls and thereby also supports more effective administration of polls held in combination. The amendments will make combined authority mayoral elections consistent with other polls on this issue as well as provide certainty to candidates and administrators as to whom they subscribe the nomination paper.
Our principal stakeholders, the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators, have been consulted on these draft statutory instruments and are content. Furthermore, the stakeholders have expressed support for voter identification pilots in general. The Cabinet Office and Electoral Commission will undertake detailed evaluation of the pilots, after which the Government will announce the next step to implement voter ID nationally.
We consider, in summary, that these instruments are necessary for the conduct of electoral pilots in respect of local mayoral elections and combined authority mayoral elections and also make the law governing candidates’ nominations at combined authority mayoral elections consistent with other polls. I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is vital that our electoral system is fit for purpose. Pilot schemes can be an effective tool to test electoral innovations and identify key learning points through the evaluation process. The Opposition strongly believe in handing power back to communities: not the piecemeal devolution adopted by the Government but real, meaningful devolution complete with the necessary funding to give it legs. We therefore welcome measures to extend the rights to local authorities to make applications to run electoral pilots in local mayoral elections.
It is somewhat concerning that the combined authorities order is amending a drafting error in the original order for metro Mayor elections. It is not the first time that has happened this year: just days before the general election polling day, the Government were forced to table a new set of rules for the election after numerous errors in the 2017 parliamentary elections order came to light. That is hardly a good sign for how the vastly greater and more complicated reams of legislative change required for Brexit will go.
It is also disappointing that we are debating yet another statutory instrument that offers sticking-plaster solutions to an already broken system. The law governing elections is fragmented and flexible, inconsistent and complex. There are 40 Acts of Parliament and more than 170 statutory instruments relating to our electoral legal framework, with some provisions dating back to the 19th century.
It is widely accepted by those involved in administering and competing in elections, including the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators, that fundamental reform of electoral law is needed, yet the Government refuse to listen and continue to bury their head in the sand. In February 2016 the Law Commission published its interim report calling for the current laws governing elections to be rationalised
“into a single, consistent legislative framework governing all elections”.
Nearly two years on, the Government are yet to respond to that.
While we in the Opposition do not stand in the way of efforts to extend democracy to local authorities, we do not support this Government’s priorities on electoral pilots. The Government are fixated on introducing a photo identification requirement for electors in polling stations at the next election, and will be running pilots in May. We are deeply concerned by that. Electoral fraud is a serious crime, and it is vital that the police have the resources they need to bring about prosecutions. However, there is no evidence of widespread personation. Last year, there were 44 allegations of personation out of nearly 64 million votes. That is one case for every 1.5 million votes cast.
The introduction of photo ID presents a major barrier to democracy. Limiting acceptable ID to passports and photographic driving licences would potentially leave 11 million electors, or 24% of the electorate, without acceptable ID. Decades of international studies show that highly restrictive ID requirements make it harder for people to vote, reduce turnout and exclude some parts of the electorate, while doing little to stop determined fraudsters. It is disappointing that, rather than combating the real challenge that undermines our democratic process, the Government are creating further barriers to democratic engagement.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
What, then, would the Labour party do to stop personation? I have seen it in a number of wards and it has proved quite critical in some elections. What would the Labour party therefore do, in those circumstances, for the returning officers?
Cat Smith
Thank you. I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman has seen evidence of personation, he has reported it to the police. It is a serious criminal matter. One of the biggest challenges we face in tackling voter fraud is the cuts to local authorities. Delivering smooth and efficient elections is essential to our democracy, but the cuts we have seen to local authority election teams have pushed a lot of teams to the absolute limit. Without the staff necessary to deliver a quality service for voters during elections, the system is vulnerable. According to a study—
Mr Prisk
I know that the hon. Lady is not well, and I do not wish to push the matter too far, but she is reading out what is in front of her. My simple question was: for a returning officer who faces a challenge and is unsure about someone’s identity, what would the Labour party propose other than a photographic identity?
Cat Smith
One of the challenges, of course, is that our police forces have seen huge cuts. My own constabulary in Lancashire has lost hundreds of frontline police officers since 2010. Without the resources to target people who are determined to be fraudsters in elections, all that introducing ID does is discourage genuine electors from turning out to vote. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman has campaigned in many elections where he found voters who thought they could not vote if they had misplaced their polling card and did not turn up.
The requirement for photo ID, with the potential for people not having it or not being able to find it on election day, will mean fewer entitled electors turning up, but it will not discourage determined fraudsters. In that situation, if they are determined to commit electoral fraud, we might assume that they are determined to commit identity fraud too, potentially by forging driving licences. I do not believe that requiring photo ID at polling stations will do anything to deter those determined fraudsters. The only real way to deter them is to focus police investigations on people who are known to be committing that crime.
The Opposition have a serious concern about the number of electoral administrators leaving the profession; it has doubled since 2010. Given that core electoral services are generally delivered by a very small team and in some cases by an individual employee, any loss of experienced staff can have a significant impact on service delivery. How can we expect local authorities to deliver electoral pilots when they face such challenges?
As I said, we welcome the measures to extend the right to local authorities to apply to run electoral pilots for local mayoral elections. However, it is not enough, and fundamental reform is needed if we are to maintain the integrity of our electoral process.
Chris Skidmore
I would like to start by thanking the hon. Lady for her remarks today. I want to put on record the admiration of all hon. Members for her having turned up despite not being very well and still managing to make a significant and important contribution. We all appreciate that as part of our democratic process.
I would like to put the Government’s comments on the record in response to the hon. Lady’s specific points. The changes to the order made during the general election period in June were to funding allocations, and many of them were necessary because of errors or inconsistencies in previous claims by returning officers that had been put into the funding allocations. By allowing that process to take place, we could ensure that they have effective and up-to-date funding.
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct that the law governing our elections is fragmented and complex. The Law Commission’s interim report was an important contribution that has had the wide support of the electoral community. As a Government, we are determined to work with the Law Commission on what can be introduced at this stage, given the restriction in primary legislation. As she will be aware, many of the laws governing electoral conduct are in primary legislation. On Monday, when I held the first electoral summit, which included representatives of the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Commission and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, I announced that we will be taking forward further work with the Law Commission, particularly on rationalising 25 statutory instruments on the conduct of elections into two single statutory instruments. We hope that that work can progress. While we are unable to move forward with primary legislation, we want to maintain the relationship and show the commitment of this Government to rationalising that complex tangled web of electoral law.
Regarding the pilot of voter identification at the poll, that is obviously a package of measures that was announced in the Government’s response to Eric Pickles’s report, “Securing the Ballot”. When it comes to considering electoral integrity, the identity pilots will form just one part of the Government’s overall package, which in future will also include legislation to look at postal vote harvesting, so that we can ensure there is confidence in the whole system. It is not just to do with identification at polls.
The hon. Lady also mentioned photographic ID. These pilots are determined to ensure that we have evidence-based policy making, so some of the pilots will be photographic, some will be non-photographic and some—for example from Watford, which has been mentioned as one of the mayoral authorities—will involve people bringing their polling card, which will have a barcode on it that will be scanned through. That may provide interesting opportunities for a marked register, which currently is a manual one, to show how people voted, and that would eventually be digitised from the bottom up.
There is a potential for innovation. We want to trial all these different methods, but I want to make assurances to the House, because I am obviously committed to democratic engagement, and I will be publishing a democratic engagement plan this month, looking at how we can ensure that those groups that are under registered have the right to vote. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of women getting a right to vote, and the 90th anniversary of women getting an equal right to vote. Our democracy is still a very young one, despite our being in the austere surroundings of this place, and we want to ensure that everyone gets that right to vote. If there is anyone who does not have the identification that is needed, there will be a significant communications campaign in advance to ensure that people are aware that they need to bring ID and if anyone does not have the required ID, certificates of identification will be able to be issued. I am assured that no one will be disenfranchised by these pilots. We will listen to the evaluation process from the Electoral Commission and it is right that we take this managed and staged approach to looking at how identification might work.
The hon. Lady mentioned the small number of cases of personation and electoral fraud. That is a debate that we have had in the main Chamber. Yes, the number of cases of electoral fraud that have been reported is relatively small—I think 1,974 cases were reported to the Electoral Commission between 2010 and 2016. But there is a broader point about the confidence in our electoral process. I want to put on record the comments of Sir John Holmes, the chair of the Electoral Commission, who gave a seminal speech to the Institute for Government on 6 December in which he stated that
“there is a persistent and widespread perception of a significant level of fraud. More than one third of respondents to our surveys after the 2017 general election thought some fraud had taken place, and less than half believed that there were sufficient safeguards to prevent it.”
The Electoral Commission has recommended that solely photographic ID should be used. As I said, the Government wish to trial various forms of ID. The Electoral Commission made the case that photographic ID has been used in Northern Ireland since 2003. Sir John Holmes went on to state in his 6 December speech:
“This has some public support—when asked what single measure would be most effective in preventing electoral fraud, 52% of voters polled in 2016 said ‘a requirement to show photo ID at a polling station’.”
I agree with the Electoral Commission and Sir John Holmes: we must always act ahead of the curve on electoral fraud and electoral integrity to safeguard our electoral process.
Sir John Holmes also stated:
“We want to address this before it becomes a problem, and part of a wider reduction of trust in the system. It does not seem unreasonable to demand proof of identity before voting, if we have to do so simply to collect a parcel, for example. It is certainly something which many other countries do routinely.”
With that in mind, the Government are piloting measures that are proportionate and fair and will be fully evaluated as part of the process of bringing forward our manifesto commitment on identification at polling stations. However, they will not be taken alone: other measures will be taken to address issues with electoral integrity and postal voting. The Government do that not to disenfranchise people or to restrict voting rights, but to ensure that the voices of the vulnerable are protected, that every elector has an equal right to vote and, above all, that no one’s vote is stolen from them.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT COMBINED AUTHORITIES (MAYORAL ELECTIONS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017.—(Chris Skidmore.)
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Prisoners: Parental Rights
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered parental rights of prisoners.
It is a pleasure to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
A parent’s involvement in a child’s life is nearly always a positive thing that will enhance the child’s welfare, so long as the parent can be involved in a way that does not put the child or the other parent at risk of harm. I thank Women’s Aid and the NSPCC for the attentive and tireless work that they have done on the subject of this debate.
I want to make it clear that, generally, I see no problem with people who are in prison having a relationship with their children; in fact, I believe that contact is a healthy and sustainable way to ensure that a child is not affected by enforced separation. However, when I see that parental rights harm a child, I have to speak up. I am talking about someone being able to control their child’s life after committing the most obscene crimes against them. It cannot be right that the mother of children whose own father has sexually abused them has to fight for years just to change her children’s last name because they do not want to share it with their abuser. It cannot be right that she has to seek permission from that man, who stole her children’s childhood, to take them abroad.
When a person commits such horrendous crimes against their own children, that person cannot be allowed to pull the strings from inside a prison cell. I have seen cases in which a convicted child sex offender has the rights of a father and influences the lives of the children who were his victims. I have spoken to mothers whose husbands have abused their children, and I was left speechless and emotionally drained by their harrowing stories. They told me how their children’s right to be free from their abuser is being ignored. Those occasions are rare, but when children are the victim of a parent, the parent should lose the right to be just that—a parent.
When a child is taken into care as a result of a crime that a parent has committed against them, the state assumes responsibility of those children and the offending parent’s parental rights would be removed. However, when a parent abuses a child and the child stays in the custody of the other parent, the offending parent is allowed to exercise parental control over the child. Even though access to their children would be limited, supervised or even banned, the convicted sex offender can still have a say in their upbringing. A fundamental flaw in the criminal justice system allows that to happen, and it needs to be amended. Parental rights must be challenged when they have a damaging effect on a child.
The hurdles that parents face just to protect their children and move on to a safe and happy life are unbelievable. We have heard of children who have been ordered to have contact with the parent who has committed offences against them, even though in some cases children have been killed as a result of contact or residential arrangements. The family courts are left to decide whether the abuser having an input in the child’s life would benefit the child. The objective of family courts is to treat parents in exactly the same way and to get cases over with rapidly. That blinds them to the consequences of unsafe child contact—consequences that can be damaging and even fatal.
That brings me to domestic violence and its impact on children. The routine granting of direct, unsupervised contact, even when concerns about abuse are prevalent, reveals a pronounced lack of understanding about the effects of domestic violence on women and children. The point at which a survivor leaves an abusive partner is well recognised as a highly dangerous time for her and her children. Parental separation is often mistaken as equating to the end of the abuse and reduced risk for the mother and children; in fact, the risks are intensified. Around one in five children has been exposed to domestic violence, and 62% of children in households where domestic violence is present are also directly harmed. Children are being killed by violent fathers who have been allowed to see them through formal and informal child contact arrangements.
Further avoidable child deaths must be prevented by putting children first in the family courts, as the legal framework and guidance state. Only 10% of legal professionals say that judges fully comply with the judicial guidance for dealing with child contact cases where domestic violence is an issue. Most women want their children to have a relationship with their father, despite the violence that the women have experienced, but they want to ensure that any contact would be physically and emotionally safe for them and their children. Some 45% of women experience violence after making a contact order, most commonly in the form of threats and harassment.
The culture of “contact with the child, no matter what” needs to be reviewed. Less than 1% of child contact applications are refused, but domestic abuse features in around 70% of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service’s cases, and in around 90% of cases that go to the family courts.
The system is failing children’s safety and wellbeing. The best interests of children should be the overriding principle of the family courts, but far too often that is simply not the case. I am calling on the Government to ensure that the family courts put the safety of children back at the heart of all decisions made by the family court judiciary. I welcome the revised version of practice direction 12J, which was adopted in October. It sets out new requirements for judges, including that they explain why contact will not expose the child to further harm and how it is in the child’s best interest. The practice direction requires the court to ensure that, when domestic abuse has occurred, any child arrangements ordered protect the safety and wellbeing of the child and the parent with care, and are in the child’s best interests.
The revised practice direction is a critical step forward but sadly, all too often, the guidance is not followed in such cases and children’s safety is put at risk. It is critical that all judges, magistrates, court staff and CAFCASS officers know about the new guidance and how to use it. I hope that the debate raises awareness of the new guidance and of how important it is to ensure children’s safety.
Although the revised practice direction is a step forward and places new requirements on judges, significant challenges to effective implementation remain. Training is critical to ensure that all judges, magistrates and staff involved know about the new guidance and, more importantly, how to use it. Mandatory training for judges, magistrates and all staff on all aspects of abuse and coercive, controlling behaviour should be part of a non-legislative package of measures. The training should be face to face, delivered by specialists and supported by ongoing professional development. It should cover the nature of coercive and controlling behaviour, the frequency and nature of post-separation abuse and, most importantly, the impact of abuse on victims. Training is vital to ensure that judicial guidance is implemented and that it informs safe contact arrangements for children in domestic and all abuse cases.
No child should have their life left in the hands of evil. No child should be harmed in an act of revenge or rage against the other parent. The impact of unsafe child contact can be devastating.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, for the first time, I think. I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. In her speech so far, she has not mentioned the parental right of women prisoners to have their children visit them. It is important to have that in place, as well as a dedicated strategy for dealing with children’s access to their mothers in prison. I am ever mindful that in Northern Ireland, two thirds of women inmates are mothers. Of those, nine tenths have little or no access to their children. Has the hon. Lady given that consideration in preparing for her speech?
Carolyn Harris
I certainly have. I have just put a line through a large portion of my speech, because I totally agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says. I firmly believe that, in a healthy situation, it is vital for a child to have contact with their parent. However, I was recently contacted by a mum whose children were grotesquely abused by their father—a man who, in my opinion, does not deserve to be called their father. When someone is capable of stealing their own child’s life through sexual manipulation, their right to have a say about the future of that child should not mean that they are able to drag the mother to court at any opportunity. Such a man should not be allowed to have any influence or impact on his children’s lives, not just from the day he is convicted but from the day he takes their childhood away from them.
There is an urgent need for independent national oversight of the implementation of practice direction 12J. The Government and senior leaders in the family courts and CAFCASS need to bring about a cultural change in the family court system to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children and non-abusive parents—parents who are left to pick up the pieces after such a terrible situation arises—are understood and constantly prioritised. That family—and that mother—have every right to get on with their lives, and the perpetrator of that crime needs to be removed from the situation.
All members of the family court judiciary and CAFCASS should have specialist training so that they understand the dynamics of domestic and sexual abuse and can recognise coercive control and the tactics used by abusive parents to manipulate their children’s lives from inside prison walls. The Ministry of Justice must ensure that safety and risk assessments are carried out in child contact and parental rights cases, especially when an abusive parent is involved. Assessments should be carried out by dedicated abuse practitioners who work for agencies that are dedicated to working with victims of abuse and adhere to a nationally recognised standard for responding to abuse cases.
When will we see the draft domestic violence and abuse Bill? I am interested in whether we can amend that Bill to take account of the cases of the parents I have talked to, including the one I mentioned whose life is being destroyed by a man in a prison cell who still tries to control the lives of her children. I thank the Minister for listening, and I hope that we can work together to try to find a solution that works for all. That would certainly give the children and the mothers and fathers who have been affected by this terrible crime some peace of mind.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). I am pleased that she said that, in a healthy situation, it is vital for a child to have contact with their parent who is in prison. I will speak about that with particular reference to the excellent recent Farmer review about the importance of strengthening prisoners’ family relationships, where appropriate, to aid rehabilitation.
The Farmer review calls that a “golden thread” that needs to run through the prison system, along with the threads of employment and education, as a priority for prison governors. It says that that third strand is essential if we are to
“put a crowbar into the revolving door of repeat reoffending and tackle the intergenerational transmission of crime.”
I therefore urge Ministers to consider adding a new deputy director for families to the existing deputy director roles in the prison system. Before I highlight two ways in which prisoners’ family ties and, importantly, parental ties could be strengthened, I pay tribute to Dr Samantha Callan, Lord Farmer’s adviser, whose intelligent, thoughtful and dedicated contribution to the production of the review was invaluable.
First, I encourage Ministers to consider providing Skype or other face-to-face digital platforms where family visits may be difficult. BT’s slogan, “It’s good to talk”, might be a cliché, but it is incredibly important for people to keep relationships with their families or other significant individuals alive while they are in prison. Men who can ring their children every evening have a reason to stay out of trouble throughout the day. One prisoner told the Farmer review:
“If part of your prison routine is to do homework with your child or ring home regularly to hold a quality conversation with her, this is a strong deterrent to taking a substance that would mean you were unable to do that because you were ‘off your head’.”
The high cost of phone calls is frequently raised by external prison organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust as a cause of considerable resentment across the prison estate. I understand that costs should fall when the contract with BT is renegotiated in April 2018, and plans to digitise the entire prison estate with cable networks and to put a phone in every cell will further reduce call costs. However, that system will not be fully installed and functioning until 2021, and a prison service that values relationships needs to do more to help people stay in touch with their families and particularly their children.
Although phone calls are highly valued, the prison service should consider adapting to new forms of communication that are becoming commonplace in the community. That is not about giving every prisoner an iPad, although I have been told that women in some high-security prisons in the US have access to iPads in the interests of staying in touch with their children. Virtual video visiting is gradually being made available in prisons in Northern Ireland, such as Magilligan Prison. Although I would be concerned if we got to the point where that replaced face-to-face visits, Skype-type technology can enable prisoners to “visit” their own homes and see their family members in that context, and remind them of what they have to gain by settling into their sentences, getting out as soon as possible and not returning.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that children whose mothers are in prison are, on average, 64 miles away from them. I agree wholeheartedly with what she says, particularly about electronic interaction. Does she agree that, if we are to overcome the sheer distances, particularly for Welsh prisoners—there are no women’s prisons in Wales, although I am not advocating for one—we must find new technologies to enable mothers to interact with their children?
Fiona Bruce
I absolutely do. Although keeping prisoners close to home has to be the goal wherever possible, the challenges of the prison population make that hard, so it is not unusual for prisoners to be some distance from home—so far that families may even have to stay overnight if they visit. I wholeheartedly concur with the hon. Gentleman.
Technology that is being put into prisons to facilitate virtual court appearances could be adapted to improve contact for families on the outside who may otherwise have to make a superhuman effort to come into prison. Foreign nationals are unlikely to get visitors. In his report, Lord Farmer mentions meeting a man in prison who had been in local authority care since he was a child and whose only relative was his 93-year-old grandmother. It is impossible for her to visit, but if someone helped her with Skype she would at least be able to see him again. Imagine an A-level student close to her exams who was unable to visit her dad in prison but could communicate with him using a tablet, or a mother with a child with a health problem who would otherwise have to choose between visiting her partner in prison or keeping a vigil by that child’s bedside.
Of course there have to be safeguards. The Farmer review recommends that, in the interim period before full digitisation, empowered governors should be able to make Skype-type communication available to the small percentage of prisoners whose families cannot visit them due to infirmity, distance or other factors. A booking system and application process would mean that prisoners’ requests to access video calling technology had to be cleared by the governor. Alternatively, tablets could be made available in visiting halls, as apparently happens on the juvenile estate in Tasmania. Family members might need help to access video calling technology. Funds from the assisted prison visits scheme could be made available to people who needed to travel to a local voluntary organisation for help to make a call, for example. Will the Minister consider what can be done between today and full digitisation to ensure that families can maintain contact through these innovative means?
The second point I will make—more briefly—relates to the use of ROTL: release on temporary licence. The latest, up-to-date policy on ROTL procedures is unpublished and awaited by governors. I urge Ministers to ensure that it is published as soon as possible. Research indicates that the use of ROTL to maintain and develop family ties contributes to reducing reoffending. Respondents to the Farmer review—prisoners, families, organisations and academics—considered that it should be used more. They told Lord Farmer that that would give prisoners the opportunity to adjust gradually to family life outside of prison and to spend more time in responsible roles such as parent or partner.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that the emphasis when making decisions about release on temporary licence should be that it is not a privilege for the offender but in the best interests of the offender’s child and family?
Fiona Bruce
I do. If we are to reduce the disturbing statistics on the number of prisoners’ children who themselves go on to offend, we must take their interests into account. It is important that families’ involvement in decisions regarding ROTL is also considered and included. We cannot assume that ROTL will always be good for prisoners’ families; they need to be involved in that decision.
However, where ROTL can be granted, it really should be. Colleagues may remember the terrible riots that occurred at Strangeways—I was a young lawyer practising nearby at the time. As a result of those riots more than a quarter of a century ago, Lord Woolf published a review which said that home leave—now ROTL—
“should be extended”
because it
“restores prisoners’ self-confidence, helps maintain family relationships, and is an incentive to behave well in prison.”
However, the Ministry of Justice’s own indicators suggest that use of ROTL has fallen significantly, even since 2013, partly because governors are waiting for guidance on how to apply it. They want to be confident to apply it. They can see evidence that it is effective, but they need the guidance. Will the Minister explain why it has not been issued yet and let us know when it will be forthcoming?
An expert on social mobility, with particular reference to the opportunity areas planned around the country to help improve social mobility and opportunity for children, said that while education is important, one thing which underlies everything is parental engagement in a child’s life. If that is true outside the prison borders, it surely must be equally true within them.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate and on her powerful and important speech. I also put on record my agreement with what she and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said. I very much welcome the debate. Its title is on the parental responsibilities of prisoners, but like others I want to look at this through the lens of children’s rights and their best interests. Hon. Members agree that those interests are rarely served by the incarceration of a parent where contact and the relationship with the parent is healthy. That is especially true of mothers in prison, because they are almost always the main carers of children.
My starting point is to do what we can to keep mothers out of prison. The Minister has heard me say that on a number of occasions, and I am afraid I will be repeating myself. We need stronger community alternatives to custody for women, and especially for mothers. We need a presumption against short custodial sentences, as has now been introduced in Scotland. I know the Minister has looked or is due to look at what is going on there, so perhaps he will update us on that. I repeat to him: please do not build new women’s prisons. It is the wrong use of money—we could spend that money much better. There is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something good for women offenders, and building new prisons is the worst possible route.
In fact, many more women, and particularly mothers, continue to be incarcerated. The Prison Reform Trust estimates that each year about 18,000 children under the age of 18 are separated from their mothers due to incarceration. Two thirds of women in prison are mothers of children under 18, and one third are mothers of children under the age of five. The numbers in mother and baby units are decreasing, and it is not clear what happens when a child becomes too old to remain in the MBU—the mother and child will sometimes be separated at that point.
We can all agree that separation due to incarceration will often be harmful for children. As Common Weal, the Prison Reform Trust, Epstein and Baldwin, Barnardo’s and many other organisations and researchers have shown, children will experience trauma, confusion, an adverse impact on their educational performance and behavioural problems. The care arrangements made for children whose mothers are in prison are particularly worrying: only 5% remain in the family home, and 9% continue to live with their fathers. Many live with grandparents, which is often positive, and some live with older siblings, but sometimes siblings are separated and put into different homes while their mother is in prison. Most worryingly of all, some incarcerated mothers report that they do not know where their child is being looked after or by whom.
Common Weal has shown that half of children who have a parent in prison have to change school because of changes to their care arrangements. That is very disruptive for children, too, yet despite all those adverse effects, mothers continue to receive custodial sentences without sentencers properly considering the impact on their children. The sentencing guidelines make clear that, if an offender is on the cusp of receiving a custodial sentence and custody would be disproportionate in terms of its impact, alternatives should be considered, particularly with reference to the wellbeing of children. However, sentencers are not required to be proactive in making inquiries about what will happen to children when considering sentencing a parent. We need a sentencing structure that is much more focused on the best interests of the child.
I therefore say to the Minister that we need to ensure that sentencers are presented in every case with child impact statements. We need an obligation on sentencers to consider alternatives to custody. We need clearer, much more high-profile guidelines and better sentencer training, and we need the Government as a whole to have an overview of the impact on children of mothers’ imprisonment. In a recent written answer, I learned that the Government have made no such assessment. It is time they did, particularly in the case of mothers being placed in prison on remand, because that is extremely disruptive for their children, and those mothers will often not go on to serve a custodial sentence. It is particularly important that the impact on children is considered in such cases.
As the hon. Member for Congleton said, when mothers are in prison, maintaining good-quality contact will be both important and positive in the majority of cases. It is therefore pretty concerning that the Government do not know how many visits to mothers in prison have taken place and how many mothers have been visited, as a written answer to Baroness Fall on 29 November shows. Visits are difficult, and the hon. Lady rightly referred to a number of problems that need to be resolved, such as the distance from home many women are serving their sentences; the fact that women cannot hold or touch their children during visits; the lack of activities for children to participate in during visits; the lack of support for visits; and the lack of privacy. I understand that, in the case of women in approved premises, visits from children are not permitted at all, which is very concerning. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that and take action.
We need more creative and focused solutions to maintain and facilitate that contact. The hon. Lady rightly spoke about some of those, such as the use of technology—Skype and videos. We need more opportunity for overnight visits such as those trialled at Askham Grange. We need special additional family visits, not as a privilege for the offender but in the best interests of the child. We also need good pre and post-visit preparation for both mother and children. What learning have the Government taken from the excellent programme “Visiting Mum”, which is run by the Prison Advice and Care Trust at Eastwood Park Prison? Do they intend to roll out that learning and provide such support in all women’s prisons?
Women and mothers also need better preparation for release. Once children have experienced the trauma of losing their mother to incarceration, they will often find it quite traumatic when mum returns home—they may be aloof, angry or clingy, and we have a problem in ensuring that those mothers are able to resume their parenting role. Housing is still a problem for women on release from custody. They cannot get priority for housing if their children are not living with them, but their children cannot live with them if they do not have a home. That that conundrum is still happening—I saw it for myself during a recent visit to Styal Prison—is shocking. Surely we can resolve that difficulty. In Greater Manchester we are trying to do that by bringing together housing and justice leads, but the through-the-gate services that ought to be sorting that out are failing. I hope the Minister will take a careful look at that.
Chris Elmore
My hon. Friend may be aware that in a past life, before serving in this House, I led children’s social services in a local authority. One concern about family breakdown when a woman leaves prison is that sometimes the children have become looked-after, and it is extremely complex for the mother to gain access to their children through the looked-after children’s system. That adds another dynamic, because the mother may never have had to deal with those services before she was sent to prison, which can cause even further family breakdown on her release.
Kate Green
That is an important point. As we know, outcomes for looked-after children are often poor, and we should be doing everything we can to return that child to the family unit, and to support the family in parenting and raising that child.
In conclusion, my message to the Minister is this: do not send mothers to prison. If that happens, can we ensure that the sentencer has fully assessed the impact of that sentence on the woman’s children? For those who are sentenced, can we facilitate good-quality contact between mother and child during the period of incarceration, as that is in the child’s best interests, and put in place structured, high-quality preparation for the reunion of the family on release? I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. I know other colleagues wish to make further contributions, so I will end there.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate. I found her contribution and the other speeches interesting and profound, and I have learned a great deal.
I could have left the role of prisons and what goes on there for other colleagues to debate. I represent St Ives and the Isles of Scilly, and there are no prisons nearby and crime is relatively low. I can count on one hand the people I have met who have had contact with prisons, and only two of them, as far as I could see, should ever have ended up there. There are therefore plenty far more pressing concerns that could legitimately occupy my time. However, within each person is a heartbeat, and I believe that we have a responsibility to work to create an environment and opportunity that allows everyone to play their full part in society. On that basis, how we treat and manage prisoners is important and can lead either to full lives and safer communities, or to broken lives and chaos.
For me this is about the purpose of prisons. Prison is a method of keeping communities safe for the time that the prisoner is inside, but it is also a place where lives can be reset and people can be rehabilitated. It is right to take someone who is judged to be a risk to society out of that community, but I believe that from the day a prisoner arrives in prison, work must be done to prepare for their release.
Other than keeping an individual away from a life of crime, prison achieves little if nothing is done to address their behaviour when he or she is released. Families play an important part in that process and I want to spend a few moments considering the need to enable prisoners to fulfil their parental responsibilities, which I believe could, and should, be a focus for reform. Bringing men in particular face to face with their enduring responsibilities to the family is indispensable to the rehabilitation culture that we urgently need to develop in our penal system, and that must be integral to the changes sought. Consistently good family work can help to equip a father to play his role in the home, and that will pay dividends once the sentence is served.
The inspirational prison reformer Elizabeth Fry—she has also been mentioned by the Justice Secretary—called for arrangements by which prisons
“may be rendered schools of industry and virtue.”
The best family work taking place in prisons has brought men face to face with their enduring responsibilities to the family left in the community, particularly their wives, partners and children, but also their parents, siblings and grandparents. It helps them to forge a new identity for themselves—an important precursor to desistance from crime—based on being a good role model for their children, a caring husband, partner and friend, and a reliable provider through legal employment. Some men are already alive to those responsibilities when they go to prison, but they mistakenly think that using the proceeds of crime is the best way to fulfil them. If prison is to have any role in rehabilitation, work must be done to harness the virtue but adjust the means.
Responsibilities are not discharged in a vacuum. Families need to be willing and able to engage with the rehabilitation process, and harnessing the resource of good family relationships must be a golden thread that runs through processes in all prisons—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) also made that point. Prisoners’ responsibilities to their families should be seen as an important lever for change, and families are often significant assets for offender management during and at the end of sentences. Prison staff find that their responsibilities and efforts are aided when good family contact and engagement is nurtured and maintained. Unfortunately, however, experience has shown that sentence planning by the offender management team rarely takes into account the understanding and knowledge that family members have about a prisoner. There are exceptions such as HMP Forest Bank and those Scottish prisons that involve a prisoner’s family in release planning, but it is uncommon.
In Scotland, the integrated case management case conference provides a mechanism for involving a prisoner’s family in release planning. An ICM case conference is a meeting held at set intervals during a prisoner’s sentence, between the ICM case co-ordinator, prison and community-based social work, and the prisoner. The prisoner may invite his family to those meetings if he wishes. The ICM case conference provides an important opportunity to prepare and advise families about the issues arising on a prisoner’s release, thereby supporting them in their own right as well as preventing reoffending.
At one men’s prison in Louisiana USA, families are involved as soon as the individual arrives in prison. The director of re-entry invites a family member or someone close to the prisoner to the prison for an informal meeting, allowing the director to learn about the prisoner’s background and how he can be best supported. There are further examples of where families are integral to the penal system. For example, in HMP Winchester, staff from the charity Spurgeons carry out first-night screening, which includes detailed questions about a father’s responsibilities. That also gives them an opportunity to hand out dad packs, where appropriate, which include top tips on how to be a father inside prison. That is an early way of grounding someone in their family responsibilities at the start of their sentence, when it is easy for them to turn in on themselves.
A new personal officer model is being trialled in 10 pathfinder establishments. That could be used to carry out a more ongoing form of assessment. Those officers will have daily contact with the prisoners, and be aware of how their family relationships are faring. I researched the role of the personal officer. The article I read stated:
“During your first few days in prison you will be allocated a Personal Officer. This is a prison officer who has been assigned to act as your point of contact while within prison, and is the officer who is expected to provide a ‘reference’ for you whenever you apply for jobs, change of status from Basic to Enhanced etc. The duties of this officer are not very much, but a good officer will come and speak to you and ask if you have any issues they can help with, a poor officer will introduce themselves once and then may favour you with a grunt as you pass on the landing.”
It seems to me that a personal officer model could and should be extended to include a family liaison aspect, which could make the role much more rewarding and productive.
Fiona Bruce
Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly given the examples of best practice that we have heard today, there is a need for that to be drawn together, from across the country, so that it can be shared more effectively among different prisons?
Derek Thomas
That is right, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention because it helps to support the point I want to make in concluding. As I said earlier, everyone has a heartbeat and we need to do what we can to support prisoners, their families and the wider community. The gold standard would be to ensure that, whatever their sentence and wherever they were sent, they will receive equal support and access.
There is a further matter to consider if we are serious about parental rights and parental responsibility. My constituency covers west Cornwall and Scilly, and a prisoner from Cornwall can be sent a very long way from home. If someone is sentenced to prison, the prison should be as close to their home as possible, wherever they live in the UK. Addressing the parental responsibilities of a prisoner is a significant part of the journey to a reformed life and a safer society. Therefore, where the prisoner is held in relation to their family home is an important consideration.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate. We have had some excellent speeches, and Westminster Hall comes into its own in debates on such topics with cross-party consensus.
I want to turn the debate around slightly and focus on the 200,000 or so children a year who will have a parent in prison, in England and Wales. That is a rough figure—a Government estimate—and it is difficult to be more precise. We have heard various figures about women in prison. It is estimated that 66% of women in prison have a child under the age of 18, and that a third of them have a child under five, although I have also seen the figure of 51%. Far more children have a father than a mother in prison and there are likely to be a disproportionate number of black and minority ethnic children with a parent in prison, because of the make-up of the prison population. The statistics on young offenders institutions show that there are also many young parents in prison. I have visited young offenders institutions as an MP and before that as a lawyer working in the criminal field, and those who do so will have seen young mums turning up with their babies, to visit fathers who are themselves children. A freedom of information request from Barnardo’s in connection with its report of December 2015, “Locked out: Children’s experiences of visiting a parent in prison”, found that children make almost 10,000 visits to public prisons each week.
Those are the things that we know about the number of children affected, and the make-up of that group, but we do not know anywhere near as much as we should. There is limited published practice knowledge about working with children of prisoners, and a lack of systematic recording and information-sharing. Prisoners will not always reveal that they have children. In many cases it is a child’s step-parent or the partner of their parent rather than their own father who is in prison, but the child will still clearly be greatly affected. As we have heard, courts, Governments and local services do not routinely ask about the children involved; that information is not reported or recorded. Pressures on the probation service and the lack of sentencing reports also mean that the issue is less likely to be picked up. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out that people facing custody are not routinely asked about the situation with respect to their children.
When there were riots and looting in London boroughs after the death of Mark Duggan, in quite a few cases women were immediately thrown into custody and no one asked any questions. Single parents were put into custody and no one asked what would happen to their children left at home.
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend support the suggestion that when a parent goes into custody—and particularly if they are the sole parent—there should be a period of perhaps five or seven days after the sentence is imposed and before custody commences to allow them to make arrangements for the care of the child?
Kerry McCarthy
That is absolutely the case, although there will always be exceptions, such as when the parent is seen to be a danger to the public. I used to work at a magistrates court, where women would be sentenced to jail because they had not paid television licence fines. It could be said that they knew they were coming to court and might face custody, but sometimes those people had chaotic lives and were not facing up to the seriousness of their situation, and it would be sensible to give them a chance to make arrangements. In America there is a tendency to use a system that gives people time to prepare for a prison sentence; I do not see why we cannot do that here.
Quite often parents going to jail, and their families, keep quiet about the fact that children are involved. That might be because of stigma and shame, or the fear of having their children taken into care. Informal kinship care is often arranged, with friends or family stepping in if the parent with caring responsibilities is sent away. There has been some progress in recognising the role of kinship carers in recent years. Edward Timpson, the former Children and Families Minister, took the issue seriously and did some good work on it, which we need to continue.
I recently wrote to the Children’s Commissioner about the matter. She had launched a very good report that identified about 15 categories of vulnerable children, and I wrote to her flagging up the fact that the categories of children of prisoners and children in informal kinship care should have been listed but were not. There would have been some overlap as, for example, one category was children in local authority care, which could include the children of prisoners; but there was not a specific focus on them. I received a good reply this week, in which the commissioner said:
“I am very keen to include children of prisoners in the next iteration of the work, but identifying the number of such children is a significant challenge. We are currently working with the ONS to link census data with Dept for Education records of children, this should then enable us to estimate the number of children in families where a parent is in prison. Doing this poses some serious challenges, but if we can do it, then we will be able to use this to get lots of additional information.”
Things are not ideal. The information should be available without the need to do various calculations to put together a picture; but it is excellent that the commissioner realises the importance of the work.
It is important to know how many children are affected by parental imprisonment. Such children can face multiple disadvantages, as has been said. Family life is disrupted and it may be necessary to move home. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned that half of such children have to change schools. In many cases family income will be lost. For children with a parent in prison there is twice the likelihood of poor conduct and mental health problems, according to a 2008 study. Those children are less likely to do well at school and three times as likely to offend: 65% of boys with a convicted father will go on to be convicted. When Hazel Blears was a Home Office Minister we had conversations about work she was doing to try to identify boys, in particular, who were at risk of offending because of their parents’ situation. There is a need to be careful about that, because we do not want to stigmatise or label children—“Because your father was a bad lot and ended up in jail you are going to go the same way.” A sensitive approach is needed, but we must recognise the particular risk for those children.
Trauma can also arise directly from the experience. Children may have seen a parent arrested, sometimes in violent circumstances. They may not have known anything was going on, only for the parent to go off to court one day and disappear. Some children may not even be told that the parent is in jail, and may find out because word has spread around the neighbourhood. Also, visiting a parent in prison is not a pleasant experience. In today’s debate there has been a focus on the importance to prisoners of maintaining contact with their children; and the reoffending figures suggest that that is important. It is estimated that 45% of prisoners lose touch with their families and that prisoners are 39% less likely to reoffend if they receive visitors. We also need to look at the impact on the children, as Barnardo’s has tried to do, because what is good for the prisoners is not necessarily good for the children.
I will briefly mention fathers’ rights. We have spoken about women receiving visits in prison, but male prisoners are treated differently from female prisoners in the system. I entirely accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East that in some cases the father clearly should not retain any influence over the children’s lives.
At the moment, in male prisons, children’s visits are classed as a privilege under the incentives and earned privileges scheme. The scheme allocates the duration, frequency and quality of visits according to the behaviour of the offender. That can have quite a severe impact on the frequency and length of visits. Basic status prisoners would be entitled to see their children for a two-hour visit every four weeks, but family visit days are restricted to enhanced prisoners who have displayed exemplary behaviour, for example by studying for qualifications. Therefore, quite a lot of prisoners do not get to have family visit days at all. We could say, “Well, they haven’t earned them,” but we are talking about their families losing that right through no fault of their own.
Children in this situation will often have ambivalent feelings toward their parent, because their parent has perhaps done something deliberately that means they have, in effect, abandoned their child. Children will see that their parent has chosen to do something that means they will be locked up and absent from the home, leaving the children to fend for themselves or endure bullying and stigma at school. They should not be doubly punished for the fact that their father is perhaps not displaying exemplary behaviour in prison; they should be allowed that quality time to try to rebuild the relationship with him.
Under the IEP scheme, fathers’ visits with their children can be withheld at the discretion of the authorities, whereas in female prisons the right is protected, on the basis that children should not be restricted from visiting or contacting the mother because of the mother’s behaviour. The number of visits should not be restricted in order to serve the needs of the incentive schemes, and incentive schemes should not be linked to any access to family visits. That is the rule for mothers, and I do not see why it should not be the case for fathers as well. It is important, and Barnardo’s has called for the IEP scheme in male prisons to be brought into line with that in female prisons.
I will say a little bit about the work of Barnardo’s, an organisation that is proactive in this area and doing some excellent work. In England there is a scheme called i-HOP—the information hub on offenders’ families with children for professionals—which was commissioned by the Department for Education and is run by Barnardo’s. It provides a one-stop information and advice service to support all professionals working with children and families of offenders, including frontline staff, strategic managers and commissioners. It is important that this is placed on professionals’ radar and that they are given advice on how to deal with it.
In 2013, Barnardo’s published a report called “Working with children with a parent in prison”, which referred to two pilot schemes called Empowering the Children of Offenders. The pilots were held in Devon and Bristol. They found that parents often struggled to talk to their children about imprisonment and needed support to do so. They also found that liaising with wider family networks, including grandparents, and with schools was vital to provide full support to a child affected by parental imprisonment. The report highlighted particular issues: problems in identifying the children affected, as I have already said, identifying the children’s rights and working out which children need support. The children of prisoners often do not meet the thresholds for children’s social care services to become involved. That means no work takes place with them, and perhaps the thresholds should be reassessed to ensure they are brought into account.
As part of the i-HOP scheme in Bristol, Barnardo’s worked with Bristol City Council to create Bristol’s “Charter for Children of Prisoners”, which recommended that children should be helped to write letters, make phone calls or visit if they want to; that children with a parent in prison should be better welcomed and respected by prison staff; that children should be told where their parent is and how long they will be there; that they should have an adult they can talk to in confidence; and that when police arrest someone they should take into account the impact on the child and ensure the situation is explained to them. Probably most importantly, it recommended that professionals such as teachers and nurses should know how many children in Bristol have a parent in prison and how to support them.
I will conclude by coming back to my earlier point. This discussion should not just be about the prisoners and their rights; it should be about the children. When we look at the children of prisoners, we should not just look at their relationship with the parent in prison. It should not just be about how often they see them and whether they maintain connection. They will face a lot of issues, whether at school, through poverty in the family home, or through informal arrangements where they may be passed from one friend of their parent to another. We need to look at those children in the community, not just in relation to the prisoners.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for securing this important debate. I know she has a keen interest in it through her work. Sometimes the importance of this subject is lost because it does not get as much coverage as it should, so I am pleased that we are debating it today.
My hon. Friend made a powerful and passionate case that the paramount issue must always be the safeguarding of children. She is absolutely right, and the horrendous case she referred to shows that those considerations must come first, along with where children are abused and the element of domestic violence. She is right that some of those safeguards are not in place as they should be in the system. Without repeating what she said, I look forward to the Minister’s response to some of the important questions she asked, particularly on the safeguarding of children.
I am grateful to other hon. Members who made speeches about the broader debate, which I would like to concentrate on. In particular, references were made to the Farmer review. These issues date back to the early 1990s, when we had the Woolf report after the disturbances in Strangeways. Both those reports, and many other recommendations, have proved not only that parents have a right to see their children and that prisoners have a right to see their families, but that there are massive benefits. I will concentrate my remarks on some of the obstacles that children face during visitation, and the impact on both parents and children.
My first point was alluded to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)—parents are not recorded in the current system. In 2009, the Ministry of Justice estimated that 200,000 children had a parent in prison. That is an estimate—there is no accurate figure, because the Government do not record which prisoners are parents. What we know is that female prisoners are more affected because they are more likely to be sole parents. Without records, there is no capability to give children better visitation access to parents, no capability to treat children better and no capability to improve parental rights. Indeed, there is no capability to deal with some of the safeguarding issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East referred.
Hon. Members have mentioned the cost and distance involved in visiting. Across England and Wales, many prisoners are imprisoned far from home, which means expensive journeys and long travelling distances. The Government’s new prison building plan and the super-sized prisons that they seem set on will make that challenge worse not better, because reducing the number of prison locations will force many families to journey even further. Children face even greater difficulty visiting their mothers. They are often located much further away owing to the lower number of female prisons. Children living in Wales whose mothers are in prison have to leave the country to visit them. It is disappointing that the Ministry of Justice has brushed over that in its building plans by not addressing the lack of female prisons in Wales.
Cost and distance are not the only challenges. Once families have overcome them, children and carers have to deal with prison rules and the prison environment. As has been pointed out, visiting times mean that, even if a prison is close to a child’s home, it is necessary to take them out of school, which many parents may be reluctant to do on a frequent basis, thereby limiting the child’s time with the parent in prison. While inside prison, children are subject to searches and an unwelcoming environment that can put them off. It does not get any better when a child is with their parent because the rules prevent meaningful social interactions between them.
The biggest impact for parents is on reoffending rates—the odds of reoffending are 39% lower for prisoners who receive family visits than for those who do not. The recent Farmer review was very clear that better interaction between offenders and their families improves reoffending rates and rehabilitation. If an offender does not see their family, they will often lose them. Once they have lost their family, there is often little left for them to lose by reoffending—they will have missed out on their child’s key development and defining moments, and on memories. A parent who has a stake in their child’s life can endeavour to serve as a positive role model and can turn their own life around.
A lack of access to children has been shown to have an impact on prison disturbances. As I stated earlier, that was found as far back as the Woolf report in the 1990s.
The impact is particularly strong for female offenders, the majority of whom commit non-violent offences and crimes of poverty that often warrant better support rather than imprisonment. One in three female prisoners are mothers of children under 18, and one in five are lone parents who face their children being taken away from them following their imprisonment.
Some 70% of female prisoners are serving sentences of less than six months, but that is all that is needed for them to lose their job, their home and their children, not just for those six months but forever. Without a secure job or home after release, they face an uphill struggle to get their children back from care, so it makes sense for parents in prison to have better parental rights and better contact with their children. Surely our desire to rehabilitate an offender and to help them turn their life around for the better, and to give a child a parent they can look up to, is greater than our desire to punish them and therefore to punish an innocent child in the process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East is absolutely right that this has to be looked at in a broader context, with the rights of children having absolutely equal value. Having a parent in prison means that a child is three times more likely to turn to crime themselves—65% of boys with a convicted father go on to offend themselves. Having a parent in prison means that a child is much more likely to be uprooted from their home, with just one in 20 staying in their own home while one in 10 go into care, or are fostered or adopted. Having a parent in prison means that a child’s development is much more likely to be hampered, with additional pressure piled upon them such as disorientation from moving and stigmas that result in bullying.
All of that means that those children do less well at school than their peers. However, the impact is much deeper, because lack of parental rights mean that a child’s mum or dad has been ripped out of their life for what seems to the child like an eternity. Proper parental rights and visitation mean that the whole experience will not be as daunting for a child, and that the adverse impacts are not as great.
The Government must address a number of issues. First, they must address safeguarding measures and the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East. Secondly, they have to record whether offenders have children, to better understand the impact of imprisonment and cater for their children. With that information, the Government have to look seriously at the merits of Barnardo’s recommendation of allowing children better access to their parents.
Thirdly, the Government must look seriously at the sentencing of mothers, who are disproportionately affected. There is a debate to be had on whether some women would be better served by smaller, more local women’s centres. Finally, they need to take another look at their prison building programme, because there is a question over whether super-sized prisons are the answer to everything.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this important debate, which addresses an area of concern in relation to the parental rights of prisoners.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Unfortunately, through a breakdown in communications, I have not been called to speak this morning. However, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). The case she discussed is my constituent’s, who I am here to support. Since first meeting my constituent and hearing her story of herself and her two children, I have wanted to ask how the law can allow the father of her children to continue to exert control over their lives from behind bars, when his offence was of a sexual nature.
Dr Lee
If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will develop my argument with regards to the current powers of courts in such cases. As I was saying, the hon. Member for Swansea East is fast developing a strong reputation for campaigning on sensitive, difficult and often family-related issues. I commend her for her work in lots of different areas.
I am here on behalf of the Minister of State for Justice, who is detained on legislative business. While policy responsibility for family law sits with him, I have listened carefully to the points that have been made and will ensure that they are relayed to him in full. It is clear that significant distress and emotional harm can result when a parent in prison exercises their parental responsibility with the clear intention of frustrating day-to-day care decisions made by the other parent or to inflict further harm. Such behaviour is unacceptable.
While the maintenance of family ties forms a key foundation stone to support an offender’s rehabilitation, it is clear that not all children can or should maintain contact with a parent who is in prison. Maintaining family ties must always be balanced against the risk of harm posed to the child or the parent with care. While a number of protections are in place under the current law, particular issues arise in cases where children are the victims of an offence by the convicted parent. I have listened closely to the points that have been made about the practical impacts of parental responsibility being exercised in that way and to the arguments for changing the law so that a parent prisoner convicted of a sexual or violent offence loses their parental responsibility on conviction.
In considering the arguments for change, I will set out the current law. There are various aspects to the law on parental responsibility: how parental responsibility is acquired by a parent; whether and how parental responsibility can be removed from a parent in appropriate cases to protect a child or the other parent from the risk of further abuse or harm; and the exercise of parental responsibility by a parent and the means by which a court may restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in specific ways.
Mothers automatically acquire parental responsibility. A father who is married to the mother at the time of the child’s birth also acquires that responsibility. There are no provisions in law by which parental responsibility may be removed from a mother or married father, except through adoption of the child. Unmarried fathers may acquire parental responsibility through various means: birth registration, an agreement with the mother that is registered with the court or by court order. A court may remove parental responsibility from an unmarried father if the child’s welfare so requires.
Where a parent seeks to abuse their parental responsibility, their actions may be overridden by the family court. That power applies regardless of how the parent acquired parental responsibility. The child’s welfare is always the paramount consideration, and there is no absolute right for a parent or any other person to exercise parental responsibility in a way that is detrimental to the child’s best interests. That is clearly the right position in principle.
The ability of a parent prisoner to exercise parental responsibility in many aspects of a child’s day-to-day life is limited by having no direct contact with the child or the parent with care, and powers are available to the family court to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility, which I will talk about in a moment. However, where those protections have not been sought or have not worked for whatever reason, a parent who is determined to abuse their parental responsibility may still be able to do so.
Where there is disagreement between parents who both have parental responsibility, either of them may make an application to the family court for a prohibited steps or specific issue order. A prohibited steps order has the effect of preventing a parent from exercising his or her parental responsibility for their child in a specified way without first obtaining the consent of the court—for example, changing a child’s surname or causing a child to be known by a different surname. A specific issue order allows the court to determine how a specific aspect of parental responsibility for a child should be decided—for example, whether a child should change school.
In addition, where the court is making any order and the person who has applied for it has made multiple previous applications in relation to the child that the court considers to be vexatious, it may make an order restricting that person’s ability to make any further applications of a specified kind in respect of that child without the permission of the court.
I recognise that the current protections place the onus on the parent with care to apply to the family court to restrict the other parent’s exercise of parental responsibility, which is why there are calls to legislate for an automatic removal of parental responsibility in certain circumstances. Questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the orders and how they can best be used to protect a child or parent with care from the abusive exercise of parental responsibility by a parent in prison.
Any change to remove parental responsibility automatically on conviction of certain criminal offences would involve some important considerations for my Department. We would need to be clear that such a change in the law would be in the best interests of all children, for whom the current law provides maximum flexibility. The family court currently balances the legal rights, responsibilities and duties of each parent with the paramount need to further the welfare of the child and to safeguard them from risk of harm or further harm.
Kate Green
I am listening with real interest to what the Minister is saying. Would it be possible to consider a change in the law that created a rebuttable presumption of the loss of parental responsibility in certain circumstances? That would put the onus not on the parent with care, but on the parent who has perpetrated the damage.
Dr Lee
That certainly warrants consideration, so I will take it away and pass it on to my ministerial colleague.
Legislation to remove parental responsibility upon conviction of specified offences would need to be carefully considered, given the potential impact on a wide range of children in different family circumstances. There would be many points of detail to work through, some of them potentially quite difficult, to ensure that any changes to the law were workable in practice and likely to achieve the desired outcome, while maintaining the right balance between rights, duties and responsibilities and protecting vulnerable children and adults.
I will turn to some of the questions raised in this interesting debate. The hon. Member for Swansea East referred to judicial awareness of practice direction 12J and mandatory training of judges. The Judicial College plays a vital role in providing the appropriate training for all family judges. The president of the family division has publicly urged the judiciary to familiarise themselves with the new rules and to do everything possible to ensure that those rules are properly complied with on every occasion.
The hon. Members for Swansea East and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked about fathers exercising parental responsibility and why they should have the right to control a child’s life from behind bars. The Children Act 1989 makes it clear that parental responsibility can be exercised alone unless the law requires the consent of all those who share parental responsibility. The courts have held that there are exceptional categories of decision that need such consent—for example, changing names or taking the child abroad. Day-to-day decisions should not be affected or blocked by the father.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made a characteristically informed speech. She mentioned the importance of children having contact with their mothers in prison. Prisoners have a statutory right to have contact with their children where it is safe to do so. There is a presumption that a parent’s involvement will further the child’s welfare, and that is not revoked or rebutted when a mother is imprisoned, provided that contact remains safe and in the child’s best interests.
The hon. Lady asked about the sentencing of mothers without a consideration of the impact on dependent children. The courts are required under article 8 of the European convention on human rights to obtain information on dependent children and conduct a balancing exercise, weighing the rights of potentially affected children against the seriousness of the parent’s offence. Case law shows that that is often done in practice. The Government cannot interfere with the exercise of the judiciary.
The hon. Lady also raised the “Visiting Mum” programme run at Eastwood Park, which I gather is funded by the Big Lottery Fund. It has supported 150 children and 89 mothers to have visits from Wales to Eastwood Park in Gloucestershire. I assure her that its work is being considered as part of the broader women’s justice strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) spoke of the improving situation for women offenders and family access. We are developing a women’s strategy, which will be published in the new year, to improve outcomes for women. The legacy of where prisons are makes it practically difficult to hold women closer to home. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), referred to the women’s custodial estate being absent in Wales. I assure him that I have not met anybody who wants a prison for women to be built in Wales. I will just say that all decisions about women’s justice are currently under consideration, and I hope that all colleagues, and particularly the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, will be pleased when the strategy is published in the new year.
Of course, I cannot make any commitments today about changing the law on parental responsibility, but the Government will give careful consideration to the points that have been raised this morning. I thank the hon. Member for Swansea East for securing the debate and for raising these important issues.
Carolyn Harris
I thank all colleagues for attending the debate and for their excellent contributions. I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). Without her support and her bringing this dreadful case to my attention, we would not be here today.
It is not comfortable for me to stand here and not rant about improving prisoners’ rights, including access and parental rights, as ranting is probably what I do best, but on this occasion, I am deeply concerned that a family is being torn apart by one person and that his controlling behaviour towards his victims is allowing him to have any control at all, not just now but in the future. I know that the Minister is a compassionate man. We have spent many hours discussing other issues, and I know that he will work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower to try to find a way to bring some solutions to those who are affected by this dreadful situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered parental rights of prisoners.
Cliff Erosion: Isle of Sheppey
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered cliff erosion on the north coastline of the Isle of Sheppey.
I am raising this issue because I am concerned about the impact that cliff erosion is having on the lives of some of my constituents living at the east end of the Isle of Sheppey, particularly people living in the Eastchurch and Warden cliffs area. I declare an interest, because I live in Eastchurch, although my home is not directly affected by cliff erosion. However, many other properties in the area are under threat.
As its name suggests, Sheppey is an island in the Thames estuary, situated just off the north Kent coast and separated from the mainland by the Swale. It is home to almost 40,000 people, but during the summer months the population increases with an inflow of visitors who stay in the thousands of caravans and chalets on Sheppey, most of which are at the east end of the island. Tourism is the bedrock of eastern Sheppey’s economy and the holiday parks are very important to that tourism. Unfortunately, the erosion of the cliffs is affecting, in addition to homes, some of the holiday parks in Eastchurch, Minster and Warden, with some caravan pitches now only feet away from the crumbling coastline.
The truth is that the Isle of Sheppey is getting smaller. Since Roman times, a third of the island has disappeared into the sea and land is still being lost every year. Some of my constituents are increasingly worried as they see their homes and businesses under threat. I have first-hand experience of the problem, because Sheppey East was the ward I first represented on Swale Borough Council over 30 years ago. I also represented the area on Kent County Council. Some of the buildings to which I delivered my election literature at that time are now in the sea and more homes are likely to disappear during the next 30 years.
I have been working with residents of one affected community, who have seen the cliffs near their homes collapse dramatically over the last few years. I facilitated a meeting between those residents, our local authorities and the Environment Agency, to see what could be done to help to protect them. It soon became apparent that very little would be done to help them. The Environment Agency made it clear that it would not act to stop the cliffs eroding because it has a long-standing policy of non-intervention in the area. I was given to understand that that policy was driven by economic considerations. It was considered that the cost of protecting the cliffs outweighed the benefit derived from saving the threatened homes. While I do not necessarily agree with that reason, I do at least understand the logic of a non-intervention policy based on a cost-benefit basis.
I was delighted when one of my local farmers came forward with a scheme that would have removed that cost obstacle. His plan was to use waste spoil from major infrastructure projects, such as Thameslink and HS2, to reclaim some of the lost land and create a country park along the north Sheppey coastline that would have stopped any further cliff erosion and, at the same time, boosted tourism. The development would have been self-financing, so it would have cost the Government nothing, but the Environment Agency has made it clear that it would object to the scheme because protecting the cliffs is contrary to its policy of non-intervention and managed retreat.
In addition, Natural England has confirmed it would also oppose in principle any scheme that prevents erosion of the cliffs, using as an objection the fact that the cliffs are designated a site of special scientific interest and are afforded legal protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The cliffs were designated an SSSI because of their deemed scientific interest features, namely:
“fossil assemblage, the natural active coastal processes along the coastline, including erosion pattern of the cliffs and the slumping clay”.
There we have it: in Natural England’s eyes, fossils and slumping clay are more important than the homes and livelihoods of my constituents. In my view, that is not only scandalous, but makes no sense, not least because when questioned, Natural England could not identify any ongoing scientific studies that are interested in the cliffs or their fossil assemblage. It was also unable to explain how losing the fossils and clay to the sea, which happens when the cliffs erode, is enhancing scientific knowledge. In my long association with the cliffs, I am not aware of a single incidence of scientific interest being shown in them—not one.
I understand that the Environment Agency has other environmental concerns, for instance the impact that stopping the cliff erosion would have on the mud and silt that ends up in the Thames and Medway estuaries. The farmer behind the scheme appreciates fully that those concerns would necessitate extensive geo- morphological modelling to determine the impact a reduction in mud and silt would have on our local wading bird species. My view is that a reasonable compromise can be found, because it can always be found when it comes to protecting our local wildlife. However, no compromise, reasonable or otherwise, can be found if Natural England continues to maintain its stance of objecting in principle to any plan that would stop the erosion of the cliffs, using the SSSI status of the cliffs as an excuse. When we consider the pressure for land to house a growing population, it makes no sense to allow more of the Isle of Sheppey to simply wash away.
Something must be done to protect my constituents. The proposal to build a country park along the north Sheppey coastline would do that by stopping erosion of the cliffs and, I repeat, it would do so at no cost to the taxpayer. Therefore, I urge the Minister to instigate an urgent review of the SSSI designation of the cliffs. I would like her also to have Natural England submit evidence proving there really is scientific interest in the cliffs; stating exactly what that interest is; and stating how and when scientific tests have been, and will be, undertaken.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, I think for the first time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate on coastal erosion affecting the northern coastline of the Isle of Sheppey. I expect that the post office at Warden Point is probably no longer there and has gone into the sea, but I remember several childhood holidays there.
Coastal erosion is a natural process that has always changed the shape of our coastline and will continue to do so, but I fully understand that it can be distressing for those living nearby. As an MP for a coastal constituency with a fragile coastline, I absolutely understand his constituents’ concerns and the fears they face. I have direct examples of places, such as Benacre, where we have the same challenge of balancing nature with people’s homes. Central Government are responsible for setting the overall national policy, but I point out the local councils, formally termed coastal protection authorities under our statutes, lead on the management of coastal erosion risk in their areas. A significant and brave decision was taken by the Government earlier this decade to recognise formally that it would not be possible or desirable to defend every part of our coastline from erosion, confirming what had already been happening in practice. That made the process for councils designing their local shoreline management plans more meaningful. The plans set out at a top level the policy framework to manage the risk of coastal change. Covering three time horizons of 20, 50 and 100 years, the plans recommend four approaches to manage the local coastline: advance the line, hold the line, managed realignment and no active intervention. Councils design them in partnership with the Environment Agency, but the decision is made locally.
To support councils, the Environment Agency provides a national picture on what is happening on the coast. It has established national coastal erosion risk maps that provide a consistent assessment of coastal erosion risk around the country, and set out a best practice method for calculating that risk. The Environment Agency also ensures that different councils take a consistent approach to risk management, as actions taken along one part of a coastline can have a direct impact further along the coast. For those where defence from coastal erosion is neither practical nor economical, it is important that the communities affected are supported to adapt to the changing coastline. That means anticipating the changes, preparing for them and adapting to them when they occur.
Coastal change management areas are areas identified locally as likely to be affected by coastal change. They provide a means for local authorities to take their specific needs and circumstances into account when making decisions and planning for the future. Between 2009 and 2011, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funded a coastal change pathfinder programme in which 15 local authorities considered new approaches for managing coastal change in partnership with their communities. The Government are committed to investing significant amounts of taxpayer money in coastal erosion and flooding schemes. Specifically for coastal management between 2015 and 2021, our plans will see £885 million invested in projects to manage coastal erosion and coastal flooding, better protecting communities against flooding from the sea.
At the same time that the Government decided formally not to defend the entire coastline, they made the important decision that any scheme that has a positive benefit-cost ratio would be eligible for Government funding. Therefore, cost-beneficial schemes that would not have progressed in the past can now receive Government funding.
Turning specifically to my hon. Friend’s constituency, the Isle of Sheppey, the shoreline over much of the length of the north Sheppey coast is in retreat and has been for centuries. That is very much part of a natural process. As sea levels have slowly risen, land levels have gradually dropped since the last ice age. Added to that natural process are the effects of global warming and climate change. The amount of physical change depends on the degree of exposure of each length of coast and the underlying geology. Increasing rainfall in between longer periods of drier weather can lead to increased weathering of cliff faces, with potentially more cutback of the cliff face.
In general, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the undefended length of coastline between Minster and Warden bay comprises a mix of residential property and agricultural land. He recognises, as does the Department, that 1,000 caravans and 124 buildings will be at risk over the next 100 years. He questioned the value of preserving the area as a geological site. Officials believe that it is an important part of the UK’s natural heritage and provides an invaluable resource for scientific research and education. In particular, the geological features contain nationally and internationally important, diverse and extremely well preserved fossil fauna and flora.
The Geological Conservation Review—a rigorous and systematic assessment of all geological sites in Great Britain—was undertaken by a wide range of experts, who identified the foreshore at Sheppey as being of national scientific importance. The main phase of the review took place some time ago, between 1977 and 1990, but it is still a live process, with small revisions taking place on a regular basis and sites being assessed and added right up to the present day to reflect new scientific discoveries and interpretations. However, I absolutely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I will look into his request to review the SSSI designation, but I hope that he understands that we have to make decisions based on the best evidence that is provided to us.
The cliffs at Sheppey are part of a natural system that includes the whole Thames estuary. They provide an important source of fine-grained sediment to the estuary and its tributary estuaries in north Kent and Essex. Decisions about what is done there need to be balanced with the framework identified by the shoreline management plan, and such plans tend to be based on natural sediment cells. The northern coastline is part of the 2010 Isle of Grain to South Foreland shoreline management plan, which is led and endorsed by local councils. It splits the coastline into five sections. Garrison Point to Minster town, which includes Sheerness, has been designated “hold the line”. Minster slopes to Warden bay has been designated “no active intervention”. From Warden bay to Leysdown-on-Sea, the designation is a mix of “hold the line” and “managed realignment”, and from there to Shellness, the designation is “managed realignment”.
Swale Borough Council has also published technical papers, including setting out a coastal change management area. In 2011, it published the “North Sheppey Erosion Study”. That has helped the council to provide appropriate advice to the public and make informed decisions about planning issues to plan ahead and mitigate the effects of coastal erosion on their lives.
There has already been significant investment by both the Government and local councils to manage the coast in the area. In 2012, there was a shingle recycling project at Sheerness, and next year there will be a further £350,000 investment to continue that work, which will protect 3,000 homes. In addition, Swale Borough Council undertook a £250,000 scheme of coastal protection works at Minster-on-Sea.
New projects are in the planning pipeline for the area: the southern regional flood and coastal committee has allocated £500,000 towards a project to replace or refurbish Warden bay outfall, thus reducing fluvial flood risk from an ageing asset. There are other schemes on the Isle of Sheppey. The total current investment is about £5.9 million, supporting projects at Great Bells farm, Bells pumping station and the Queenborough tidal barrier to protect several hundred houses.
As for my hon. Friend’s suggestions about the country park—the privately funded scheme at this location—I hope he will appreciate that I cannot comment on the technical merits given that the planning application might come before Ministers if it is deemed sufficiently contentious. I know that the challenges of the SSSI exist, and the Environment Agency will also need to be confident about the role of the reuse of waste from other parts of the country.
I am led to believe that we do not in principle oppose a viable third-party scheme, but I heard carefully what my hon. Friend said. We need to recognise, however, that in this particular location, extremely challenging impacts would need to be assessed and mitigated against before the plan could proceed. He will be aware that the £30,000 scheme funded by the local borough council at Eastchurch to address the rate of coastal erosion has simply not had the desired impact. I understand that local teams from both the Environment Agency and Natural England have offered to discuss the proposal that his constituents are considering making.
The Swale and Medway plan remains open for consultation. As part of the development of the strategy to fulfil the shoreline management plan and its update, a public meeting was held in Eastchurch village hall last month. Local people had the opportunity to speak directly to those working on the strategy. One important takeaway from that meeting, both for the officials and members of the public who attended, was the need to explain better the opportunities afforded by the rollback policies in the council’s recently adopted local plan. That creates the opportunity and option for local residents to be helped to relocate their homes to areas at less risk nearby. That applies to any home likely to be affected by erosion within 20 years and allows people to build a new home of a similar character close to the community from which they are displaced.
Allowing natural processes to continue to operate has been a consistent approach since the first shoreline management plan was developed back in the 1990s, and that is likely to continue to be the case. I recognise that that is not the answer that my hon. Friend or his constituents want to hear, but I assure him that I will reflect carefully on his requests. I will commission the review of the SSSI as he asked, and I will make sure that we share it with him when it is completed.
Question put and agreed to.
Work Capability Assessments
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered work capability assessments.
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I am really grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in Parliament today, as flawed work capability assessments have been a major topic in my case load since my election in June this year.
May I start by thanking the many charities, organisations and individuals who have reached out to me in the run-up to this debate with an offer to share briefings and information about their experience of work capability assessments? It is only appropriate at this juncture to commend the hard-working staff in the House of Commons Library for the excellent briefing that they have supplied to all right hon. and hon. Members. I am immensely grateful to individual members of the public from across the UK who got in touch to share their own, often harrowing, experiences of undergoing assessment and the sheer distress caused to them. Time will not permit me to share every testimony, but I want to share some case studies with the House this afternoon, and I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to do the same.
From my short time as a constituency MP, it has become abundantly clear that the UK Government’s work capability assessment is not fit for purpose and requires a full, independent, root-and-branch review to ensure that it treats people with dignity and respect. As it stands, the system is failing the most vulnerable in our society and all too often plunges people into chaos and depression, and in some cases, I am afraid, to the brink of suicide.
I therefore very much welcome the decision of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions to carry out an inquiry into personal independence payment and employment and support allowance assessments. What I do not want to see, however, is a powerful report coming from the Select Committee, only for it to be ignored by the Government, as happened in late 2014 during the last inquiry. The evidence and testimony that the Committee has already received should be sounding the alarm bells at Caxton House, and that is before the Committee has even published its report.
I very much welcome the Minister to her new role. As she knows, I enjoyed a constructive working relationship with her predecessor, particularly on the campaign to end the baby benefit bar. The Minister is widely respected across the House and I have no doubt that she will be in listening mode today. I therefore hope that she will approach this sensitive topic with fresh eyes and the compassionate conservatism that we have heard so much about from the Government.
I will outline some of my major concerns about the work capability assessment process, including the number of claimants with serious health conditions or disabilities who are found fit for work or placed in the wrong ESA group because of deficiencies with the WCA descriptors or in the assessment process.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I think that there are two issues here. One is that private companies are not necessarily equipped to assess people. Secondly, the questionnaire form can give enough information that it does not necessitate an interview of the kind handled by private companies.
David Linden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I will come to that point in a moment.
I will talk about the difficulties faced by certain groups, in particular people with mental health conditions or learning disabilities, in navigating the WCA process; the lack of information about outcomes for individuals following fit for work determinations; and concerns about the risk of poverty and destitution as a result of incorrect decisions. I also want to touch on the relatively high success rate of appeals against ESA decisions, and the difficulties experienced by claimants seeking to challenge fit for work decisions, including the fact that ESA is not payable pending a mandatory reconsideration, meaning that the only option in the meantime is to claim jobseeker’s allowance, potentially exposing an individual to inappropriate conditionality.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned mandatory reconsiderations. Is he aware that Department for Work and Pensions staff are informing people that mandatory reconsiderations will be delayed over Christmas because of the excess workload they face? Through him, can I ask the Minister to transfer staff from bringing in the sanctions and stopping the money, to the mandatory reconsiderations, so that people get their money?
David Linden
I know that the Minister is respected across the House for listening; I am sure she will have heard that point, and I hope the hon. Gentleman gets an answer to it in the wind-ups.
Finally, I will touch on the impact of assessments, frequent reassessments and poor decision making on the physical and mental health of claimants. We could easily spend the next hour and a half trading statistics across the Chamber, but I prefer to focus on real people and those whom I have been elected to represent. Throughout my short time as Glasgow East’s MP, I have seldom had a surgery in which a constituent has not come to me having been the subject of a flawed work capability assessment.
One such case was that of my constituent, David Stewart from Baillieston. David suffers from hidradenitis suppurativa and has had numerous abscesses over the years requiring extensive surgery and skin grafts. It is not uncommon, at times, for him to receive morphine up to six times a day. His own general practitioner stated clearly that David should not be working, yet he was found fit for work at a work capability assessment. It was only after my office intervened and helped him draft a mandatory reconsideration that that decision was finally, and justly, overturned. That brings me to the first issue I want to raise with the Minister today: the astonishingly high level of successful appeals against work capability assessment decisions.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
In my constituency, two thirds of residents who are initially rejected for PIP and ESA are shown to be eligible on appeal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that suggests the whole work capability system requires much more reform?
David Linden
The hon. Lady makes a good point; I very much agree.
The latest quarterly release on appeals of work capability assessments shows that 59% of decisions are overturned at appeal. To be blunt, that means that six in every 10 decisions are wrong. That is incredibly alarming.
There is, of course, a wider point about the undertaking of work capability assessments by a private sector provider, which I oppose on ideological grounds—I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on that point. I doubt, therefore, that it will come as much surprise that I very much welcome the commitment by the Scottish Government to ban private firms from carrying out benefit assessments. I wholly concur with the Scottish Social Security Minister Jeane Freeman, that
“profit should never be a motive nor play any part in assessing or making decisions on people’s health and eligibility for benefits.”
Over and above my ideological objection to private sector provision, I am sure that all hon. Members will be concerned to note that, according to the DWP’s own data released only last week, the ESA assessment provider has consistently failed to meet the contractual expectation for the quality of assessment reports.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
One thing I have been calling for, for some time, is standard recording of all work capability assessments. Often there is one story from one side and another story from the other, and recording would not only provide some evidence about what really happened, but improve people’s experience of the assessments. It has been piloted, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be good to push forward with the recording of assessments as one way of improving the experience for our constituents?
David Linden
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and will come back to how the assessments are conducted, because that forms a major part of my speech.
At this juncture, I want to commend to the House the excellent report by Rethink Mental Illness entitled “It’s broken her”. It was published just last week and makes truly harrowing reading. The report lays bare the full extent of the challenges for people with mental illness when facing assessments for both ESA and PIP. Drawing on findings from a series of interviews and focus group-style discussions, the report finds that the assessment can be “traumatising and anxiety-inducing” for the following reasons: there are numerous issues with the paper forms that claimants must submit, including their complexity and length, and the inflexible nature of the questions they ask; claimants must collect their own medical evidence, which is extremely burdensome, often expensive and time-consuming; the staff who perform face-to-face assessments frequently have a poor understanding of mental illness; and, finally, delays in mandatory reconsideration and appeals to the tribunal mean that claimants may have to wait many months for the correct result.
The report concludes that the current PIP and ESA assessment procedure
“inherently discriminates against people with mental illnesses”.
It sets out a number of policy recommendations to
“dramatically improve the benefits system for people with mental illnesses, as well as saving the Government the vast costs that are currently incurred due to persistent incorrect decisions made early in the process.”
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. May I bring to his attention the case of my constituent, Adam Brown, a 51-year-old man who suffers from epilepsy and cerebral palsy and has a learning disability? By the time Adam came to see me, he had been trying to get a work capability assessment for nine months with the assistance of benefit agencies, and had not got it. We had to intervene and got it within 10 months. It is surely shocking that it takes the intervention of a Member of Parliament for people with disabilities to get fair treatment.
David Linden
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am glad that his office was able to help on that occasion, as mine was in the case of my constituent David Stewart. It is all well and good that as Members of Parliament we can intervene in individual cases, but so many people are affected throughout the entire process that our being able to help on a one-off basis is not good enough.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a fluent and powerful case. Does he agree that if there is a review of the process, two things need to happen? First, in clear, medically proven cases of mental illness, the medical evidence should be accepted without face-to-face examination. Secondly, the assessors and decision makers should be appropriately trained in mental health.
David Linden
I am grateful for that intervention, which leads me on to the recommendations of the Rethink Mental Illness report. The first is:
“A major reform of the PIP assessment and the WCA for ESA is needed. This should result in both assessments reducing the distress caused to people affected by mental illness and that better reflect the realities of living with a condition of this type. Such reform would reduce the need for appeals and the associated costs to the DWP and HM Courts & Tribunals Service”.
The second recommendation is that, as the right hon. Gentleman argues,
“The Government should review the way in which people with mental illness are assessed. Where clear medical evidence exists that claimants have severe forms of mental illness, they should be exempt from face-to-face assessments. Where face-to-face assessments are necessary, claimants should be encouraged to seek support from carers, friends or family members.”
I have seen numerous examples of friends, family members and carers being taken along, only to be told that they are not allowed to help.
The third recommendation is:
“All assessors and DWP decision-makers should be appropriately trained in mental health. The scandal of inappropriately trained and experienced assessors making critical decisions about the lives of people affected by mental illness must end.”
One case study in the report caught my eye, and I want to share it with the House. James, who was 53, had a work capability assessment with a physiotherapist after he lost his job because of depression—not that I can see the connection between physiotherapy and depression. This is his testimony:
“The assessor wanted yes or no answers to various questions like ‘can you leave the house?’ I tried to explain that some days I can leave the house or answer the door, and other days it’s not possible because of my mental health, and the response from the assessor was ‘is that a yes or a no then?’
I have no problem when people don’t understand mental health; it’s when they have an opinion on something they don’t know anything about.
There weren’t any specific questions exploring my mental health. At the end of the assessment, the assessor asked me to touch my toes, and I felt that the whole assessment was set up so people with mental illness fail.”
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems with the process is that it lumps mental health conditions together? Epilepsy is a very different condition from depression, for example, yet people with mental health conditions all undertake the same assessment. Surely that is not fair or right.
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
The quotation from James ends:
“I came out of the assessment feeling let down, and not listened to, and later I made two attempts on my life. I’m still waiting for the result of my WCA.”
That should certainly sound alarm bells in this House. Closer to home, Michelle Ferns, a member of my constituency casework team, has a profoundly autistic son, Richard, who is non-verbal. During Richard’s assessment, Michelle was asked by the professional—the professional!—whether Richard still had autism. That is the kind of ridiculous behaviour that we are seeing in the process.
An ongoing case that I would like to press with the Minister is that of a constituent from Tollcross; I hope you will indulge me, Ms McDonagh, because it relates to a PIP assessment rather than a work capability assessment. My constituent was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis seven years ago. She is fiercely independent, but in the past two years her memory and physical mobility have declined steadily. She was awarded the standard rate for PIP but nothing for the mobility component. She submitted a mandatory reconsideration but, despite new information, it was still rejected. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am certain beyond doubt that the wrong decision was made in that case, and I will be writing to the Minister to ask her to intervene personally and review it.
At this juncture, with a sense of trepidation, I must ask the Minister whether she has ever sat in on a work capability assessment. When I asked the Secretary of State that question in the main Chamber two weeks ago, I was quite shocked to learn that in his seven years as a Minister, he had never sat in on a work capability assessment.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, particularly with respect to mental health, which is one of my specialities. In my constituency, Hartlepool, a man waiting for a double kidney transplant was declared fit for work despite having to make four trips a week to his local hospital. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such cases are abhorrent?
David Linden
Yes. The hon. Gentleman’s point is very valid; his constituents are lucky to have such a strong representative.
Getting a work capability assessment right is vital. Wrong assessments can mean that people with a learning disability are moved to a benefit such as jobseeker’s allowance, which makes many demands that are often difficult for people with a learning disability to understand or fulfil. As a result, they are put at risk of being sanctioned.
Yesterday, Muscular Dystrophy UK shared with me the awful story of a lady with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease who was deemed ineligible for ESA after a work capability assessment. The content of the questions resulted in the entire assessment missing several key points about how her condition affected her, such as the loss of dexterity in her hands and her inability to lift her arms above her head or use buttons. No consideration was given to the pain or fatigue she experiences daily. Many people like her are not adequately assessed during the work capability assessment because the questions that relate to its criteria are not suitable to extract the information required to help the assessor in understanding progressive conditions such as muscular dystrophy. With universal credit on the horizon, particularly in Glasgow, what plans do the Government have to alter the questions to be more appropriate and relevant for people with rare and complex conditions?
Some commentators have suggested reforming the work capability assessment to take account of how people’s functional impairments affect their ability to work, given who they are. They argue that a broader “real world” assessment that took into account factors such as skills, qualifications, experience and age would be possible and would better reflect everyday realities than the existing work capability assessment. To that end, I commend to the Minister and all hon. Members some reading for the Christmas recess: Demos’s March 2015 report “Rethinking the Work Capability Assessment”.
I am conscious that time is marching on, and I want to allow fellow Back Benchers the opportunity to speak, so I should wrap up.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentions capabilities with reference to individuals. Is the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 also included in those capabilities when assessments are carried out?
David Linden
That is a very good question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, will press that point with the Minister.
I am grateful to all hon. Members attending the debate. I especially thank the Minister for listening this afternoon; I have a huge amount of respect for her, and I look forward to her winding-up speech for the Government. However, what I want from the Government is deeds, not words. I want a full root-and-branch review of the work capability assessment process, and I want an assessment that is underpinned by professionalism, knowledge, dignity and—above all—respect.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this debate.
During my time in this place, listening to constituents and supporting them with their work capability and PIP assessments has been part of my constituency casework. In recent months, the number of cases handled by my constituency staff has increased, which suggests that the system is not working as well as it should and needs reviewing. The problems generally relate to the challenges that people with mental health conditions or fluctuating conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s face when they are given assessments, the anguish they go through and the fact that the assessments often do not reach the right decisions. The conclusion of Rethink Mental Illness’s report states:
“The current assessment system…discriminates against people with mental illnesses”.
After the 2014 judicial review decision, I am inclined to agree.
I shall briefly outline three cases with which I have been involved. Two relate to PIP rather than work capability assessments, but I believe that there are clear parallels to be drawn. All three relate to constituents whom I or my staff have known for some time. Previously, they had no problem in obtaining the support that they needed and it is only in recent months that they have experienced problems that have caused them and their families a lot of distress and worry.
The first case involves a constituent who took a supporting letter from her doctor to her assessment, which confirmed that she suffered from a long-standing mental health disorder and concluded that she would find it difficult to cope with any work commitment at the current time. The doctor added that her case should be reviewed in six months’ time.
In reviewing the assessor’s decision, the Department for Work and Pensions decision maker referred to the doctor’s letter but commented that
“at the time of your assessment, your mood did not appear to be low”.
The remainder of the review concentrated on physical issues and included comments such as:
“You appeared to be of average build and well-nourished…You said that you did not need prompting to dress or undress”.
The decision maker concluded that, because my constituent could plan a route of journey unaided, she was able to cope with anxiety. To my mind, the case demonstrates that currently assessors do not have the necessary training to assess accurately people’s mental wellbeing, and that the assessment form does not properly take account of mental conditions as well as physical conditions, and needs to be reviewed.
The second case involves a man who, along with his family, I have known personally for some time. He faces a variety of challenges, including a heart condition, kidney problems, diabetes and hypoglycaemia, as well as mental health challenges. Again, his doctor wrote a letter expressing the professional opinion that he was unfit for work at the current time. While my constituent’s assessment was going on, first, his mother was in hospital to be treated for cancer and then, very sadly, his father died. When he went for his assessment, he collapsed and was admitted to hospital. When such an awful chain of events unfolds, there should be an in-built mechanism in the work capability assessment process so that reviews are put on hold and suspended.
The third case involves a constituent of mine whom I first met some years ago. At that time, she was clearly not fit for work and was duly placed in the support group of employment and support allowance. Her case was reviewed this summer. Her condition has not improved at all in the time I have known her, yet the initial outcome of that assessment was that she should be placed in the work-related activity group. The first mandatory reconsideration upheld that decision. There was then a second mandatory reconsideration and the decision was revised. During this time, my constituent suffered a great deal of worry and distress, and was utterly perplexed as to why this was happening to her.
I have other cases that reveal similar concerns and lead me to conclude that the work capability assessment process needs to be overhauled. I suggest that this could be done in three ways. First, the Government should fully engage with charities and support groups in the sector. Mind and Rethink Mental Illness have interesting proposals that should be considered, while organisations such as the Multiple Sclerosis Society and Parkinson’s UK can provide feedback regarding fluctuating conditions.
Secondly, Parliament has a key role to play in making changes to the assessment. The Work and Pensions Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry and its findings should be considered very carefully.
Thirdly and finally, in future the system needs to be subject to its own form of continuing professional development. Reviews such as those carried out in the past by Professor Harrington and Dr Litchfield should not take place periodically—they should be an ongoing part of the process.
We need work capability assessments, but in their current form they are causing a lot of turmoil in people’s lives and need to be reformed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. May I just inform Members that there are about six people who want to speak? If you could consider limiting your contributions to five or six minutes, that would get everybody in.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this debate. Many of my constituents have written to me regarding the degrading process of the work capability assessment and the effect it has on their mental health. They have complained about the lack of mental health expertise and the insensitive way that the questions are worded, which has led many of my constituents to feel as though there is no compassion.
My constituents have criticised the process, saying that assessors have not asked questions about how often they can undertake activities or about the kind of support they need to undertake them. Often, the way questions are worded makes it difficult for people with mental health problems to explain how their condition fluctuates.
One of my constituents—she gave me permission to highlight her case—has said she felt broken by the work capability assessment. She suffers from dissociative disorder and a complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and due to a reassessment she had violent flashbacks, which triggered self-harming behaviour. Although her case has now been dealt with, after she appealed the decision by the Department for Work and Pensions and won the case, she feels that the system is broken and has left her broken. Like many of us, she says the system needs reform.
As a nurse, I understand that people who have mental health problems need to be treated with care. That should also be the priority for the assessors. While the Government have announced the Green Paper on work, health and disability, will they commit to take on board the recommendations from mental health charities such as Mind to increase the use of specialist assessors and to train the current assessors, who are the people dealing with the clients who have mental health issues?
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh, and to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith)—I have many happy childhood memories of visiting Wolverhampton. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who demonstrated his passion for this very important subject. He is clearly representing his constituents in a very strong way.
The importance of this debate is shown by how well-attended it is, particularly with other things going on in the main Chamber. That is because there is an opportunity to influence what the Government are doing. Following the Green Paper, they have demonstrated that they are willing to listen, engage, consult and make changes. We have a new Minister—the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work—who is widely respected and who is determined to be accessible, to listen and learn, and to improve the situation.
The work capability assessment is not a new thing—it was introduced in 2008. There have been five independent reviews, more than 100 recommendations to improve it have been made and more than 100 recommendations have been enacted. Almost weekly, the Government are considering ways to make further changes. Each and every hon. Member, through our experiences of casework and of sitting through work capability assessments, can feed into the process and suggest changes.
I am a former disabilities Minister. The work capability assessment was not in my remit, but I made representations on behalf of many of the groups that have already been mentioned—Parkinson’s UK, Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Groups, Mind and others—and found that the policy makers and experts are willing to listen and change the scripts, including on how questions are asked and how things are identified, particularly when people have fluctuating health conditions and when health conditions are less common, such that an assessor does not regularly come across them. We have come along in leaps and bounds.
It is clear to me that the examples given today by Members—I presume other examples will be given by the Members who follow me—show that the system is still not right. That is why it is so important to have a Minister who is keen to engage.
I will make a couple of broad points, and then I have some asks. Many people ask why we have assessments. I wondered that myself when I arrived as a Minister. I thought, “I could save the Government a fortune. We could do away with assessments. They are expensive. The Treasury—George Osborne—is very keen for us to find savings, and this is a bit of an easy win.” The reality—we saw this as we transferred from disability living allowance to PIP—is that the assessments, ignoring the cases where they have gone wrong, are there to help build the case.
Under DLA it was purely a paper form. In that written document, most of us here would have articulated the challenges we face in our everyday lives pretty well, and we almost certainly would have got the benefits to which we were entitled, but many people navigating the system were not able to do that for a variety of reasons. Only 16% of claimants under DLA accessed the highest rate of benefit. Under PIP, that figure is 26%. That is because in some parts, the assessment has helped build people’s cases, particularly those with deteriorating health conditions at the beginning of that journey. The assessors are able to say, “At the moment, your day-to-day life is not too affected, but it is likely to be before too long.” The system triggers the ability to reassess and, in the majority of cases, that benefit and support is increased. The principle of the assessments is good. That is why the then Labour Government introduced them in 2008. The assessments are not Conservative ideology, but are done to assist people. Where the assessments go wrong, there is a problem, and that is why it is absolutely right to have this debate to engage and help shape the future.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
When the hon. Gentleman was a Minister, we had a very constructive relationship on the points we are debating. Does he accept that one problem with the assessments is that they assess people on their best days and make an assumption on what their best days look like, not their worst days? If there was a change in assumption, that might help.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and in particular for his very kind words. It was always a pleasure working with him. He is certainly one of my favourite Members on the Opposition Benches in the way he engages and shapes things, although my comment might not help him in Scotland. The theory is that, if the assessments are done correctly, they are a judgment over a period of time. They should not be a judgment just of the isolated moment someone is in the assessment. It is meant to make a judgment on the typical challenges someone has to overcome over a period of time. That is an important point to make, and the system should be recognising it.
The first concern people raise is why the appeal rates are so high. They say, “If the rates are so high, there must be a fundamental problem.” Actually, if we drill down, the vast majority of successful appeals are where additional evidence is provided late, whether orally or in writing. The solution is that we must do more to access people’s health records in advance. Before data protection people come down on me like a tonne of bricks, that can be voluntary, but it should be a given.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
One solution could be for consultants’ records rather than doctors’ to be considered right at the beginning. I appreciate the challenges around GPs, but a consultant could say that Mr A or Mrs B was not capable of doing x, y and z because of their impairment. If that was acceptable, it would make life a lot easier, and it would deal with some of the anxiety some GPs feel about being intimidated into agreeing such and such a position.
Justin Tomlinson
That is an important intervention. Those records are already taken into consideration, but other things that I am about to come on to strengthen that point.
On the high appeal rates, it would help if we could get permission to automatically access those health records. Far too many people are going through the system and only realise they need those pieces of supporting evidence after they have failed and received the helpful communication saying, “This is why you have not accessed that particular level of benefits.” That is an inefficient way of doing it, and we should be more proactive. We have started to see that, but it should be emphasised.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) about recording sessions. That should be a given and would help deal with questions asked in appeals. There should be more videos setting out what is going on. That would help deal with the anxiety and allow people to see what is coming forward. One of the successes under the PIP assessments is that the assessors go out of their way to encourage a claimant to bring a colleague, friend or family member to support them. The same principle should apply.
Many MPs understandably get work capability assessments and PIP assessments mixed up because they are so similar. It would be a good idea if we aligned them more closely, and I know the Government are looking at that.
Getting the work capability assessment right is only part of the journey. The idea is that that assessment identifies what support people need and how we can help them move forward. Mind has said that the Government should have an emphasis on removing the real-world barriers to work. That is why I said at the beginning of my remarks that the debate is an opportunity. We have 3 million new jobs created and 776,000 vacancies available, which is a record high.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Earlier in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he said that things should not go wrong. My problem is that one of my constituents lost more than £300 after she had to cancel an appointment because of urgent ill health. For four months, she has not been able to resolve that. It is okay saying things should not go wrong, but when they do, the system is not there. What action can be taken to ensure that the work capability system is responsive to applicants and considers their concerns, especially when it goes wrong?
Justin Tomlinson
None of us wants it go wrong ever—no one would argue for that. Four months is not acceptable. The hon. Lady has raised the issue. I suspect that our helpful Minister will diligently make a note and that the hon. Lady will be contacted shortly about that case.
The majority of those out of work have been away from work for a very long time. They are desperate for an opportunity. As part of the assessment, assessors look at what someone can do. More than 50% of those people will have a health condition, which will make it harder to find work than it is for the majority of people. The system needs to identify the support needed in terms of financial benefits as well as embracing the principle of offering the tailored support that is at the core of universal credit.
We have to look at matching things with what they can do. For some people, it may be an hour a week. Some people with fluctuating health conditions may be fine for months and then have to dip in and out of work. We have to ensure that support is provided to the individual person, co-ordinated by their named job coach, looking at issues to do with their health, confidence and skills. The Government have to get smarter at talking to employers, particularly the small and medium-sized employers that create 45% of jobs in this country. The big organisations and big businesses are pretty good. They have human resources departments and are good at dealing with this issue on the whole, but small and medium-sized businesses without HR or personnel departments need more support. [Interruption.] I am being reminded to be quick; I will be.
I encourage the Government not to lose sight of the need to create those opportunities for people. I am encouraged that the Government are making improvements, and each and every one of us can help to shape those.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for presenting the case so well. I will refer to many of the things he mentioned, but purely from a constituency point of view.
The issues to do with ESA, DLA and PIP appeals that Members have referred to come into my office every day of the week. On my staff I have a lady, Yvonne, who is blessed with the talent of being able to listen to someone, be compassionate and help put into words what people are frightened to write down. The forms are beyond off-putting. Sometimes the format of the forms is disappointing. Yvonne works hard and there is never a day that she is not up to her eyes in the crux of the matter. Housing and planning used to be the major issues in my office, but the major issue of the day now is benefits. We have a full-time staff member who deals with nothing else, and other staff members do so on a part-time basis. Whenever she takes annual leave, I try to keep on top of the most pressing appeals, and that tells me much about her character and what she is able to do.
Our local citizens advice bureau points people to our office as it is simply unable to process the sheer volume of cases of people appealing. I have the deepest respect for the Minister, and I want to put that on record, but does everyone understand how immense the issue is? I invite her to come to my office in Newtownards, if she is ever in the area, to speak to some of my staff. They will tell her clearly what the issues are.
I will quickly run through the system. If a claimant wishes to appeal a decision, they must request a mandatory reconsideration. Guess what happens next? More often than not, the original decision is upheld. Then, the claimant goes through the appeals process. If 64% of ESA tribunal cases find in favour of the claimant—in other words, the original decision is overturned—that indicates that there is something wrong with the system to start with. Two thirds of appeals are successfully appealed. The same thing applies to the DLA and the PIPs as well. It frustrates me greatly when constituents I have known for umpteen years—I have known their physical illnesses and health problems—get a form back that says, “We have decided you can work.” Well, they are not able to work. They do not see the same person sitting across the table from them. They are asked, “Can you jump up and down? Can you walk 100 yards? Can you make your tea?” There are issues with mental health as well; the hon. Member for Glasgow East referred to that.
People ring our offices in genuine distress and actually crying over the issues. Even the hardest heart in this Chamber would have to acknowledge that and take note. The problem is that the unwell person feels as though they have been dragged across hot coals. Their illness is exacerbated by the stress and they become even more ill. I have seen that happening so often.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good case that chimes with my constituent, Mr Ramsey, who had his ESA terminated. He has arthritis, kidney and heart problems, type 2 diabetes and colitis, and he receives DLA at the higher rate. He is at risk of a heart attack and a stroke if he is made to go back to work, but he was told he could not get what he was entitled to. He has now been placed in the WRAG, so he continues to have great stress and worry about whether he will be hauled back in again.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which will be mirrored by me and everyone else in this Chamber. Indeed, I do not see how anyone could have a different opinion. We see the reality in our offices every day.
The vicious cycle continues. Although it might look good on paper for the decision makers to meet their quotas, it does not look good to the doctor who has to care for the person. We need a system that lends adequate weight to the illnesses that people have without having to tax doctors even more. We all know how difficult it is for doctors to make appointments, and we are asking them to provide additional information that puts more strain on local GP practices. I understand that system. GPs in my constituency have decided to inform patients they will no longer provide letters for PIP or ESA, and will give information only if requested by ESA or by PIP. Again, that happens irregularly.
On the other hand, ESA and PIP request only certain information, so the whole case is not heard and the loser is the person applying. What comes first—the chicken or the egg? People are bouncing back and forth between the benefits office and the GP. It really frustrates me.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
On becoming a new Member of Parliament I had a stark introduction when I held a street surgery in Dennistoun the day after my election. Some of the massive problems highlighted by the hon. Gentleman came to light for me when a woman approached me in tears in the street and said that she had to support her son who had a high-grade brain tumour—a terminal brain tumour—and yet was still deemed fit to work. In that context, in the face of all the medical evidence, we still see flaws happening in the most degrading and humiliating way. In the face of the most vindictive box-ticking exercise, we see such hard-hearted approaches. Medical opinion must take greater weight in the process. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?
Jim Shannon
I absolutely agree with that. The evidence is very clear from the overturning of cases at tribunals. There are people who have complex medical conditions, who are obviously unwell, and there are even wards of court where the court has decided a person is unable to look after their financial affairs, and yet the ESA writes to the person and all of a sudden we have myriad problems.
Delays in mandatory reconsideration and appeals to the tribunal mean that claimants may have to wait many months for the correct result. As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) says, that adds to the strain that the appellant faces. It does not affect just a single person, but the family as well. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) mentioned, it affects the family and everybody coming together.
I am glad to say we have a food bank in our area. Thank the Lord for food banks. One of the biggest reasons why my office points people in the direction of the local food bank is because of benefit delay. The DWP has failed to make reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act 2010. The 2017 Green Paper “Improving Lives: the Future of Work, Health and Disability” contained no proposals to substantially reform assessments. I ask the Minister why.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate. It is always refreshing to be in a debate where there are so many shared views from different parties. I congratulate him on the tone with which he conducted his speech.
I echo some of the comments that remind us of how we have come to this position. There is absolutely a need for a work capability assessment within our benefits system. It is extremely important that people who suffer from physical and mental conditions have their conditions assessed to see whether they are able to work today or tomorrow. It allows the state to give them the requisite support that they need and deserve.
When the Labour party introduced the system in 2008, it did so with the laudable intention of creating a benefits system that identified what people could do rather than what they could not. That is a value to which we should remain attached. I am not sure that between 2008 and 2010 the then Government managed to achieve that. To be honest, I am not sure that we have managed to achieve it since, but the value of that principle is one that we should hold dear.
I should prefix what I say with my belief that there is substantial room for improvement within the system and perhaps a need to go back to some basic values. One thing that I find often gets lost in the powerful and personal stories that I come across in my surgery, and that colleagues from all parties come across in theirs, is that the system works well for a great many people. Of the 1.6 million people who completed the assessment process between October 2013 and December 2016, 85% did not appeal, so the vast majority were content with the decision that was made. Only 3.5% of the 1.6 million had a successful appeal. I do not wish to belittle those numbers because that 3.5% still represents tens of thousands of people, many of whom have very serious conditions, and many of whom will have been left substantially worse off by a negative decision. I want us to remember that the system is not wholly bad, but that there is substantial room for improvement within it.
Neil Gray
The hon. Gentleman quotes figures that I am happy to accept, but does he accept that many people who have been through the system, particularly with work capability assessments, feel so frustrated by the process they have gone through that they self-deny the support that might be available to them, and that that is perhaps part of the reason why there is a low appeal rate in some periods?
Alex Burghart
I absolutely accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think he would accept that some people do not appeal because they are pleased with the outcome. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) mentioned that the Government and the previous Government have always been in a process of ongoing review—we have had annual reviews and a Green Paper. I am sure everyone has read “Improving Lives”, published last month, which sets out the Government’s future commitment to reform, and that we all welcome it.
As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I have been fortunate enough to come across a great many cases and a great amount of submitted evidence. It is becoming clear to me that there are four key areas in which we should seek to improve the system. The first, which resonates with a lot of what has been said, is the accuracy of the assessments. I have had people through my surgery in my constituency who have presented me with information that is clearly wrong and clearly relates to somebody else. Basic errors creep in before we even get to the validity of the assessment process. That makes me think that the accountability system for the accuracy of the reports should also be revised. If an assessment company sees its assessments overturned, there should be consequences. I would certainly like, at the very least, the cost of the assessment process to be charged to that assessment company, and I would certainly be open to the idea of compensation for people who had been wrongfully denied benefits because assessments had been mishandled.
The matter is bound up with the question of expertise. The Work and Pensions Committee questioned witnesses from the major companies the other day about the level of expertise that they employed.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman talks about compensation, but how does he think people can be compensated for damage to their mental health? A constituent who contacted me has been on Valium since her last ESA assessment because it was so devastating. Another constituent, who is affected by the issues covered by the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and is therefore already missing out, has multiple sclerosis. She was so damaged and upset by the assessment that she and her husband cannot bear to go through the experience again.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady gives powerful examples. As I have said, the most important thing that we can do is improve the accuracy and quality of the assessments to prevent such cases.
Schizophrenia is a complex condition that can manifest in many different ways from case to case. Consequently, it will vary in its impact on the ability to work, depending on the individual case. To my mind, it would be difficult for an individual assessor without expertise in schizophrenia to make an accurate judgment about whether someone with schizophrenia would be capable of working, whether on a daily or temporary basis. I urge the Government to consider how we can encourage or oblige assessment companies to employ people with the requisite expertise.
There is a substantial point to be made about simplicity. I have been through all the application papers. I do not like filling in forms at the best of times, but those things are the stuff of nightmares. They have a huge number of pages and fields, and contain requests for information that the Government must hold. I find it strange that that peculiar bureaucracy is asking for information that other bits of our state system must have.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the difficulty with forms. The inadequate and inflexible nature of the questions that are asked has been raised with me. I have heard of people with epilepsy being asked, “Can you lift a glass to your lips?” The answer was “Yes, if I am not having a fit,” but there was no room on the form to add that important additional fact. “Can you walk 25 yards?” “Yes, if I am not having a fit,” and so on. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
Alex Burghart
I appreciate that it is the nature of bureaucracy to be inflexible, so I take the hon. Lady’s point.
I am keen for the Government to go back to the central principle of finding out what people can do rather than what they cannot do. With greater expertise in the assessment process it would be possible to identify the sorts of jobs that other people with the condition in question have managed to hold down. That would bring the principles of universal support into the assessment process, helping people to identify their barriers to work and overcome them.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to speak and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for bringing this important debate forward. I last spoke on the issue in February. Many of the problems that were raised then have been highlighted again today. We know about the negative experiences people have in assessments. I know of them from my constituents. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) talked about the system having come on in leaps and bounds, but I am afraid that when 59% of assessments that go to appeal are overturned, it does not sound like leaps and bounds to me or to the system’s victims—I use that word advisedly.
The fact that the system as it currently operates completely fails the vulnerable who rely on it is borne out by the current inquiry by the Work and Pensions Committee. Some appalling and shameful experiences have come to light—we have heard much about them today. There are reports of assessors not being sufficiently qualified to carry out assessments, and not possessing sufficient medical expertise on the medical condition in question. We have heard about physiotherapists assessing mental health problems, and claimants feeling that their responses are not recorded accurately. Assessment methods vary widely in quality and—this comes up a lot—those assessed feel that they are not being listened to. There is a lack of understanding of disability and the hidden impact of mental health challenges.
Anyone who doubts or rejects that analysis must find another explanation of why so many—59%—of appeals against DWP decisions are successful. That figure alone shows that the initial decisions are often wrong—they are wrong in the majority of cases.
Patricia Gibson
I cannot give way because so many hon. Members have taken far more time than courtesy permitted.
I know from constituents who have been through the process that lodging an appeal is a huge cause of stress and anxiety, and does nothing to improve the health and wellbeing of those who go through it. Indeed, many simply give up, feeling abandoned and betrayed by a system that they believed would be there in their time of need, when they most needed support. The assessments are so traumatic for some people that they may be hospitalised or have to increase their medication. Some people may even attempt suicide, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East pointed out. He also eloquently pointed out that about half of ESA claimants have a mental health condition, but that the system seems actively to discriminate against people living with such conditions. The system is clearly not fit for purpose, despite any amount of pretence about how it has improved. It may well have improved, but that is no comfort to the people who live with those decisions day in, day out.
The impact of the flawed system on those who are disabled can be profound. Work done by the Scottish Government found that between 7,000 and 10,000 disabled people a year are affected by the removal of their support. The SNP Scottish Government have completely mitigated the bedroom tax, saving 40,000 disabled people in Scotland who claim ESA from that hated and unjust tax. I trust that the Minister will seek improvements to the system, and I ask her as she does so to remember and reflect on the fact that the United Nations committee on the rights of persons with disabilities has slammed the Government’s record. In contrast to the current stressful, poorly carried out and often humiliating assessments, there will, when Scotland has control over some benefits—it will not have control of work capability assessments, because ESA has not been devolved—be an end to the tick-box assessments that are now used. They cannot and do not take proper account of complex conditions.
Several times in the debate hon. Members have said that the principle of assessment is important, but no one said that assessments should be carried out by private companies. Those who believe that they should be should be prepared to come here and defend that decision. The assessments are carried out by private companies, which by their nature are driven by the profit motive. That is the end of the story. When people’s mental health is being assessed, the profit motive cannot be a factor in the equation. I ask the Minister to consider that carefully.
Time prevents me from continuing, but I urge the Minister to look seriously at the system and overhaul it completely. I hope she will feed back to the Government the concerns expressed by so many hon. Members today.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this vital debate.
We have heard today that work capability assessments are not working for people and that they cause problems. That is borne out across my constituency. People often struggle to get into my surgeries to tell me their difficulties, and they may have combinations of conditions. There are people who are blind, and who are also coping with mental illness or sometimes cancer treatment. To be asked to attend a work capability assessment is an incredible situation to be in, and it leads to people being absolutely petrified—we have heard that word before. People are terrified about what they will have to go through. They have to sit down in front of people and be challenged on their conditions, when it is self-evident that they are not capable of doing the things that the assessors would like them to do. For many people, the process escalates and compounds the difficulties that they face in their daily lives. It is—this may be an overused word in this place—genuinely heartbreaking when people present themselves in that way. How on earth can we have a system that puts people through that kind of torture? It is not right and we must challenge it.
Members have spoken about work capability assessments and the kinds of questions that put people under pressure. Constituents have told me that they have been asked whether they can do something and they have said “no”. They are then asked again, “What about on a good day? What about when the sun is shining outside and it is great? Can you do this then?” People have a natural instinct to say, “Yes I can do that,” even if they cannot. They want to be seen to be trying to do something, so they are put in a horrible place and are caught between what they would like to do and think they might be able to do in certain circumstances, and what they absolutely cannot do. That is the problem, and I hope that the Minister trusts the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East and is listening, because people are being put through the mill.
Work capability assessments are problematic and inefficient. Appointments have been cancelled, and there are delays for people who cannot stand the stress or cope with the process. It is vital that they get the support they need. As has been said, people are petrified; they are afraid to appeal in case they lose what they have got. Those moving from employment and support allowance to universal credit have already lost their severe disablement allowance—£62 a week does not sound a lot when said like that, but for someone who depends on that it is an enormous amount, and those people are being put through hardship.
I know there is limited time so I will be brief, but I must point out that those on the frontline in citizens advice bureaux and constituency offices see this problem on a daily basis. Lesley Newton from my local CAB stated:
“The assessment examination has significant weaknesses leading to chronically ill people both physically and mental health challenged being given zero points at assessment.”
That is not right; it should not happen. She continues:
“Many of these clients have had ESA in payment for a number of years and following these assessments are deemed fit for work.”
She said that with the introduction of universal credit, those clients face the challenge of replacing that benefit income while the decision is challenged and they are required to claim universal credit. She continued:
“Many ESA claimants also receive PIP so they lose the premiums that are paid within ESA linked to their PIP award when forced to claim UC… We have a high success rate when we challenge ESA decisions at appeal but”—
this is critical because we are talking about those who have access to the appeal system—
“we are struggling with the volume of these due to our own resource restrictions”.
This is such a difficult process for people to cope with that even those who support them are finding it incredibly difficult, leading to stress in their own workplaces.
I could go on but I will not because time is limited. However, I appeal to the Minister to listen carefully to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. What is needed is professionalism, knowledge and—most importantly—dignity and respect.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I am pleased to sum up this important debate on behalf of the Scottish National party with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing it. I pay tribute to the way that he has started his time in Parliament because he has, without doubt, been one of the most active and effective Members of the 2017 intake, and I am proud to work alongside him.
My hon. Friend made a typically forthright and incisive speech, drawing on his constituency experience and the expert testimony of groups who support and campaign for people with disabilities or long-term health conditions. He rightly called out a number of the flaws in the current work capability assessment process and the running of employment and support allowance, and he is right about the lack of information and data collection by the UK Government on the impact of cuts to ESA and wrong decision making at WCA level.
I am sure that the new Minister will question the high success rate of appeals against decisions made after work capability assessments. As has been said, a two-thirds success rate for appeals calls into question whether the system is working for those it is supposed to support, and I am sure she will raise that issue with her Department. Those who appeal against WCA decisions can only claim jobseeker’s allowance to receive an income, which adds additional conditionality and stress.
Other Members have made valuable contributions. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) made an important intervention about the way people with mental health conditions are treated, and I hope the Minister will consider and respond to that in her closing remarks. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) was typically challenging of the Government, and he based those challenges on casework experience that will be familiar to us all. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith) spoke from her practical experience in healthcare and made a critical intervention.
The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) —a former Minister—made a typically considered speech and accepted that there are issues with WCAs. He also made a good point about access to medical information, which we all agree is a constructive change that the Minister could consider. That issue is a major stumbling block for constituents I have represented who have problems with the WCA.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a strong case and did what too few of us do in this House, which is to pay tribute to the efforts made by staff. In my office, Lawrie, Margaret, Carrie, Adam, Michael and Lesley see and deal with these issues on a daily basis, and they do a power of work to support affected constituents.
This is the first—and perhaps only—time that I will say I agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), but there has been cross-party consensus in this debate that work capability assessments are not working. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), as always, made a passionate and erudite speech. She was right to say that not much has changed in debates on this issue since I have been in Parliament, but the Minister has an opportunity to make changes, based on the suggestions that have been put forward today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) was also right, because the people who I see before an assessment in my constituency surgeries and office are petrified. They are terrified because this process has the potential to rip security away from them. It is a fundamental point in their journey through the process, and it is a difficult time because of their experiences and those of people around them who have previously gone through it.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister came to this debate in listening mode, has engaged with it, and will leave in action mode. The personal and expert testimony that she has heard today should give her all the ammunition she needs to instruct a full review of work capability assessments, as called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. The system clearly is not working and is not fit for purpose. We welcome the move to exempt people with certain conditions from having to suffer reassessment for ESA, but that highlights the need for a proper and full review of the whole system. Such a review should be based on the Scottish Government’s principle of establishing a system that is fundamentally based on dignity and respect for those who need its help.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for withdrawing his right to sum up at the end of the debate, so the shadow Minister and the Minister have until 4 o’clock.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate. He made some very valuable points, particularly about inaccurate decision making leading to a very high success rate at tribunal. I also share his hope that finally the Government will actually take some action following the inquiry that the Work and Pensions Committee are currently carrying out, which has had an overwhelming response.
I also thank all other hon. Members for their powerful contributions, particularly those sharing real-life examples of people’s experiences with work capability assessments. The Government have overseen the unnecessary suffering of many of the most vulnerable in society with these assessments, which have proven to be unfair and unfit for purpose. Despite the many Chamber debates, Westminster Hall debates and Select Committee hearings, we have seen little or negligible action.
Marsha De Cordova
No, I will not be taking any interventions.
There is now a broad consensus that the work capability assessment needs to be reformed. Disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, and charities have been clear that it is a blunt instrument that often gets it wrong and frequently fails to link people to the appropriate support. Labour has made it clear that we will scrap both the work capability assessment and the personal independence payment assessments, and replace them with a holistic, supportive and enabling approach. Until then, we need to mitigate the most adverse effects of the work capability assessment.
We are all familiar with disabled people who wish to be in work and to have a career, but are left without the high-quality, impairment-specific employment support that they need to make that a reality. We are also familiar with disabled people who have no realistic prospect of work, but have been put in the wrong group—the work-related activity group of employment and support allowance. Some have even been found fit for work and put on jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit equivalents—forced on to lower rates of social security support for long periods.
There has always been tension regarding ESA and its predecessors on whether the main objective is to help those with the potential to move into work to find suitable employment, or just to save money by getting claimants on to the lowest rates of social security support wherever possible. Both objectives run side by side in uneasy co-existence, but the latter aim seems to have dominated recently, as poor-quality assessments and decisions have increased. A culture seems to have developed in which a good number of the Department’s contracted-out, private assessors seem to have a perception that the Government want to make a minimum award. There also seem to be parallel views among many DWP decision makers, even at the mandatory reconsideration stage, that that is indeed what their managers possibly require.
Some of the cases are truly appalling. A lady with muscular dystrophy was deemed ineligible for ESA after a WCA. The content of the questions in that WCA resulted in the entire assessment missing several key points about how her condition affects her, such as the dexterity in her hands, and her ability to lift her arms above her head or to use buttons. There was also no consideration of the pain or fatigue she experiences on a daily basis.
On Monday, the Work and Pensions Committee heard about a visually impaired woman with a medical certificate to prove her condition—the certificate of visual impairment—being asked by her assessor to read it out, and then asked to read other documents as a test. Disability organisations have raised the issue of a lack of knowledge and understanding among assessors, particularly of equality and the social model of disability. There is a lack of understanding about health conditions, and often inappropriate or unreasonable questions and treatment of those with disabilities. Assessment locations are often far away or inaccessible to people. Alternative forms and formats vary across providers. Questions that form the criteria of the WCA are often unsuitable to extract the information required to help the assessor to understand certain conditions. For some people, face-to-face assessments can also be unhelpful and counterproductive. Patients suffering from mental health conditions downplay their conditions, particularly if they have had negative experiences or fear being sectioned. Others have had their condition exacerbated by the process.
The Government have argued that as only a modest proportion of decisions are appealed, the rest must be right. That assumption is clearly unsound. More than 90% of mandatory reconsiderations are upheld, with some decisions made within 48 hours. That is not reconsideration; it is rubber-stamping. When we look at the results of those who go on to appeal, the success rate is drastically different: 60% for ESA appeals between 2013 and 2016. Clearly, many people simply accept decisions that are likely to be incorrect, and suffer as a result. We can all agree, across the parties, that the system is broken and unfit for purpose.
What assessment have the Government made of how many incorrect decisions go un-appealed? Faulty assessments and decisions not only penalise claimants, but swamp advice surgeries and services, and appeal tribunals. There are beginning to be concerns among the judiciary. Britain’s most senior tribunal judge has said that most of the benefits cases that reach court are based on bad decisions, where the Government have had no case at all.
Any work capability assessment should be rooted in the real world. In each case, the genuine employment prospects of that individual in the light of their disability or health condition, age, work history, qualifications, and so on, should be the subject of a skilled assessment. It should also not be a one-off event. Certainly, pointless reassessments of people whose disability or health condition is not going to improve should be avoided, but for those who have genuine future employment prospects, there should be positive engagement.
Since April 2017, new claimants in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group have been paid the same rate as JSA—a reduction of £29 per week. That measure removes any recognition of the barriers to work and the additional costs of undertaking work-related activity faced by many disabled people. The change also creates a cliff-edge of about £59 between the ESA support group and the WRAG.
This approach, linked to high-quality, impairment-specific, real-world assessments, points the way towards a much better system. I hope the Government listen to the judiciary, disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, and commit to scrapping the work capability assessment. They should also listen to Labour. We will replace the WCA with a personalised, holistic process. We will end the privatisation of assessments and the pointless stress of reassessments for people with severe long-term conditions. We will change the culture of the social security system, from one that demonises people not in work to one that is supportive and enabling. The Government must listen and ensure that there is “nothing about us without us”.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I very much welcome this afternoon’s debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden)—I hope I can call him that—on the manner in which he introduced it. Making sure that the most vulnerable people in our society have the support that they need must be something that rises above all party politics. I appreciate the contributions from so many Members today: 11 speakers, with 16 interventions. That shows how important this issue is to Members of all parties across the House.
Today’s debate is also very timely. Only last week, we published our response to the Green Paper consultation proposals for reform in “Improving Lives: the Future of Work, Health and Disability”. I will not have time today to give detailed responses to all the points that have been raised, but if hon. Members were to read that response they would see that many of their ideas for improving the work capability assessment are reflected in the plans we have set out. We have set out a very ambitious programme of testing and learning to make sure that we get this right. I will of course write to Members if I have not been able to address their individual concerns.
We have heard passionate contributions from Members who have rightly talked about their constituents’ experiences. I am a constituency MP first and foremost, as is every Minister. I have had similarly harrowing experiences with my constituents and I have listened to their concerns about the process. I assure hon. Members that I am as motivated as them to make sure the process is as good as it can possibly be. I invite them to send me the individual cases they talked about today so I can take a closer look at them and respond fully.
I have had a month in my new role. After dealing with a number of colleagues who have spoken to me and reading the correspondence I have received, I think it is important that I set up a series of meetings about PIP and ESA so Members and their caseworkers can meet me and the officials in my Department. It will be a kind of teach-in. We will listen to their concerns, explain the improvements we are putting in place and communicate the support that is available. That series of meetings, which will be available to all Members of Parliament, will start in January.
Sarah Newton
I will not—I have very little time. I can of course follow up the hon. Gentleman’s point after the debate.
The timing of the debate is important for another reason. I welcome the fact that the Work and Pensions Committee is doing an inquiry into ESA and PIP assessments. I assure hon. Members that I will not only participate in that inquiry—I look forward to going along to the Committee next week—but pay attention to its findings and consider them. It is clear from this debate that we are all committed to ensuring that people with health conditions and disabilities have the right support.
In the past couple of weeks, I have visited assessment centres that are undertaking work capability and PIP assessments, and I have seen NHS doctors, nurses and health professionals bring their professionalism and compassion to their work. They are the same people we could meet if we go to an appointment to see a GP or are treated in our local hospital. I have seen compassion and professionalism in the assessments, but I accept that there are improvements to make. We can always do a lot more.
Returning to some of the fundamental points that hon. Members made, it is right that our system focuses on what people can do, not on what they cannot do. We embrace the social model of disability. We want to break down barriers to work and ensure that people can truly reach their full potential in our society and in work, because we know that good work is good for health. I have met many people who would be considered severely disabled, and they tell me that they want an opportunity to participate in society and to work. In my few short weeks as a Minister, I have already seen inspirational work in our NHS and among providers of support for people with disabilities that enables people to have a role in our society. People who have been cast aside, rejected and put on the scrap heap for the past 30 years are now being supported into work.
I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), with whom I work in partnership in the Department of Health, here today. We visited a fantastic project run by a mental health trust in London. The doctors said, “We had written off these patients. We never thought that somebody with such a severe mental health problem would ever work, but we have changed our minds because of the programmes we have been putting in place in our hospitals.” We have to focus on listening, learning and developing our systems so that more people like those my hon. Friend and I saw last week have an opportunity to play their full part in society.
Of course, some people are too poorly to work, much as they would like to do so. Every year, the Government spend more money on disability benefits and benefits for people with heath conditions, and it is clearly set out in our spending that we will continue to do so. We are spending more than £50 billion—more than the defence budget—on such benefits, so the idea that we are cutting support to people, as many hon. Members said, is simply wrong.
Any financial support system has to go through a process of evaluation to ensure we get the right support for the right person, and it must be individually based. My vision is very clear: each person is an individual, and no two people are the same. People who on paper have the same medical reports for the same condition will have very different prospects and will be able to do different things. The system must be tailor-made to support them. That is what we are doing in our future strategy, which we set up last week.
Labour introduced the work capability assessment in 2008, and we all agreed that it was not good enough and was not fit for purpose. Since then, it has been under constant review, and we have made more than 100 recommendations. Whenever we find good new ideas to improve it, we implement them. We regularly engage with disabled people and stakeholder groups to ensure that we listen, learn and make improvements. Probably the most significant improvements have been in mental health. Work capability and PIP assessors, and frontline staff in the DWP—the people in the jobcentres and those who make decisions about benefits—have all undertaken mental health training to ensure they are sensitive to the needs of people with mental health conditions.
There is a person behind every statistic, so I am leery about using statistics, but I cannot allow some of the misinformation we have heard today to remain unchallenged. We undertake 1 million ESA assessments every year. Since April, 8% have been appealed and only 4% have been upheld. I know there is a person behind every statistic, and I know the impact that that can have on people, but it is not fair to say that, in the majority of cases, the system does not work. In the majority of cases, it does work.
Sarah Newton
I want to answer the points that have been raised.
We are not satisfied with the appeal rate. That is not a “good enough for me” measurement of the process. I am interested in the experience of the individual claimant and their journey through the process. Independent customer satisfaction surveys are undertaken, and the latest shows an 83% highly satisfied or satisfied rate. I am not going to be satisfied until it is 100% of claimants, but hon. Members have indicated that everybody is having the most terrible experience, which is simply not the case.
I am not complacent, and I want to highlight some of the improvements that are under way. We have representative groups that include charities and disabled people, and we are always looking at what more we can do with the forms and the process. Videos are going to be put up on our contractors’ websites so that, before people go along to the assessments, they have got information about what to expect, what they can bring with them and the people they can bring along to support them so they are not scared. I do not want anybody to be terrified about going to the assessments. We are doing a lot of work with healthcare professionals to ensure that they have continuous improvement. We are particularly focusing on mental health.
I am sorry that I have not been able to address all the concerns that were raised. As I say, I will write to hon. Members, and I am taking careful note of the Work and Pensions Committee’s work. I agree with everyone that we want a system that treats people with respect and dignity, gives them the personal, tailor-made service that they richly deserve, and enables them to play a full part in our society.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered work capability assessments.
Male Suicide
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of male suicide.
This is my first Westminster Hall debate and it is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Ms Ryan. I hope that this is the first of many opportunities to do so.
We are gathered in this Chamber to debate the single biggest killer of men aged 20 to 49, a bigger killer than cancer, heart disease or road accidents: I am talking about suicide. Suicide is of course a highly complex issue. It is not only men who are at risk of suicide, but women, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, people who have suffered family breakdown, black and ethnic minority people who live in deprived areas, and others who have suffered loss or structural disadvantage. They are all at increased risk. The focus of today’s debate is on men, but that should not come at the expense of the consideration of risk of suicide in other groups.
Since 1981 the Office for National Statistics has collected the figures for suicide in the UK. In almost every year from 1981 to 2016, men have been at least three times more likely to kill themselves than women. That is not a problem that has gone away over time and it is evident from the figures that both historically and contemporarily suicide is a problem that disproportionately affects men.
For me, and I am sure many other men in this place, suicide is not only an issue of public health but something personal. From 2012 to 2016, 198 people have taken their own lives in South Lanarkshire, of whom 147, or 74%, were men. People I care about have been directly affected by male suicide in recent times. The wider community of each death by suicide is substantial. The Local Government Association estimates that, for every person who dies, between six and 60 people are directly affected.
Suicide among men is complex. It is not helpful to speculate why an individual might have taken their own life. However, there has been research into factors that increase the risk of suicide in men. Research by the Samaritans and data from the ONS highlight some of those factors: loneliness from family breakdown or the death of a spouse; the decline of traditionally male-dominated industries; inequality; and social expectations about masculinity.
Today I will focus on how views of masculinity can increase the risk of suicide in men and on the idea that suicide among men is not just a health issue but one that is often linked with social deprivation and inequality. Many in this House and wider society have made great strides to challenge how we conceive masculinity, but for many men the key tenets of masculinity remain important to their identities and conceptions of how they believe they are meant to behave. It is not just the men themselves—society at large can be guilty of holding men to those unrealistic standards.
Having grown up in the west of Scotland, I know that that masculine ideal requires that men should never be depressed, anxious or unable to cope and, if they are, they should never admit it—they should be strong. That can often mean that when men are most in pain, they are also at their most determined to hide that pain and to shrink away from help due to a fear that their vulnerabilities will be exposed. That can lead men to respond to distress with denial, to angst with avoidance and to insecurity with isolation.
Rather than seeking out the help and support they need—often the help and support that may save their life—many men will suffer in silence. That presents a problem. Across the UK health services are being retooled to provide parity of esteem between mental and physical health, but the problem for suicide among men is often not treatment but identification. We could have the best mental health service in the world, but until we start better identifying those who need to access it, we are unlikely to see an improvement.
At present, 70% of people who take their own lives are not under the care of a specialist mental health service. Changing the culture, in particular among men, is central to reducing suicide.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on a very powerful speech. I spoke on this very issue on International Men’s Day. Does he recognise a particular role for men’s sheds, where men can come together to have conversations about mental health? We welcome the work being done in Shettleston Men’s Shed, where people can come together to have exactly those conversations, getting them out in the open.
Ged Killen
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A lot of good work is going on around the country to encourage men to talk more.
Initiatives by the Samaritans and Time to Change encourage us all to think differently about mental health and suicide and to be alert when the behaviour of our friends, families and colleagues changes. Personal interventions can save lives and it is incumbent on us as individuals and as representatives to challenge traditional conceptions of masculinity, in particular when they pose a risk to life.
Put simply, men need to get better at talking to each other. I include myself in that. I have not always been good about talking about my own mental health and my experience of anxiety and OCD, obsessive compulsive disorder. We need to get over any embarrassment or awkwardness we might feel, and realise that sitting down for a simple cup of tea or coffee and asking a friend how he feels might be the thing that saves his life.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does he agree that we need to start very young with that? There is a lot of evidence to suggest that if people can talk about that when they are at school, that may be the greatest preventer of all.
Ged Killen
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, though early intervention with mental health is an entirely separate debate, which I suggest would want its own time. I certainly agree with his point.
As I was saying, if a friend is experiencing a suicidal train of thought, a simple chat might be just the thing to break that cycle of thought. It might refer the person to the help they need.
Suicide among men, however, can no longer be seen purely as a health issue. There is a statistically significant relationship between high levels of deprivation and high levels of suicide. That association means that as area-level deprivation increases, the likelihood of suicidal behaviour will probably increase as well.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
On that very point about deprivation in what is a very passionate speech, does my hon. Friend agree that such areas show clustering following a suicide? Conversation among all men is doubly important at that stage, to reduce stress in the area.
Ged Killen
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In those deprived areas people are on average two or three times more likely to experience suicidal behaviour. Socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals are more at risk and less likely to seek help for mental health problems than the more affluent. It bears repeating that, although each person’s suicide is complex and individual, this is a fact that cannot be ignored: a man living in the most deprived area of our country is 10 times more likely to take his own life than a man in the most affluent area. In no uncertain terms, I am saying that for men in deprived areas, inequality kills.
We cannot conclusively draw links between all Government policies and suicide—I would not seek to do so—but I have a growing fear that the Government’s roll-out of universal credit in its current form will exacerbate inequality and could present an increased risk of suicide in deprived areas.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus on deprived areas, but does he agree that there are areas in which people successful in business or agriculture—third or fourth generation—might have a business that slips away from them? They are not necessarily on a journey of deprivation, but they are losing something that the family had built up over the years. They may see the way out as taking their own life. That is the burden of a family business and its loss—does he agree that suicide includes a broad range of unfortunate individuals?
Ged Killen
As I said, there are a lot of complex issues that might affect suicidal behaviour. I am identifying specific areas that research shows are more likely to increase the risk of suicide. Living in a deprived area is one of those.
Sadly, many Members have said in the Chamber that they hear from increasing numbers of people showing signs of suicidal behaviour, as do I in my own office. I could not speak in the debate without acknowledging that. But I bring the debate in a spirit of collaboration. I am certain that every Member in this room wants a reduction in male suicides and wants strategies to be devised and implemented to achieve that aim.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
One note of encouragement is that the suicide rate in Glasgow has certainly gone down in the last 20 years: 64 men took their lives last year in Glasgow, but that is down from 122 men in 2000. Might that indicate a generational difference, where the generation of younger men feel more open to talking about their issues? Perhaps that represents a challenge for older generations, who still feel that certain social norms or taboos prevent them from opening up, but one that is changing slowly but surely.
Ged Killen
I hope that is the case and I think that, certainly, younger men are more likely to talk about their feelings than the older generation. Although there has been a strong downward trend in suicide rates in Scotland, in 2016 there was an 8% increase. Hopefully, that will go back down, but the issue still needs to be addressed, which is why it is important to have debates such as this.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He talked about the Samaritans research, which showed, in summary, that less well-off men are ten times more likely to die by suicide than more well-off men. Does he agree that it is important that the Government try to tackle the problem through a suicide prevention strategy and through identifying specific ways of helping to address the rate of male suicides?
Ged Killen
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I hope that the Minister will touch on that. I note that suicide is treated as a health matter.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct to raise this hugely important subject. Sometimes, suicide is not any respecter of wealth. A much-loved local general practitioner in my constituency committed suicide, and there is a very moving memorial to him in my home town of Tain. The hon. Gentleman mentioned health, but does he feel that the education system might have a useful role in getting men to talk from an early age?
Ged Killen
I absolutely agree. I keep making the point that there are many different factors that influence suicidal behaviour, but certainly, if we can take the opportunity as early as possible in school, or even before, to look at mental health in general, we will go a long way in tackling the issue across the board.
Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland pursue their own suicide prevention strategies, since it is a devolved matter, in line with devolution of health policy. This debate is important to raise awareness of male suicide. I hope that the Minister will talk about what the Government are doing to prevent suicide, particularly on the issues I have touched on, including inequality and perceptions of masculinity.
If those watching this debate—particularly men who are watching—take one thing away, I hope that it is that as we approach what, for many people, can be a difficult time of year—for many others it is a very happy time—and as we battle the elements to pick up last-minute gifts, we please keep in mind those who might be fighting battles with their mental health. There are some things that money cannot buy, so for many of those people, some company and a chat might be all it takes to save their lives.
I ask the Minister to tell us of any initial evidence or representations that she has received regarding the roll-out of universal credit and the increased risk of suicidal behaviour associated with that. What consideration has her Department given to equalising the maximum limit of eight days to register a death, as is the case in Scotland? That has been called for by the Samaritans, to improve the reporting of suicide. What assessments has her Department made of the misclassification of suicides by coroners and the effects that that may have on official statistics? Could she update us on the Government’s strategies for tackling suicide among men in deprived areas?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) for the powerful and moving way in which he addressed this important subject. He said that this is his first Westminster Hall debate; I am sure that it will be the first of many. I encourage him to continue to look at this subject, because it is clear from the passion with which he articulated his argument that he cares deeply about it. I will always welcome hearing any representations from him.
The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that suicide is the biggest killer of men between the ages of 25 and 49. Any death by suicide is an avoidable death. We should always be vigilant and do what we can to tackle suicide and self-harm. There is a gender difference because suicide affects men more and women tend to self-harm more, but the motivation is the same. We should look at the same tools in order to curb them.
Every death by suicide is a tragedy. As the Minister responsible for mental health, I hear from families bereaved by suicide about the devastating impact that it has on them and on the wider community. All of us in this House will have been touched by suicide in one way or another, whether directly and personally or through the experience of constituents. It feels like society has failed those people. That is why I am determined to drive forward the action we are taking at a national level and in local communities to reduce suicides. Generally, paying greater attention to mental health will make a great deal of difference, particularly on the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised: encouraging people to be willing to talk and encouraging everyone around them to know when somebody might need help.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) said, the majority of people who have committed suicide never reached professional help or went to a health professional. Does the Minister agree that preventive training needs to be rolled out to people such as landlords, firemen and taxi drivers with whom people with suicidal feelings might have contact, even if they do not reach out?
Jackie Doyle-Price
In a nutshell, we all need to become much more aware about when people might show signs of mental ill health. I hope that through the programmes that we are running, the priority that we are putting on mental health will do much to raise awareness.
Obviously, we are trying to do much more in schools, following the publication of “Transforming Children and Young People’s Mental Health Provision: a Green Paper”, but the category of people that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West referred to miss all that attention. Working-class men who work on building sites are not “meant” to have mental health problems, so when they have them, nobody pays any attention, because the environment is very masculine. The hon. Gentleman identified that. They are certainly not going to seek help, so it is not surprising that that particular group of people has a very high incidence of suicide. There is a general role for public awareness.
The point that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley) made about bars is a very interesting one. We are keen to use mainstream media to highlight the message. One of the reasons that we support Time to Change, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, is exactly that—to get out those populist messages to raise awareness among the whole general public, so that we can all identify when someone is in trouble.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I was not aware of Mates in Mind, but it sounds like an excellent initiative that I would be keen to support. Ultimately, we would not worry about showing up to a hospital with a broken leg, so why should we worry about seeking help when we do not feel so well mentally? There is nothing unmasculine about reaching out for help—nothing at all. We just need to make that much easier for people.
The profile of suicide has never been higher, and that is testimony to the progress we are all making—this debate is a great help—in tackling the taboo of talking about it. We need to be a lot more open about it. We must strive to reduce suicide among the whole population, but as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West said, men are at the highest risk. Despite suicides among men having reduced in England in the past few years, the number of men who die by suicide remains too high.
The hon. Gentleman and others referred to the Samaritans, which I cannot praise enough. We are pleased to continue to support its prevention work. Frankly, given its outcomes and the lives it supports, it is a fantastic organisation and fantastic value for money. That just goes to show that personal interventions—often anonymous ones—are of most use in this area. People in this position often self-medicate using alcohol, so, as the hon. Member for Midlothian said, a stranger in a bar saying, “Are you all right, my friend?”, could make all the difference and save a life. We should encourage people to support exactly that kind of organisation.
As I said, the ONS found that construction is among the occupations with the highest incidence of suicide, so I am keen to hear more about the initiative that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) mentioned. It is worth noting that that kind of work is often transient: people move around to do it and it is often seasonal. We need to be sensitive to the fact that people who move in and out of work often experience additional mental pressure.
We are approaching Christmas. If there is a time of year when people feel particularly lonely, it is Christmas. Every Member here is showing an interest in this issue, so I do not need to tell them this, but we all need to be aware that people will feel lonely and will often be at their lowest ebb at Christmas, so that is when acts of kindness can mean the most.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) for bringing this debate forward. As a trade union rep in the Royal Mail, which is male-dominated, I spoke to many men over the decades who had got to the final point, and said, “Think about it.” That did not stop one of my members taking his own life just last year. He was the life and soul of the party, as these people usually are. They really hide it. Christmas is going to be a long old time for a lot of those young men, as more and more partners are splitting up due to the pressures of life and everything else. It would be good if the Government, and all of us, sent out a Christmas message this year: “Take care and stay strong.”
Jackie Doyle-Price
I could not have put it better. That is a fantastic message to send out. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am pleased that the Royal Mail has done a lot more in this space, no doubt in partnership with the trade union. Again, I pay tribute to all that work.
As part of my support for World Suicide Prevention Day this year, I visited the Samaritans and met some of its volunteers. They have to do a good number of hours a week to maintain their status, which shows fantastic commitment on their part. I think we would all thank them for the work that they do. I am pleased that we have agreed to fund the Samaritans helpline until 2022 to support that work.
We have heard that men are much less likely to seek professional help and are more likely to engage with services outside traditional clinical settings. We need to send a positive message that there is no shame in seeking professional help, which is exactly why we are investing in those services. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West said, we could have the best and most accessible services in the world, but they would be pointless unless people were willing to use them. We really need to tackle that sense of shame.
Many excellent initiatives in local communities seek to do exactly that. The Men’s Sheds Association provides opportunities for men to meet others and to engage in activities together in familiar settings. Andys Man Club engages men through sport while making it easy for them to seek advice about things such as relationships and debt, which we have heard often contribute to the mental health crises that can lead to suicide. The Government also support the Sport and Recreation Alliance’s mental health charter, which aims to do the same. As I mentioned, we have given Time to Change, which is designed to tackle stigma, £30 million since 2012, and we will continue to support it until 2020. I hope that that indicates clearly our direction of travel in raising awareness.
As the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) outlined, there are good messages that we can send. My message to the public is: “Reach out. If you think someone is in difficulty, send them a text or give them a phone call. Keep your eye on people who might be feeling down, because feeling down one day can suddenly become feeling rock bottom another. Listen and don’t judge when people are feeling unhappy about circumstances.” People with mental health difficulties lose perspective, and the smallest things can become absolutely huge. It is often said—this is one of the wisest proverbs—that a problem shared is a problem halved, and it can be more than halved when someone is having a mental health crisis.
Liz Twist
The Minister rightly emphasises the need for personal support and the need to talk. Will she address socioeconomic issues? In its “Dying from Inequality” report, the Samaritans shows that socioeconomic factors are really important in whether people consider ending their life by suicide. Will the Minister talk about that?
Jackie Doyle-Price
Socioeconomic issues determine when and how people seek help—that is the key. It is clear that that means suicide levels are higher among lower-income groups. We need to tackle that by developing tools that are accessible to that audience. Time to Change has a great track record in that respect, having improved the attitudes of 3.5 million people in recent years. I encourage anyone who has not seen its campaign to have a look at it and at how it engages people.
As I am running out of time, I will quickly go through some of the other points I wanted to make. Local suicide prevention plans are critical to tackling suicide in the long term. We need services that people can access directly. I am keen that we do more work with the Association of Directors of Public Health and the Local Government Association to ensure that local suicide prevention plans are rigorous and deliver the right outcomes. We do not want them to be just a box-ticking exercise: they need to deliver and reduce the impact of suicide.
The cross-Government suicide prevention strategy for England has been updated to focus on high-risk groups, such as middle-aged men, and widened to include self-harm, as I mentioned. That means that suicide plans will be more targeted than ever at those who need the most support.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West raised the issue of deaths being registered within eight days and pointed out that it can take longer in England. The ONS continues to try to improve the timeliness of published data about suicide, and we will definitely look at that.
Although our efforts should be about reducing the risk of suicide for everyone in our communities, it is fair to say that men remain at the highest risk and are therefore a priority. We are looking to local areas to develop strong local partnerships and implement innovative ways of reaching out to men who may be at risk of suicide. There is clearly a political consensus that we must address suicide prevention. Now is the time for us all to take action to make change a reality for people and communities, and the Government will be tireless in our pursuit of that. I am grateful to hon. Members for attending the debate. Their number illustrates that the House cares deeply about this issue and really wants to tackle it. Let’s make a real difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Quality in the Built Environment
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered delivering quality in the built environment.
It is a pleasure to have this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. Having spent much of my working life in the construction industry, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
One’s home is the biggest purchase that many of us will make in our lives. The fact that there is so little consumer protection attached to the purchase of new homes needs addressing. It is staggering that one is better protected when purchasing a kettle than when buying a house, given that the average house price in October was £223,000 and the average price of a kettle is £25. Most of us know our protection under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 or the Consumer Rights Act 2015, so we can get a kettle sorted. However, no matter where a homebuyer is in the system—whether freehold, housing association or charity—they have no clear understanding of how to escalate complaints and seek redress for problems when they move into a new house or move within the guarantee period.
Why is that important? The latest report delivered by the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment, of which I am chair, namely “More homes, fewer complaints”, showed that 93% of all people surveyed reported problems to their builders.
The latest national new home customer satisfaction survey showed customers’ dissatisfaction had risen to some 98%. Not all people are dissatisfied with their homes, but that shows that an alarmingly large number of people move into their new home, full of expectation, but are left unhappy with the quality therein. Thirty-eight per cent. of buyers had more problems than they expected, a staggering 25% of buyers reported 16 faults or more, and just 2% of consumers buying a home in the period reported zero defects.
Given that the debate is brief and I would like colleagues to have time to contribute, I intend to cover quality within house building, and briefly cover skills in construction, the needs of the consumer and where we might positively go from this point. Along with the APPG’s report last year, we held an open inquiry into the quality and workmanship of new housing for sale in England. Evidence suggests that, as the number of homes being built increases, the quality declines. That correlation is supported by the Chartered Institute of Building, which has commissioned an investigation in order to drive up quality. Thus far, it has identified behaviour and education as two key components that we need to address if we want to make changes.
Like many of my colleagues, I have encountered constituent issues: people frustrated with the problems with their new homes. They feel there is a lack of recourse to builders and warranty providers to address the problems.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend not just for calling for the debate but for taking over as chair of the APPG of which I used to be a member—I was involved in the report she has talked about. As a result of that report and work I have done on behalf of my constituents, the Government agreed to make approved inspectors’ reports available to new homebuyers as a way of making transparent build-quality problems. We have yet to hear much about how that is working in practice. Does she agree that that might be one practical way in which a homeowner could understand more about the problems there might have been when their home was being built?
Jo Churchill
My right hon. Friend highlights one of the key recommendations that came out of the report, several of which were very easy to implement. I will ask the Minister where we are on that and how we can move forward more swiftly, because it seems that we have been talking about these problems for well over a decade. It was first mooted that we needed to do something in 2008, and we will be 10 years on from that next year.
My right hon. Friend mentioned transparency. That is what is important to people: they want to understand. It needs to be simple, straightforward and transparent. While I appreciate that the Home Builders Federation is looking into a voluntary code, there are problems with the industry policing itself. If there were any real intent, it would not have let the situation deteriorate as it has done, and for so long.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling this increasingly important debate. I have been dealing with a case involving new homes in my constituency, where for two years the developer of a National House Building Council-guaranteed home failed to rectify problems stemming from the installation of a communal heating system that posed a serious safety risk to the residents. The managing agent told me that it firmly believed that the NHBC faces a fundamental conflict of interest in enforcing its technical requirement against the developer, because it was a major fee-paying member of the organisation. Does she share my concern that the NHBC guarantee might be providing new home- owners with a false sense of security over its independence and enforcement powers?
Jo Churchill
My hon. Friend is in an area of the country where there is large pressure on the number of houses being built. She brings a pertinent point to the debate. It is difficult to be independent when not independent of the entire system. I will come to that point.
There are four different redress providers in the system: the housing ombudsman; the property ombudsman; ombudsman services; and the property redress scheme. However, there are still gaps. A key point is that we need simplicity in any system we develop for the individual homebuyer, for them to understand how to navigate the system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this forward. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings, and therefore this is a very important issue for me. We are doing an inquiry at the moment looking at noise, acoustics, heating, windows and finish so that we have homes that are habitable for this day and age. Does she agree that being environmentally responsible and promoting social integration—the designer sometimes does not see that important issue—are key components in delivering quality in the built environment, and that planners and indeed Government need to give consideration to that?
Jo Churchill
I could not agree more. Many of us sit on different APPGs, and the hon. Gentleman brought up environmental issues and the fact that people’s homes should use modern-day construction methods that give them the cheapness to be able to run a home efficiently. It should not impact on the environment. We should be using what skills we have to make homes healthier for people and communities. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) may well come on to the importance of design within the environment. The hon. Gentleman is right. Also, building in the vernacular is extremely important in certain areas of the country, making people feel like they are rooted and have more of a sense of place.
The NHBC guarantee currently covers most builds in the sector and purports to be independent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) said. However, in the main, large house builders fund the organisation, and any surplus funds are returned to the house builder at the end of the guarantee period. It is my belief that that skews the system and leaves it unable to act clearly on the side of the consumer.
Large house builders obviously seek to make a profit, and I have no issue with that, but some of our largest house builders have paid themselves tens of millions of pounds—in one case it was hundreds of millions of pounds —in dividends this year. When we have such poor outcomes on quality, I find that challenging. For an industry that has overseen a substantial rise in profitability over recent years to oversee an equal decline in customer satisfaction ratings and a fall-off in skills training, for which it sees itself as only partially responsible, is unacceptable. Just 10 companies build half of new private homes. Arguably, that does not aid competition. As the number of new homes has risen, satisfaction has fallen. The time for Government action to step into the broken market is arguably upon us.
Research indicates that investment by these companies should be targeted at skills. They build thousands of units each year—thankfully, they built somewhere in the region of 220,000 to 230,000 units last year—but they directly employ very few skilled workers and are largely reliant on subcontractors across the industry, where the whole basis is to drive down costs rather than concentrate on quality. An acute shortage of good site managers compounds the problem, yet they seem reluctant to train and to ensure quality and delivery. Worryingly, the industry estimates that to carry on building in the same way we would need to double our workforce. My question to the Minister is why we are not building construction training schools at the heart of large sites—even those sites subdivided between different house builders—so that individuals can earn while they learn and be proud of the homes in which their communities live.
It is not an industry into which young people will be encouraged to go, given the working in all weathers, the cyclical nature of the industry and the prospects it holds. The difficulty for small builders and subcontractors in accessing and providing employment for training over the course of a national vocational qualification period means that, if work dries up and they have apprentices, they potentially fail to enable them to complete their training. There is no co-ordinated thinking. If someone is on a price for a contract, they are less likely to spend time training employees—they will be looking to optimise their income.
Large house builders take much of the gain from others’ training, but do not always feed back down the supply chain, nor do they incentivise or reward the benefit they ultimately get from others. That is short-sighted, since it is those skilled craftsmen who will ensure continuity of supply in the future. Having an independent clerk of works or similar who would look at the quality of the work as the construction is going up is one solution. Currently, there are some 700 inspectors in the industry, which equates to their inspecting some 317 units each year. We know that houses are not being inspected properly.
What about the consumer? Unless there is a challenge to the system to ensure that quality standards are driven up, there is little encouragement for those house builders who produce a poor quality product to raise their game. Some large producers concentrate on quality, but that is often reflected in the price. Should quality be a question of either/or? Snagging on new house builds ranges from issues such as backfilling cavity walls with site rubbish to splicing broken roof trusses, leaky roofs, poor electrical work, insufficient insulation and the repointing of joints on walls where purposeful demolition and reconstruction should have happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster alluded to the problems she had.
Julia Lopez
One of the interesting phenomena I have noticed in recent years is that the quality of homes developed by local authorities is substantially higher than the quality of homes developed in the private sector, for which consumers are asked to pay very high sums. Does my hon. Friend think we should be applying similar standards in the private sector to ensure that people are not short-changed?
Jo Churchill
That is interesting to a point, but there are also quality problems in the housing association and local authority sector. It is an overall raising of standards throughout the industry that we should be seeking.
People purchase a home, full of hope, pride and expectation that it has enduring quality and performs to the requisite levels of maintenance, costs and energy efficiency, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded to. Giving peace of mind to those who are working hard for it should be a given. It should not be possible to build new homes without the fourth utility, broadband, and every home constructed in the UK should be as energy efficient as possible, lowering the cost of heating but also the environmental impact. The building industry has high waste costs, which add to the build cost. The highest levels of insulation should be a basic standard: grey water collection, battery storage, solar panels, triple glazed windows and a plethora of modern, energy-efficient building materials could be used. That is often not the case, because it is argued that new and ever-better things will come along and will need to be retrofitted. That means that the industry never moves forward.
Looking ahead, there is a quality gap between customer demand and industry delivery. I applaud the Department for Communities and Local Government for getting the Home Builders Federation to look into the voluntary ombudsman scheme, but perhaps the time for any such voluntary scheme has passed. We are sitting on the cusp of the largest construction delivery ever: some 300,000 new homes, the biggest expansion in the construction of homes since Macmillan. It is imperative that we get the quality right. The domination of the market by a handful of large developers is part of the problem. It used to be the case that 60% of new homes were built by small and medium-sized enterprises, often local, which had a vested interest in the build quality and were more conscious of the vernacular and the local environment. Currently, that figure is less than 30%. Although the £1.5 billion of short-term loan finance from the Government is welcome to drive activity in that market and the modular market, there must also be quality.
Quality in the modular, or modern methods of construction, market should be easier to achieve, as should speed, but I ask the Minister what build standards are being driven into this new area of house building from the start. Organisations such as the Federation of Master Builders, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institute of Building, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Construction Industry Training Board and others have an important role to play in ensuring that quality is a given and not a “nice to have”. From a quality design to a first-class finish, including national space standards and the right regulatory environment, it is essential.
The practice of retention in the industry is currently under consultation at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but it also has a part to play in quality, restricting the cash flow of small businesses. As we develop new models of finance and business for delivering homes, we need to understand how they affect type, tenure and quality.
It is of concern that large house builders set aside enormous contingency funds for what they call customer service problems—that is, poorly built houses. That has a detrimental effect on the bottom line and productivity. If they constantly have to revisit a building to address its defects and snagging, they are not building the next home. It is also much harder to put faults right once a family has moved in. I have been contacted by numerous people listing incidents and faults that caused them misery, from lintels to crib walls, from foundations to roofs, for which they cannot get redress. The letters often state that all they want is an acknowledgment of the problem, a pathway to a solution and someone to say sorry.
There is a feeling that large house builders are happy to trouser the profit and move on, and are not interested in the long-term reputation of their product. We might regularly replace our white goods; our homes we do not. They should be right the first time. We need a single, transparent, accountable body, with a remit covering the whole housing industry. Currently, someone housed by a charity would go to the Charity Commission, someone in social housing would go to the Housing Ombudsman Service and someone in private housing would go to the National House Building Council or a similar guarantee scheme. We know that in areas with a single ombudsman it is much easier to get it right.
Customers need to be aware that the guarantee often covers far less than they assume, and neither building control functions nor warranties provide any form of comfort that finishings and fittings will be defect-free. Many new homebuyers fail to appreciate that, for the first two years after completion, it is for the builder to sort the defects. Little notice is given to the customer about when the clock starts to run, or the amount of procrastination the builder is allowed in rectification. For the remaining eight years, warranties cover purely structural matters. Individuals often go to the local authority building control, but that carries no jurisdiction.
In conclusion, I would like the Minister to say whether the Department keeps records on the number of defects and on dissatisfaction rates for individual house builders, so it can benchmark them and drive up quality. I would like him to say whether the Department recognises the need for more on-site inspections by independent organisations and individuals to achieve that. A minimum number of inspections would cover both the customer and warranty, say at two, five and 10 years, as argued by RIBA. The responsibility for constructing a defect-free home should rest with the house builder. Consumers need greater leverage—the under-supply in the housing market means that normal market forces do not come into play, as the house builder has the upper hand. We saw that recently with the issue of selling on leaseholds.
House builders must put purchasers at the heart of what they do. They should aspire to deliver a zero-defect construction, make consumers more aware of the construction and warranty process, and develop quicker forms of redress to solve disputes. The next inquiry of the all-party parliamentary group will look into the primary recommendation of our last report: that an ombudsman be set up. We will take evidence from across the sector, including from ombudsmen that currently exist, builders and failed consumers.
Some simplification of sales contracts should arguably be a priority, and those contracts should be standardised, so that people know what to expect and are not blind-sided by a smart operator. A buyer should potentially have the right to inspect a home before completion—consumers can have an MOT on a car but not on £230,000-worth of house. If snagging issues are found, repairs should be carried out prior to completion, preferably in a given time period. If after inspection the buyer or surveyor deems the property is not capable of occupation, the final financing should be delayed at the builder’s cost, which might speed the job up.
An easy win for builders would be to improve the transparency of the design, building and inspection process, and as part of the conveyancing for a new house, written information should be provided to enable buyers to take issue if what they purchase is materially different from what they are sold. That information could include a version of building regulations, designs, details of the warranty and who the builder is and how to contact them.
I would like to understand whether DCLG is working on a thorough review of the warranties that exist in the marketplace. Homebuyers have said that they may well be prepared to pay for the guarantee of a worthwhile warranty, rather than continuing in the somewhat opaque market that currently exists. Warranty providers are currently covered by the financial services ombudsman. We need to establish whether warranties are currently adequate and look into clear and transparent ways in which house builders can set out, at the time of conveyancing, what the warranty actually covers, to stop the misery of individual lives being wrecked by poor housing.
Solving these issues will see an increase in trust between house builder and homebuyer. We need to see houses of improved construction, and one way for that to happen is for house builders to ensure that their annual customer satisfaction surveys are more independent, with their being obliged to publish the number of reported defects, which may well focus them on building better houses. I offer the Minister the support of the all-party parliamentary group in ensuring that the homebuyer is the most important person in the system.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) on securing the debate. She made some excellent and knowledgeable points.
As we all know, anyone who wants to change the world has to get busy in their own little corner—and where better than in their own home? There is no better way of improving quality of life and changing the world we live in, particularly for our communities that we represent, than by improving the quality of the built environment that we spend most of our daily lives in.
The quality of the built environment is intrinsically linked to the wellbeing of the local community. Land is a finite resource, and we should all recognise that the modern day built environment must be multifunctional, meeting society’s cultural, aesthetic and community health needs, as well as contributing to a vibrant local community. Access to green-space opportunities for biodiversity to flourish and sustainable urban design to manage environmental risks are no longer nice-to-haves—they are absolutely essential elements of our towns, villages and cities.
Achieving a high quality built environment requires good planning, imaginative design and, importantly, forward-thinking investment. However, it also requires a policy framework that not only encourages but expects local authorities and developers to take proper account of those essential elements in building for the future, in construction, design, management and planning.
All have the highest responsibility to deliver a quality built environment for communities. Our communities must be involved in planning and what affects their wellbeing. Community empowerment is a great vision, and it should mean just that. Empowerment is to have a say in the decision-making process—for communities to be their own architects of choice. In my own area of Falkirk, the communities of Denny and Dunipace were deeply involved in the decision-making process for a new town centre investment when I was a councillor in that community.
There were many difficult conversations, but we had them, and I think that our participation, as well as that of many other Scottish communities, helped the Scottish Government to introduce the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. That came into force this year and will benefit local organisations across Scotland to the tune of some £8.6 million of funding this year. That investment says everything about our values and our inspiration, and it means that communities are active—and developers now know that. That is extremely important.
Providing everyday access to the natural environment and working with natural features to manage risk, such as flooding or poor air quality, should be a requirement, not a choice. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flood prevention and have undertaken visits to various places—one as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee and four to other villages and towns around the UK. Following the storms of December 2015 and January 2016, we spoke with community leaders and residents affected by flooding and reported the challenges that their communities faced and how those challenges were being tackled.
Differences between Scotland and England emerged during those visits. For example, it is worth highlighting that the Scottish planning system severely restricts development on floodplains, while the English system is more permissive. English planners often have little choice, as many of the country’s larger population centres are located on floodplains. If planning permission is granted for a development that later floods, local authorities in Scotland are legally accountable, while English ones are not. That is quite a staggering discovery.
Sustainable urban drainage systems—SUDS—are mandatory in Scotland. It should be remembered every time housing provision is considered that one in six homes is at risk of flooding, and up to £1 billion of flood damage is incurred every single year. Flooding, water quality, access to green space and biodiversity are all affected by the way homes and communities are planned and delivered. There is extensive evidence that demonstrates how healthy local environments drive healthier economies and healthier people, so in aspiring to solve one crisis, we have an opportunity to solve many more and deliver multiple benefits to communities, for little or no additional cost.
We have found that well-designed SUDS can be built affordably and without delay in nearly all kinds of developments, and can be retrofitted in established developments. Arguments for not developing SUDS on the basis of site constraints may be overstated; the range of options available means it is nearly always possible to incorporate some measures. SUDS are a cost-effective alternative to conventional drainage when included early in the planning process; the failure to consider SUDS from the very start of a development’s design is a significant barrier to their efficient delivery.
SUDS are enablers of climate resilience and support healthy and economically vibrant communities. The value of those benefits is considerable. However, because the benefits accrue to local communities and are not valued by conventional markets—as I think the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds was referring to earlier—with costs initially borne by one party, typically the developer, they require effective policies to correct the market externalities involved.
Our analysis, underpinned by the findings from a survey, provided some clear indications. First, at the majority of sites, the costs and, particularly, the benefits of implementing SUDS are not being assessed. Secondly, physical site constraints are frequently cited as reasons to opt out of delivering SUDS in new housing and commercial developments, when the range of options available means that that is commonly unjustified. Thirdly planning authorities in many areas do not have the capacity to properly judge the merits of applications, leading to more opt-outs than necessary on the grounds of price and practicality, as many go unchallenged. Fourthly, when SUDS have been delivered, they often miss opportunities to provide multiple benefits, as they follow the very narrow and non-statutory standards that presently exist. Fifthly, the adoption and future maintenance of SUDS are the greatest barriers to be resolved.
Scottish Water, Scotland’s sole water company, is legally required to adopt and maintain SUDS, and it has the legal right to block planning permission for developments if the local water supply or sewerage system is inadequate. As a statutory corporation, it can borrow money off the Scottish Government at lower interest rates than it would receive from commercial lenders. The water framework directive and the habitats directive have been transposed into Scots law, subject to sustainable flood management requirements; water bodies can be dredged or altered to manage flood risk. In England, those directives can prevent flood management work from being carried out.
Under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, flood risk is managed at a catchment scale. Co-operation is facilitated between local authorities, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Water and other stakeholders. Failure to consider the catchment-level flood risk impacts of new developments or flood risk management work was a hot topic in north Yorkshire when I visited earlier this year. Information sharing between organisations carrying out flood defence work and flood-related repairs to critical infrastructure was also criticised.
I sincerely hope that this debate will improve the quality of life and peace of mind that our communities deserve, with a high-quality built environment for them to live and work in. I hope the Minister takes into consideration the need for a SUDS appraisal to be made compulsory in delivering a quality built environment. I look forward to his reply.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) on securing the debate. She covered in great detail and with great aplomb the snagging problems that arise with individual homes.
I want to take us back a stage in the process. I do not want to see the built environment characterised by little boxes or rabbit hutches, nor do I want to see it characterised by little boxes and rabbit hutches that are badly built. In around 2011, I was one of those here who was responsible for introducing neighbourhood planning as a means of dealing with that. Neighbourhood planning has become very well known for giving communities a say over where housing should go, but it is less well known that they have the right also to comment on what those buildings should look like.
The reason we have a large number of rabbit hutches and little boxes is that house builders largely go about the building of their houses on their own, with no influence from the communities in which they operate. A great deal of influence from communities would be of great advantage to the people who will live in those houses and to the communities, because of the overall impression they create, as well as to the house builders, who would produce exactly what someone wants.
That deals a bit with the big picture stuff. I completely agree that there is still a need to get the details of the housing right, but I want to continue on that in my role as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary design and innovation group. That is particularly relevant to the points I made about the use of neighbourhood planning for people to decide what sort of houses they want to get involved with.
I was very pleased to see that the Design Council has produced a guide to neighbourhood planning. When a body such as the Design Council gets involved in neighbourhood planning, it represents a significant shift in the attitude of communities to taking advantage of the principles we set out in neighbourhood planning, to talk about and have influence over the design aspects of what they are trying to include in their neighbourhood plan. Having some influence on design and being able to participate in the design process is fundamental to the success of the neighbourhood planning process.
Mrs Miller
My hon. Friend is right to bring up the issue of design. Does he share my concern at how often new houses and new settlements are designed without any thought for disabled people who might live in those settlements? At the moment, an office block is being converted into a new community in my constituency. The local authority is not able to insist on disabled access in that office block because it is a conversion, which means the rules on disabled access do not apply.
John Howell
My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The conversion of buildings is largely permitted development, and therefore the community has no ability to get into that. I go back to my fundamental point, which is that the community’s involvement in the process at the beginning should take account of what will be required for disabled people. That should feed into the design parameters that should be being discussed with the house builders, to get the design of the house right.
I echo the Design Council’s comment that embedding good design in a neighbourhood plan is crucial. The sad thing is that very few neighbourhood plans include design. They are mostly concerned with where the housing should go, and they do not look at design. Even within my constituency, there is a community that forgot to look at design criteria when producing its neighbourhood plan. Later, when it tried to object to a particular design format being used for an area, it did not have anything to rely on to make that change. It is of no consequence to that community now that it missed the boat, but that serves as a good lesson for communities looking at producing a neighbourhood plan that they should include some design features.
Overall, I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds in her concentration on problems with individual houses, but I urge communities to go back one stage in the process. They need to include design in their neighbourhood plan and ensure they have really got to grips with what they want to see, so that they can influence the type and design of buildings from the outset.
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
I am going to call Justin Tomlinson next, but I will have to limit him to two minutes, so that I can call the Front-Bench spokespeople in good order.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I was initially only looking to intervene, so my contribution will be short.
I want to offer my total support for my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I cannot think of a speech I have agreed with more than the one she made. I say that as someone who represents Swindon, which has been one of the fastest growing towns year on year for some time. I was a councillor for 10 years in Swindon and have been an MP for seven, so I have had 17 years of representing new build areas. My maiden speech was dedicated to this subject, and I brought forward a private Member’s Bill in the early days of my political career to offer some solutions—they were wholeheartedly rejected, but I had a go. I have had countless public meetings and an incredible amount of casework. There is clear frustration, anger and despair from the residents who have made their single biggest purchase and from myself, on behalf of the Government, because I am desperate to see us fulfil our commitment to 300,000 houses being built.
This poor, shoddy and shambolic work is all too often putting people off and, frankly, ripping people off. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds summed it up well with her reference to a kettle. It is a given with every other purchase that we are protected by trading standards and all the various Acts, but when it comes to our single biggest purchase, we are at others’ mercy. Members have rightly highlighted build quality and the excuse of a lack of skills. Why on earth do people sign houses off if they are not fit? Cars are another big purchase, and at Honda in my constituency, nothing leaves the factory unless it has been robustly tested. If there is a problem, which is rare, it is dealt with swiftly. That is not the case with houses.
There is frustration about change of plans. People buy houses based on the layout and the scheme proposed, but for a variety of reasons, that often changes, and people have no recourse. There is all too often a lack of maintenance of roads and open space, particularly, perhaps by coincidence, at the point that the final house is sold before the road is adopted. One of the tactics is—
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
Order. The Front-Bench spokespeople need to limit themselves to six minutes. I call Alison Thewliss.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I will try to be brief. I might pick up where the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) left off, with unadopted roads, which are a serious issue. My mother-in-law has spent many years fighting with her local council in an attempt to get her road adopted, and it is a real challenge if those things are not done as they should be.
In Scotland, we agree about the need for better guarantees for consumers. In general, we believe that the communities that we build and invest in today say everything about our values and aspirations as a country. In particular, community empowerment and people having a say in their local communities on how developments are built and the facilities that go in, along with housing on its own, are really important.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) made an excellent speech. I agree that it is entirely concerning that a kettle has more guarantees than the place that someone wants to stay in for the rest of their life with their family. The Government ought to be addressing that urgently. In thinking about what she was saying, I was reflecting on my own experience. When my parents moved into the house that I grew up in, they had to take up numerous snagging issues with the developer. Many of those issues were addressed. Further down the line, there was an issue with the roughcast falling off, and they had to go to the NHBC to get that dealt with, but even when it was a very simple thing, such as getting the cap on the cold tap fixed, they could not get that piece of snagging done, and eventually they had to deal with it by pinching one out of the show home, because they knew that the show home would be fixed. A very simple thing such as that proved to be very difficult to get fixed, and that just should not be the case—snagging issues should be dealt with. That was more than 30 years ago, so the problem has been around for a very long time and deserves to be addressed with great seriousness.
The hon. Lady raised issues about the ombudsman and the gaps that exist. People ought to have a very clear pathway. They should be able to say, “This is an issue. How do I get it fixed? If it’s not fixed, where do I go?” That is crucial.
The hon. Lady’s point about broadband and energy efficiency is very pertinent to my constituency, as residents in Toryglen have been missed in the various stages of broadband roll-out and infill later on. People move into smashing, brand-new houses, marketed as being close to the city centre and for young professionals, yet the broadband service that they get is wholly inadequate. Getting it retrofitted in those properties is proving hugely frustrating, both for the residents and for my office.
In a number of different areas, there need to be standards whereby quality can be assured. The hon. Lady mentioned modular developments. I have visited the factory of CCG, which is next to my constituency. It built the Commonwealth games village in Glasgow, along with many other developments. The Commonwealth games village in Dalmarnock was a mixed development of private homes for sale and homes for social rent. Residents had some issues with snagging and still do, but the fact of being able to guarantee the quality going out of the factory was important. CCG prides itself on producing a product that can be quality-assured before it leaves. It does a number of checks to ensure that what it is sending out of the factory is fit for purpose. The company is very innovative.
Looking at the wider context, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) talked about ensuring that the whole of a development is of good quality and is future-proofed in relation to flood risk. A SUDS scheme runs through the Commonwealth games development in Dalmarnock. That was an integral part of it. It would not have been built had that scheme not been part of the development—it was a requirement. Looking at things ahead of time in that way is best practice. What is the environment more broadly going to look like in a number of different years? How can people ensure that the house that they have bought and paid for will not be flooded? I would suggest that people can have more than just snagging problems when water is coming through their door.
The point made by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) about design quality is crucial. When people are building something, they want it to be theirs. When people are moving into a home, they want to have ownership of it, and not just in the sense of having the keys to the door. They want to feel that they are investing in something of good quality, and embedding good design is a hugely important part of that. The Scottish Government have a very useful place standard tool, which the hon. Gentleman may want to look at. It looks at all the different aspects not only of a house but of a whole development, to ensure that all the aspects of quality—the transport infrastructure, the roads, the facilities, and a walkable, liveable, safe and secure neighbourhood—are in place. The house should not just stand on its own as part of a wider development, but be connected to other things, so that people are not just building a house but having a home, and one that is in a community.
In Glasgow, the East Pollokshields charrette carried out a very interesting exercise in that regard. In my constituency, there is less new build and lots of existing properties, but where new build comes in, we want it to be integrated well into the community. There is a big gap site in East Pollokshields that is going to be developed, and they took the time to get money from the Scottish Government to have that charrette, which involves the whole community in the area coming together and seeing what the facilities are, what they would like to have in their area, what does not quite work and what the opportunities are for change. I very much recommend that wider approach both to the Government and to other hon. Members. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on all the excellent points that have been raised.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)? She will have to go home blushing tonight, because she made an excellent speech and set out the terrain very well. Indeed, all the contributions had real merit in their different ways.
We know that we have a housing crisis in this country and that we have to build at levels not seen previously, but the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) is absolutely right: this is not just about houses; it is about people’s homes. It is about people’s homes in communities that are both safe and sustainable, and that means things such as flood prevention. The hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) talked about building that in and, as far as we can, future-proofing.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) spoke about the need for facilities for people with disabilities. In fact, we should be building homes that can be retrofitted where appropriate, so that people can, if they choose to, spend their lives in those homes. The windy staircases of the past are simply not consistent with the future. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) also made very valid points on how we ought to move forward. I was attracted by the comments of the hon. Member for Henley about neighbourhood planning. Yes, we have to see design as a central part of the changes that we want to make.
One of the realities is that we have a serious infrastructure backlog that will prevent us from moving forward quickly. Building 300,000 new homes means an awful lot of construction workers. We have an ageing construction force in this country, and half the construction workers in the national capital are EU nationals. I know not where they will go post-Brexit, but there is a good chance that many will disappear. That will, if nothing else, create shortages in London and suck in construction workers from elsewhere. With those twin problems, we have to be serious about training the next generation of construction workers. They will not necessarily always be young people; they may be less than young people.
I say to the Minister that under this Government, we have seen the hollowing out of both planning and building control in our local authorities. That simply is not consistent with the demands that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds has rightly made. We have to see the public weal protected, and in the end it is our local authorities that can do that best, if we are to make it meaningful. I will not repeat everything that the hon. Lady said about the housing surveys. I will simply repeat the point that we know that many people—a disproportionately high number—are dissatisfied with the homes that they get.
There is a house in my constituency that was referred to in the report by the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment. It is owned by Elizabeth and Stephen Watkins. The house was built in 1998, and they have been involved in a dispute ever since. It has never been lived in. It is a disgrace that there is no process for reconciliation. We must have not a nice, cosy, industry-led ombudsman, but an ombudsman process that has real teeth and the capacity to make a material difference. I have to agree again with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds, because yes, that would be good for the private sector.
Grenfell Tower, we know, was retrofitted. We will probably have to do a serious retrofit to something like 27 million homes that already exist in Britain, but the work on Grenfell Tower was very recent. We have to ensure that there is an ombudsman capacity that has real teeth and can protect people, whether they are living in social housing, in owner-occupation or, very importantly, under private landlords. We know that private landlords will play a disproportionate part in the building of the future.
I will finish on a couple of issues. The hon. Member for Henley said that he does not want to see little boxes. We have to do something about the space standards. There is a consultation out, and I say to the Minister that we have to bring that to a conclusion. Secondly—this will be my concluding point—we know that we are not hitting our targets for moving to carbon neutrality by 2050. Probably 1 million homes in this country will be retrofitted to those carbon standards. The Committee on Climate Change said that it should be something like 4 million over the same period. I say to the Minister that the Government have now got to do an awful lot more.
Congratulations to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds. This has been a great debate and it is an important one for the future.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Alok Sharma)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) on securing this vital debate on delivering quality in the built environment. I know that her contribution is based on first-hand experience, with her expertise in the sector. We heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). The hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) made some very pertinent points, as did other Opposition Members.
The one thing we all recognise is that our country urgently needs many more homes. The Government are delivering them. There were 217,000 net additions in England last year alone. That is the biggest increase in housing supply for almost a decade. The housing supply package announced in the Budget takes the total financial support for housing up to at least £44 billion over the next five years. Alongside the planning reforms that were also announced, this package will enable us to deliver 300,000 net additional homes a year on average by the mid-2020s.
Just as important as building those homes is the need to ensure that they are of good quality, well designed and respond positively to their local context, as all hon. Members have agreed. We believe that we can build not only more homes, but better homes. This is something I care deeply about, which I emphasise every time I talk to representatives from the sector, particularly the large developers. There are some great examples of house builders who are making quality and design a priority, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds has said, too many new homes still fall short.
The all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment, which my hon. Friend chairs, has led the charge. It is thanks to its work that we are taking forward many of the measures to bring about improvements.
My hon. Friend made reference to a number of statistics, but let me throw in another. According to the latest Home Builders Federation survey, 84% of new homebuyers would recommend their builder to a friend. That figure has fallen steadily from 90% over the last four years. That means that 16% of new homebuyers would not recommend their builder. That simply is not good enough and must change. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I am committed to addressing that by putting the focus squarely on better quality and design at every stage: planning, design and construction.
Our housing White Paper launched in February this year set out our proposals to amend the national planning policy framework. We want to increase the emphasis on design and community engagement in local neighbourhood plans and other development plan documents. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley spoke with great clarity—he is a champion of neighbourhood planning, and it is right that design should be reflected at the neighbourhood planning stage. We want to strengthen the importance of early pre-application discussions with local communities about design and the types of homes being provided. We want to make it clear that design should not be used as a valid reason to object to development where it accords with clear design expectations set out in statutory plans. We also want to recognise the value of using a widely accepted design standard, such as Building for Life, which is from the Design Council, in shaping and addressing basic design principles.
To ensure we achieve those high standards in planning, we must ensure that the right skills are available. Last week, I announced a £25 million planning delivery fund, which will provide ambitious local planning authorities with funding, to ensure they have the skills, capacity and capability they need to deliver high-quality housing at scale. One of the streams of this funding is the design quality fund, which is all about increasing design skills in local authorities.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) talked about the Government hollowing out the planning system of the local planning authorities. I would just point out to him that I am grateful for the support of his party in our passing regulations to increase planning fees by 20% earlier today. That will have a positive impact for planning departments up and down the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and other hon. Members raised the issue of skills. There is a commitment by the industry—we are encouraging it—to work to deliver another 45,000 skilled workers by 2019 through the Construction Industry Training Board. The Chancellor announced another £34 million for construction skills funding. On apprenticeships, I agree we should be looking to do more, but I have been pleased to visit sites up and down the country where apprentices are on site and being trained up.
On our work on design with the industry, early this year I launched a design quality symposium at the Royal Institute of British Architects. On Monday, the Secretary of State announced that in the spring we will be following that up with a national design conference to raise the bar even further.
Yesterday I launched a new modern methods of construction working group—the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned modern methods of construction. The working group comprises key stakeholders from across the house building sector. It will be tasked with looking at issues such as the availability of finance, warranties and insurance to encourage people to consider using modern methods of construction, which will enable us to build good-quality homes more quickly.
On the core of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, as well as championing better quality and design, the Government want to make it easier for people to get redress when things do go wrong, which her all-party group has rightly highlighted. Residents currently have to navigate four different redress providers to make a complaint. Research in other sectors has shown that redress works more efficiently for consumers when there is a single ombudsman. It is right that we explore the need to consolidate processes and look at the options to improve redress. Therefore, we will be consulting on the potential for a single housing ombudsman in the new year. I welcome the inquiry into the potential for a new homes ombudsman that the APPG for excellence in the built environment has announced, and which my hon. Friend referred to in her speech. I can assure her that we will consider the findings closely.
I have a few minutes left, so let me respond to a couple of other points. My hon. Friend talked about improving the redress scheme. We will look at that as part of the consultation in the new year. There was discussion about how independent the national house building guarantee is. She asked whether the Government keep records on the number of defects and the dissatisfaction rates. We do not but, as she pointed out, warranty provision and the handling of cases can be raised with the Financial Ombudsman Service.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) asked about inspection records. They are available for homeowners for building works that started after 1 April. Of course, we are committed to ensuring that the system performs to the best level that it can, and we will continue to assess that.
The hon. Member for Falkirk rightly raised the issue of flooding risk. The national planning policy framework sets out that flood risk areas can be built on only if they pass an exception test and no other areas can be built on. On the flood risk assessment process, there must be very clear consultation with bodies such as the Environment Agency.
In conclusion, we are taking action across all fronts to drive up not only quantity, but quality. We do not have to choose between the two, quite rightly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds said. I thank her and congratulate her on raising this issue and on the valuable work that she and her all-party group do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered delivering quality in the built environment.
Written Statements
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU Exit Agreements
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
The UK will exit the EU on 29 March 2019. We are currently negotiating the terms of our withdrawal and hope shortly to move on to the terms of our future relationship. This note sets out the role of Parliament in approving the resulting agreements and how they will be brought into force.
Background
There will be at least two agreements.
A withdrawal agreement will be negotiated under article 50 of the treaty on European Union (TEU) while the UK is a member of the EU. It will set out the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU including an agreement on citizens’ rights, Northern Ireland and any financial settlement, as well as the details of any implementation period agreed between both sides.
Article 50(2) of the TEU sets out that the withdrawal agreement should take account of the terms for the departing member state’s future relationship with the EU. At the same time as we negotiate the withdrawal agreement, we will therefore also negotiate the terms for our future relationship.
However, as the Prime Minister made clear in her Florence speech, the European Union considers that it is not “legally able to conclude an agreement with the UK as an external partner while it is itself still part of the European Union”. This is because the EU treaties require that the agreement governing our future relationship can only be legally concluded once the UK is a third country (i.e. once it has left the EU). So the withdrawal agreement will be followed shortly after we have left by one or more agreements covering different aspects of the future relationship.
How will the withdrawal agreement be approved and brought into force?
The withdrawal agreement will need to be signed by both parties and concluded by the EU and ratified by the UK before it can enter into force. The UK approval and EU approval processes can operate in parallel.
The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has said that he wants to have finalised the withdrawal agreement by October 2018. In Europe, the agreement will then require the consent of the European Parliament and final sign off by the Council acting by a qualified majority. It will not require separate approval or ratification by the individual member states.
In the UK, the Government have committed to hold a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship. The Government will not implement any parts of the withdrawal agreement—for example by using clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—until after this vote has taken place.
In addition to this vote, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG) normally requires the Government to place a copy of any treaty subject to ratification before both Houses of Parliament for a period of at least 21 sitting days, after which the treaty may be ratified unless there is a resolution against this. If the House of Commons resolves against ratification, the Government can lay a statement explaining why they consider the treaty should still be ratified and there is then a further 21 sitting days during which the House of Commons may decide whether to resolve again against ratification. The Government are only able to ratify the agreement if the House of Commons does not resolve against the agreement.
If Parliament supports the resolution to proceed with the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship, the Government will bring forward a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to give the withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect. The Bill will implement the terms of the withdrawal agreement in UK law as well as providing a further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. This legislation will be introduced before the UK exits the EU and the substantive provisions will only take effect from the moment of exit. Similarly, we expect any steps taken through secondary legislation to implement any part of the withdrawal agreement will only be operational from the moment of exit, though preparatory provisions may be necessary in certain cases.
How will the agreement governing the UK’s future relationship with the EU be approved and brought into force?
As described above, the agreement governing our future relationship with the EU can only be legally concluded once the UK has left the EU. This may take the form of a single agreement or a number of agreements covering different aspects of the relationship.
Whatever their final form, agreements on the future relationship are likely to require the consent of the European Parliament and conclusion by the Council. If both the EU and member states are exercising their competences in an agreement, member states will also need to ratify it.
In the UK, the Government will introduce further legislation where it is needed to implement the terms of the future relationship into UK law, providing yet another opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
The CRAG process is also likely to apply to agreements on our future relationship, depending on the final form they take.
[HCWS342]
Daesh
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
Daesh no longer holds significant territory in Iraq or Syria. Thanks to the courage and resolve of the Iraqi Security Forces, our partners in Syria and the unwavering support of the 74 member global coalition, in which we play a leading role, millions of people have been liberated from Daesh’s control in both Iraq and Syria.
Daesh is failing, but not yet beaten. It continues to pose a threat to Iraq from across the Syrian border and as an insurgent presence. It is also a global terrorist network. Daesh has the ability to plan and inspire terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Therefore, we will act to protect the UK and our allies, as long as necessary.
We must be prepared for Daesh to change its form by returning to its insurgent roots and making ever stronger efforts to lure more adherents to its ideology. So we will continue to tackle Daesh on simultaneous fronts, which includes preventing the return of foreign terrorist fighters to their country of origin, including the UK and Europe. We will continue to degrade Daesh’s poisonous propaganda, decrease its ability to generate revenue and deny it a safe haven online.
It is vital that we also address the underlying causes of Daesh’s rise. To truly defeat Daesh requires long-term work to address the grievances it feeds off.
That is why we will continue to work with and support the Government of Iraq in their efforts to deliver the reforms and reconciliation needed to rebuild public trust in the Iraqi state and unite all Iraqis against extremism, including by giving them the security, jobs and opportunities they deserve.
In Syria, Assad created the space for Daesh by releasing extremist prisoners and by causing untold suffering to his people. His brutality is evident in the siege and bombardment of almost 400,000 people in eastern Ghouta, which is a replication of the Aleppo siege this time last year. We remain committed to securing a political settlement that ends the conflict and brings about a transition away from Assad. To this end, we welcome the agreement in Riyadh of a new Syrian opposition negotiating team and the resumption of UN-mediated peace talks in Geneva this month.
The ranks of the global coalition continue to grow as more and more countries answer the call to action against Daesh. We will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the British people and our allies.
[HCWS343]
Intimidation in Public Life
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Today, I welcome the publication of the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life on its review of the intimidation of parliamentary candidates.
I would like to place on record my thanks to the Committee for its thorough consideration of these issues. In July, I asked the Committee to undertake this review into the issue of abuse and intimidation experienced by parliamentary candidates, including those who stood in the 2017 general election campaign. The issue was highlighted by those across the political spectrum. While robust debate is fundamental in an open democracy, threats to candidates and property go well beyond that which should be regarded as acceptable by those in public life, and abuse will not be tolerated.
The Committee has consulted widely and members of both Houses, from across all parties, were invited to contribute. Today’s report addresses the roles of the main actors—in social media, the law, policing and prosecution, and political parties—and proposes a package of recommendations for both immediate and longer-term action. We will be giving full and thorough consideration to its recommendations. The Government plan to issue a response to the review in due course. This House may also wish to debate and consider the Committee’s recommendations.
The Committee’s report provides a body of evidence showing the extent and seriousness of the problem. It considers the risks to freedom of speech, diversity, and debate and to our representative democracy if action is not taken. We need to protect our freedom of speech and the vitality of our political system, and the freedom and diversity of participation in that system, as well as ensuring the integrity of the democratic process.
The report finds that intimidation is not a new phenomenon, but its scale and intensity, which has been accelerated by social media, is a serious issue.
It is not just politicians who have experienced unwarranted abuse—it has included journalists and other prominent figures in public life. Everyone deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect, and the British liberties of freedom of speech and freedom of association must always operate within the law. All those in public life need to demonstrate their opposition to intimidation and call it out, and report it when they see it. We must all work together to combat this issue.
Copies of the report have been laid in the Journal Office, the Printed Paper Office and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS344]
House of Lords
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Commonwealth Summit 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Chidgey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the interests of broadening Commonwealth influence, they propose to provide observer or similar status to non-Commonwealth member countries to attend the 2018 Commonwealth Summit in London.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, only sovereign states can become members of the Commonwealth and attend Heads of Government Meetings. Establishing a form of observer or associate status is not within the gift of the UK Government alone; it would need to be agreed by all 52 Commonwealth members. We therefore cannot provide observer or associate status to non-Commonwealth countries to attend the summit.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
I thank the Minister for that interesting reply. The 14 British Overseas Territories, the Crown dependencies, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are all members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, supporting good governance, democracy and the rule of law. First, the CPA is of course an international organisation, so why do none of those countries appear to be represented at the forthcoming parliamentary forum and the London Commonwealth summit? Secondly, noble Lords will know how frequently politicians around the world, with or without historic links to the UK, express interest in membership of the Commonwealth. While that is not in the UK’s gift, as the Minister quite rightly says, what action are the Government taking to identify and develop those interests in Commonwealth membership to our mutual and long-term benefit?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
If I may take the noble Lord’s questions in reverse, I agree with him on his second question. We need to identify new members; he will be aware that the Gambia has applied and is currently going through the process of rejoining the Commonwealth. We hope that will happen in the early part of the new year, in time for the summit. Representation of the overseas territories and the devolved Administrations very much forms part of the UK Government’s thinking. We are their voice and we are engaging directly with the devolved Administrations; further to that, as the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth, I will visit the different parts of the United Kingdom in this respect. We are also talking directly to the overseas territories to see how we can engage more effectively with them, and perhaps involve them in some of the other events around the Commonwealth summit, such as the four fora which will take place during Commonwealth week.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether this is quite the right approach. The Minister will appreciate that at least six countries are interested in having associate status with the Commonwealth. He is absolutely right that it is not in Britain’s gift alone to deliver that but, on the other hand, we are the host of a vast summit. The Question rightly asks whether we could invite countries as observers. Is it not in our interest to develop the point that the Commonwealth is a vast transmission engine of potential soft power by this country? Should we not invite as many guests as possible to observe and be involved in some aspects, if not with full membership, of the Commonwealth summit?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with my noble friend’s sentiments. On soft power, I am sure he saw a survey last week showing that Britain retains its top position on the global stage in soft power. On the Commonwealth specifically, I am talking to the Secretary-General, the Commonwealth Secretariat and other member states to pick up some of the very points that my noble friend raised. We will see how we can engage more effectively with countries which are indicating their desire to join the Commonwealth family at some future time.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the civil society fora. I welcome the Government’s initiative on this and their thematic approach. One thing that concerns me is ensuring that we get full attendance of civil society players. Many of them, particularly LGBT communities, live and work in very hostile environments. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the civil society fora are attended by everybody possible and that hostile Governments do not put a stop on them attending?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important issue. He will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I have had conversations about the importance of ensuring the representation of civil society groups, including those from across the Commonwealth which very vocally, and often with great courage in dire domestic circumstances, represent important issues of LGBT rights. We are clear, and I am sure the sentiment is shared by all noble Lords, that LGBT rights are human rights and that those voices need to be heard. We are working with the Commonwealth Secretariat to ensure that right is preserved and discussed at the Commonwealth summit.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister kindly met me and representatives of Malaria No More to discuss the proposal for a global malaria summit during CHOGM next year. Given his earlier comments about involving people in the fora, does he agree that such a global summit would be an excellent opportunity to engage with other countries and to show Commonwealth leadership on an issue of world- wide concern?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness will know that I totally agree with her sentiments. Indeed, we have had a very constructive meeting with Malaria No More. We are working through the practicalities and ensuring that our intent, which is to focus on key issues such as fighting malaria, is reflected in the wider Commonwealth. The noble Baroness will understand that I cannot give a firm commitment that it has been agreed because we are waiting for responses from all 52 member states to the secretariat on the final agenda for the summit.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concern in a number of Commonwealth countries about their position in terms of trade should the UK leave the EU? He will know the economic impact on almost all Commonwealth countries of tariffs both into the UK potentially and onwards into the EU. Can he reassure them at CHOGM?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I hope the noble Baroness has been reassured by the efforts of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in getting that first deal with our colleagues in the European Union.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I hope that was a real roar of appreciation from the Lib Dem Benches. Let us be clear that the Commonwealth is an important issue. Our partners across the Commonwealth are also very clear about Britain’s important position within the family of the Commonwealth. Yes, we will be leaving the European Union, but we will retain a relationship with it, albeit a new one. In terms of our relationship with the wider Commonwealth, I have had the good fortune in my role as Minister for the Commonwealth to travel quite widely, from the Caribbean through Asia to Australasia. All countries are very keen to work bilaterally and collectively through the Commonwealth. There is a huge opportunity, and we all look forward to next April, when we can welcome a real revitalisation of the Commonwealth family.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government ensure that there is a full discussion at CHOGM about the delivery of the sustainable development goals and will they perhaps take the opportunity, in advance of CHOGM, to publish a full and complete UK strategy for delivery of the goals by 2030?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that sustainability is one of the key pillars that the Commonwealth will be discussing in that respect.
Recycling
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made towards establishing a single national standard for household recycling.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, England’s recycling rate increased to 44.9% in 2016. There is certainly more to do, and with WRAP we are working to enable households to recycle a single set of materials. In England, 88% of local authorities collect all five widely recycled materials—paper, card, plastic bottles, glass and cans. Many more now collect mixed, rigid plastics and separate food waste. Work is under way to standardise materials to be collected and recycled.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that some progress has been made and that we need long-term objectives. However, there is a very poor understanding of the rules on recycling and about the destructive effects of, for example, black plastic, plastic fruit netting and plastic-coated coffee cups. Does the Minister recognise that many of us—who have experience with the public sector—doubt that local authorities will ever make the rapid progress that we need and excite the population to recycle in the way that they need to, unless we have one, simple system?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is precisely why we have published the report on a consistency framework, because we want better communications with householders and an improvement in the recyclability of packaging materials. There are some really good examples of what can be done. Stroud has seen a 14% increase in recycling, and Maldon an 11% increase, in one year. Indeed, the council which my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford led for such a long time now has a recycling rate of 61.3% and is the only really urban local authority on that top list. We are working particularly with urban local authorities to improve the situation.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is very good at choosing his statistics but he will know that I have drawn attention in the past to the success of Wales, which is now second in the world for recycling household waste—in comparison to England, which ranks 18th, behind South Korea and Slovenia among others. Is not the lesson here that the Welsh Government did not just leave the problem to local authorities but provided leadership, including on mandatory separate collections and statutory targets for recycling, which is what made all the difference? When are this Government going to follow their example?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am delighted to congratulate anyone in the United Kingdom who does well, and I am very pleased that Wales is doing well. I also endorse those English and Scottish local authorities that are seeking to improve a situation that we all know is hugely important. That is why we are working with WRAP, local authorities and industry. This is an issue for which we have responsibility. We have a target of 50% by 2020 and we need to achieve that target. I am very ambitious that we go beyond it in the future as well.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, greenhouse gas emissions from waste have been falling rapidly, but this drop has flattened off notably over the last three years. Does the Minister agree that eliminating food and garden waste from landfill through better separation of household waste is critical and would help to drive further emissions reduction and meet our carbon budgets, and indeed that the separated waste could be used for biogas production?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this is why we want to make progress. I was very alarmed to hear that 70% of food and drink waste comes from households. In fact, £700-worth of food is thrown away each year by a family of four, so we all have to try to change some of our behaviour. It is precisely why we need to encourage councils, 50% of which now have a food waste collection service. We are looking for that to increase. We also need to ensure that households no longer buy and throw away 20% of food.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, one of the most successful acts of the coalition Government was the 5p charge on plastic bags, which has reduced the problem considerably. What is the Government’s position on putting a charge on coffee cups, a large number of which are not properly recyclable? That would make a huge difference to our sustainable economy for the future and what we throw away.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We need to work strongly on improving our record in recycling. That is why the Paper Cup Recycling and Recovery Group is examining this matter in much more detail; it is really important to make progress on this. I am very conscious that at Defra we now use half the number of cups that we did in 2013, and I want to do much better than that. This is all work that needs to be done very quickly.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, in the past the Minister has quoted the very different levels of recycling in local authorities. Can he tell us Her Majesty’s Government’s thinking on how to incentivise local authorities that are not performing well to improve, and how to share best practice to increase their level of recycling?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there are very good examples of where this has gone well. For instance, the Kent Resource Partnership has increased its recycling, involving 13 local authorities, with a £67 million gross benefit to Kent taxpayers over 10 years for only £7 million up-front. We need to work harder with WRAP on extensive guidance to local authorities on recycling to increase revenue from recycled material and on cutting contamination of dry recyclables. My honourable friend Thérèse Coffey has written to the 34 local authorities with the lowest recycling rates; we wish to work with them to improve the situation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I think the House would wish to hear from the representative of the Green Party.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
The Minister clearly will understand that incineration capacity is increasing quite fast but, at the same time, the residual waste stream that goes to incinerators is less than it should be to keep incinerators going at full capacity. What are the Government doing to encourage local councils not to support incineration of materials that could be recycled? We want to increase recycling, but we will not do so if it is all going to incineration.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this issue is fairly complicated. The first thing that we have concentrated on in this cycle is prevention of waste. We all need to concentrate on how much less should go into landfill, how much less should go into incineration, and how much we can reuse and recycle. With incineration, we must remember that there is some energy recovery, but we certainly need to do better in this country on reuse and recycling. I will perhaps want to discuss the matter with the noble Baroness in greater detail, given the time.
Student Loans
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number and percentage of students who will pay back their student loans in full.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Government estimate that, following the increase from £21,000 to £25,000 in the repayment threshold that applies to post-2012 student loans, 30% to 35% of borrowers with higher education loans and 40% to 45% of borrowers with advanced learner loans will repay their student loans in full. Of those starting courses in 2016-17, that would equate to 135,000 to 160,000 borrowers with higher education loans and 35,000 to 45,000 borrowers with advanced learner loans fully repaying their loans during their 30-year repayment period.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. What he said was that the majority of students will never repay their loans in full. We also know that up to 45% of the total loan outlay will never be paid. The poorer students end up with the biggest debt. Last week, the National Audit Office said that two-thirds of students consider that universities do not provide value for money and that proper independent advice is not available to them when they make these decisions, which have such a large financial consequence for them. How can we have confidence in the forthcoming review when the Government resolutely and so determinedly defend the present wretched system? Will the Minister accept that the current system is failing and that we need a new system that is fair to students?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord raises a number of points, but we believe that the student loan system is working well. There is always room for improvement. We believe that students do get good advice before they take on loans; indeed, they have to sign some papers for that.
On some of the noble Lord’s more major points, we are very keen to pursue the value-for-money approach, and Jo Johnson in the other place has made it clear that universities must provide value for money for students. The House knows that the whole graduate student payment system is designed with a deliberate subsidy in place, and we are on track with a complicated formula to achieve that.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I think everybody would agree that personal loan management is very much down to financial education among students and graduates. Is the Minister aware that our report on financial exclusion—supported by the FCA report, Financial Lives—identifies that over 80% of all graduates complained that they have had little or no financial education? What are the Government going to do about that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
When the Office for Students is up and running from January, that is one of the issues we will look at. It is very important that students get the best experience at universities, and are given the best advice. The noble Viscount makes a good point—that issue is equally important in giving them advice on financing their course costs.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, in 1947 my brother and my husband went up to Oxford to read law, and my brother became a High Court judge while my husband became senior partner of his practice. Those degrees were hard fought; they played sport in every section, and I hope that the Minister will agree with me that that was damn good value for money.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend, who is referring to degrees that were shorter than today’s degrees, is right. That is one reason why this House was very keen to promote the idea of accelerated degrees, which we are consulting on, whereby they are undertaken in two years at less cost per year than they would cost in three years.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that degrees have become totally monetised and have a value attached to them? Would not it be a good idea to take a long, hard look at some form of graduate tax that would do away with the idea of one huge debt hanging over those who undertake a degree?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is right that a graduate tax was considered as part of the reforms of several years ago. We do not think this is the right approach but we do think it right that students should be able to take out loans, which, I am sure the noble Lord will agree, further the aim of having more disadvantaged people at universities.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister name any other government agency that charges 6.1% on loans?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That is a question which I am not going to be drawn into answering. However, the interest rates are very much set and as I have said before, they are kept under constant review. A review of higher education funding will be forthcoming.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, have the Government assessed whether there would be any material difference in the sums repaid to Her Majesty’s Treasury over the decades if the interest rates were set at a less usurious level?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am sure those figures have been drawn out but I do not have them with me. However, 98% of all borrowers who entered repayment in April 2015 or earlier have fully repaid or are meeting their repayment obligations. That is testament to the fact that the payment-at-source system, working closely with HMRC, is working well.
Serious Fraud Office
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 11 December (HLWS325) announcing plans for a new National Economic Crime Centre hosted in the National Crime Agency, how they intend to safeguard the independence of the Serious Fraud Office.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, first I welcome the noble Baroness to her first Question at the Dispatch Box. The Serious Fraud Office will remain independent and will continue to undertake its own investigations and prosecutions. The new powers will give the National Crime Agency the ability to task the Serious Fraud Office with opening a specific investigation, but only with the agreement of the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary. The Serious Fraud Office will be a key partner in the National Economic Crime Centre.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. She will understand my rationale as the Conservative manifesto pledged to scrap the SFO by folding it into the National Crime Agency. Therefore, my concern is that the announcement this week is in no way the same policy by stealth, and that the SFO will remain independent and protected so that it cannot be untasked as well as tasked by Ministers and will remain independent from political interference.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think I made it clear in my first Answer that it will remain independent. In terms of the manifesto, we need to continue to look at all options to improve our response to tackling economic crime—but, yes, the SFO will remain independent.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the ability of this new body to tackle broader economic crime would be greatly enhanced if we could extend the concept of corporate criminal liability, particularly to issues such as money laundering—and the mechanism for that is failure to prevent. Will the Minister include failure-to-prevent clauses in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill going through this House?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am not involved in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill—unlike every other piece of legislation, which I do seem to be involved in. However, I take the noble Baroness’s point. I think the broader point here is that there will be a multiagency response to different types of fraud and that they can perhaps do more good as a partnership than they can as a series of isolated bodies.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the most effective crime-fighting agencies is the British Transport Police? Would it not be a travesty if the Scottish Government were allowed to incorporate the northern part of the British Transport Police into the chaos that is Police Scotland?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I wish I had listened in more depth to the statutory instrument that the noble Lord discussed the other day instead of looking at the notes for my own statutory instrument. I understand that transport is devolved and therefore that this would be a matter for the Scottish Government. However, I will look into that more closely for the noble Lord because it is not precisely my area.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in policing—in particular that I chair the independent reference group for the National Crime Agency. Can the noble Baroness explain to us why the National Crime Agency has been given these particular responsibilities and why the task has not been passed to the City of London Police, which has the lead responsibility for fraud matters? I do not suggest that the City of London Police should take on these additional responsibilities, but will the noble Baroness explain whether there is any incoherence in government policy with regard to two different agencies, an authority and forces being given responsibilities in the fraud area. Will that not be rather confusing for people?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord when I say that the National Economic Crime Centre will be hosted by the NCA but will be staffed by partners from across the law enforcement community: for example, the NCA, the FCA, HMRC and the City of London Police, as well as the Serious Fraud Office and the private sector. So a multifaceted approach will be taken to this, rather than the fragmented one that he suggests.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
Further to the question from my noble friend Lord Foulkes, is the Minister aware that the Scottish Conservative Party in its manifesto expressed its opposition to the devolution of the British Transport Police to Scottish police, and will her colleagues in Scotland therefore do their best to reverse this ill-judged and very dangerous move?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am aware of what the Scottish Conservatives are saying. Nevertheless, the desire for devolution, not only in Scotland and Wales, has been strong. Therefore, because this is a devolved matter, it is probably beyond my remit today. Of course, the Scottish Government have been strongly in favour of devolution.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, I point out to the noble Baroness that of course transport is not just a Scottish matter; some transport crosses the border and comes into England as well. I travel down here every week by train; does that mean that the transport police will now stop at Carlisle and a new police force will have to take over thereafter?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I take the noble Lord’s point. I never realised that this Question would go down the transport line—otherwise, as I say, I would have listened more carefully to the noble Lord’s points in debate.
Lord Harris of Haringey
In the light of this line of questioning, which is separate from the one I developed earlier, can the noble Baroness tell us what has happened to the Government’s national infrastructure policing review, which of course could have an impact on transport? Alternatively, you could argue that infrastructure is part of the economic system and therefore may be impacted on by the move. Where is that review?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will have to write to the noble Lord on that point, because we have now gone down another avenue that is not about fraud.
Data Protection Bill [HL]
Wednesday 13th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection Act 2018 View all Data Protection Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 74-II Manuscript amendment for Report (PDF, 72KB) - (13 Dec 2017)
16:31 - Division on Amendment 31 - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 232 - Amendment 31 disagreed.
18:02 - Division on Amendment 42 - Ayes: 92 / Noes: 222 - Amendment 42 disagreed.
Lord Moynihan
“( ) The references in sub-paragraph (1) to a body or association that is responsible for eliminating doping in sport are to be read as references to UK Anti-Doping (UKAD), its successor bodies or a body designated by the Secretary of State.( ) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by the affirmative resolution procedure specify—(a) the relationship between UKAD and other sporting bodies and associations, and (b) the powers and responsibilities of UKAD,under this paragraph.”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the objectives of Amendment 31, on doping in sport, are simple, and they build on considerable exchanges that have taken place at Second Reading and, more recently, in Committee. The first part of the amendment seeks to recognise the United Kingdom Anti-Doping agency—UKAD—and its successor bodies as the main body responsible for eliminating doping in sport in this country. The second part focuses on bodies which are not currently affiliated with or under the control and influence of UKAD and allows the Secretary of State to designate those bodies and to make regulations by the affirmative resolution procedure to outline the relationship between UKAD and other sporting bodies and the powers and responsibilities of UKAD.
I recently had the opportunity to discuss the amendment before the House with a range of individuals from the world of sport. At the most recent meeting, along with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I had the opportunity to meet Emma Drake, a lead lawyer for sport on data protection; Tim Payton from the national governing bodies; Jonathan Taylor, the legal counsel to the United Kingdom Anti-Doping authority; and Alison Faiers from the ECB. They responded to us both a couple of days later by setting out possible changes to the current wording in the Bill and suggesting that UK Anti-Doping be named specifically in the Bill, while retaining flexibility in case of a successor body. Secondly, they said that included for the first time in primary legislation should be a reference to the role of the UK national anti-doping policy. This particularly emphasises the accountability of UKAD to Parliament and its responsibility for implementing and monitoring compliance with the policy. Thirdly, they suggested that we retain a clear reference to the fact that other sports governing bodies that are not subject to the UK national anti-doping policy should be able to rely on a condition in the clause itself, which is precisely what I sought to do before bringing this latest amendment to your Lordships’ House.
It is important to place on record the role of UKAD. It co-ordinates the UK intelligence-led, risk-based testing programme across more than 40 key sports in accordance with the international standard for testing and investigations. It is at the centre of our anti-doping programme in this country, and is very important in the management of highly sensitive personal data—this Bill is about the management of that personal data. When it comes to dealing with highly sensitive personal data, it should be recognised as the body responsible for anti-doping in this country. It already has a broad remit and can test any UK or non-UK athlete staying, training, residing, entering a competition or named as a member of a team participating in a competition at any level within the United Kingdom. Those athletes are eligible for testing as part of UKAD’s national anti-doping programme. UKAD is recognised by the Government and by the DCMS. It is paid for by us as taxpayers and undertakes a vital role in keeping sport clean in this country.
Meanwhile, the Bill is very important because of the context in which data falls as far as sports men and women. The data we are talking about is twofold for the success of an anti-doping policy. First is the whereabouts test. Every athlete who competes internationally and is part of the national register testing pool has to provide, every day, a 60-minute time slot to be tested without prior notice. That is a major request. Under employment law, you are entitled to go on holiday and your whereabouts not be known by your employer. In sport, the data required extends throughout every day of the year: wherever you are, you are duty-bound to notify your governing body or UKAD of your whereabouts. That seems to me a major issue of privacy. If we are asking athletes to give up that right, as we are in this Bill, to have an effective anti-doping policy—which I fully support—that should be taken very seriously indeed.
The second point is the principle of strict liability. All athletes are solely responsible for any banned substance, regardless of how it got there or whether or not it was the intention of an athlete to cheat. Under the anti-doping programme, you are effectively guilty until proven innocent. The fact that athletes have to adhere to those two requirements of data management makes it incumbent on this House to ensure that the situation under which someone could be tested, or under which UKAD can operate, is very clearly defined in the Bill. Regrettably, I do not believe that it is at the moment.
The issue is even more important because it is about the making and breaking of careers and reputations. Only today, in a different context internationally, we had news that the UCI is investigating Chris Froome’s case under its anti-doping rules. Here it was strict liability again. However, it was also a case where he did not break the rules in terms of performance enhancing substances. His highly sensitive records were made public; he was given a TUE—a therapeutic use exemption—for asthma, but the level at which he tested was above the level recognised by the UCI as acceptable. That is the test being applied. It is headline news. The fact that he is a part of that doping policy has meant that his career, his profile and potentially his future are under the microscope. That is because he signed up to that anti-doping policy. It is the same anti-doping policy that would occur here. Indeed, UKAD was heavily involved in another case earlier this year, as noble Lords will know, with regard to Bradley Wiggins and the famous jiffy bag in June 2011. It said it was hampered by a lack of accurate medical records being available for British cycling, yet his whole career and reputation is under the spotlight as a result of that incident.
Baroness Billingham (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the work that it encompasses. I regret that my contribution to this powerful legislation has been so limited. My defence is that a boring cocktail of illnesses has kept me from that task, only concluding with a total knee replacement that has in fact proved a triumph. I have followed your Lordships’ debate from afar. I appreciate fully how much work has gone into the amendments and how crucial the debates have been—but no more excuses for my backsliding.
This issue is not straightforward. The widely held public view is that sport must be seen to be clean and cheating must be eliminated. Bodies such as the UK Anti-Doping Agency should be powerful and expert enough not only to detect the use of performance-enhancing drugs but to prohibit them. The general public are frustrated and appalled when yet more cheating comes to light. Fair play in sport is one of its underlying qualities; it is a prime reason for a love of sport and the impetus for all of us—parents, teachers, coaches and administrators—to encourage people to participate. That is all the more reason to strengthen the powers of anti-doping organisations.
The athlete, himself or herself, must be totally responsible for what is in their body at all times. They are guilty before being proved innocent but there must be a balance regarding genuine errors, and they must meet the whereabouts test. We have the support of governing bodies, which lead the fight against doping. The challenge is that their technology must outpace the damaging technologies and pharmaceutical products that threaten clean sport. The work of the anti-doping agencies must encompass all sport in the UK and cover all levels, from amateur to elite. Doctors who facilitate cheating should be criminalised and held responsible. Clearly, UKAD should have overall authority to determine whether an event run by non-UK bodies when operating in the UK is up to UK standards. It cannot be right that international sports organisers can hold events that fail to meet the minimum standards in the fight against cheating.
Viscount Falkland (CB)
My Lords, this is the first time I have intervened on the Bill. I confess that I am one of those who has been lobbied, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I will speak about horseracing uniquely, which is different from the kind of doping to which the noble Lord addressed himself. Doping has of course gone on ever since the early 18th century, when horseracing as we know it started to grow into the complicated and well-run sport that it is today. We still have quality racing in Britain, but more importantly to this debate we have the reputation of having the best control by the bodies that deal with racing, particularly the horseracing association.
I have given the association’s concerns some thought over lunch. It said in a brief that was a little too complicated for me to present to your Lordships that it is afraid that if the regulations are brought into the legislation in the way suggested, the very detailed work that it does to prevent the spread and, indeed, to stop the existence of doping in horseracing faces a new hurdle. These days, as in the sports that the noble Lord addressed, all kinds of substances are developed genuinely for good purposes, but criminals are clever people. They get hold of the latest kind of substance that may make a horse go faster, or slower. It is quite easy to stop a horse going very quickly—you just give it a bucket of water—but to make it go faster is a more complicated business.
Maintaining the cleanness of the sport in terms of corruption—it is all about money and betting—is becoming even more complicated because the new technologies and the moving of betting online is complicating it enormously, away from the old days when people went round in slouch hats with a man they employed to administer a substance. The problem the governing body faces is the uncertainty. It is following leads and information all the time—racing is all about information, whichever way you look at it—which is essential for it to get a step ahead of the game as far as the criminals are concerned. I understand from the association’s brief that it fears that, admirable though this Bill may be—I have sat through a lot of it and think it is a good Bill overall—we are creating a hurdle which will make the bodies go by the book. Going by the book—if I may use that expression in this field—would be a slow business. The bodies would be prevented doing the things which they normally do in jumping straightaway into a position where they can prevent whatever doping they have been informed is about, and they would fear infringing what is in the Bill in terms of the duties of the Secretary of State. There would be a need to consult the Secretary of State and the bodies fear the time that that would take. It would be useful if the Minister could give me some idea of what procedures would relate to horseracing and how quickly the bodies could get a line to the Secretary of State to get permission to move more quickly and cut out some of the actions and investigations that they would have to undertake, so that the bird had not flown by the time one got to dealing with the problem at hand. That is the bodies’ main concern as I understood it through my quick lunch—they have a concern in relation to a later amendment which is more complicated, but this one is quite simple.
A lot of hard work goes into this and a lot of success is achieved through the controlling bodies of all sports. That is particularly true of the horseracing authority, because it is essential that one keeps criminals from being able to affect the results of horseraces through doping. I hope that the Minister can help me on that, and maybe they will ask me again.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, down the road of horseracing because I have a confession to make, which is that I have never been in a betting shop in my life as far as I know—unless I was taken in as a very young child. I have three points to make. The first is the question of what sport is, because it is vital to the amendment—which I will be supporting. Darts and snooker are considered sports. They are therefore covered by any legislation relating to sport. You have only to watch “Strictly Come Dancing”, however, to know that a lot more physical activity is involved in dancing than in either darts or snooker, yet dancing is not covered by this legislation because it is not considered a sport.
Secondly, there are differences in the drugs taken by snooker players, for instance. A snooker player would be banned if he took a beta blocker, because a beta blocker slows the heart down, slows the pulse down and slows everything down, but if any other athlete took it, it might be for medical purposes—although it would not be to his benefit or advantage to do so.
Thirdly, I gather that under this country’s present doping laws recreational drugs are banned by all sporting bodies and the UK sports drugs authority. In some countries, however, it is legal to take, for instance, cannabis—to be honest, I am one of those who think it should be legal in this country as well; it should be part and parcel of the legal system that we allow people to take cannabis. But it would be banned. If it is illegal—this question may be one for the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, directly—and an athlete comes to this country to take part in an international event, be it football or whatever, from a country where it is legal to take cannabis, and if he has taken cannabis in the last 24 hours and it shows up in a drugs test, will he be banned from taking part in that event? Some countries allow it. Why are recreational drugs part of that authority anyway? It is a police matter in this country, not a matter for sporting bodies, therefore we ought to take recreational drugs out of the equation altogether.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the Government must be quaking in their shoes whenever a Back-Bencher offers to come to their help. I looked across at the Dispatch Box when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, make that offer and I saw a definite quiver come over the Minister’s face. Clearly, we are in for something rather interesting. We were entertained by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, with his worries about the BHA, but he said he thought that it is really quite simple at the end of the day—we need to keep the money out and sort out the betting influences that are affecting all our sports. He is absolutely right. The public have come to the end of their tether and it is time that we got this sorted: we have to keep sport clean and eliminate cheating. The data is key to this, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said.
We expect a great deal of our athletes in terms of their whereabouts and their strict liability, so we have to make sure that the systems under which they operate are fair, properly organised and regulated. In short, we have such high stakes in this that we have to be sure that we up our game—I am sorry about the puns. We should be clearer than we are at the moment about who has responsibility for what and how it is operated, and that is what this amendment is about. DCMS needs a stronger NDPB, in the form of UKAD or a successor body, and there needs to be an authority exercised with care and consideration as to how the rules will apply and to whom they apply. All these definitional points, all the concern about where it goes, are tied up in that set of constructs, which is what this amendment deals with. I think it is very powerful.
If noble Lords look back at the way in which a state was able to influence the way that the drug-testing system operated in the winter Olympic Games in Russia, they will understand how this thing has got to a new level of concern. We must have appropriate safeguards and ways of operating in place to insulate those who are trying to do the right thing from the charge that they are involved too closely. The public will stand for no less. I recommend this amendment very strongly and we will support it should it be necessary to take it to a vote. I hope that that will not be necessary, because as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, this is an area of such importance that the right thing to do would surely be for the Government to accept this amendment today and bring it back at Third Reading with a proper wording and proper consideration that will reassure any who still doubt it. In the interim, we will support it if necessary.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as ever the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made his case extremely well. We on these Benches share his objectives and, indeed, most of the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, around clean sport, particularly putting UKAD on a statutory footing and having a proper framework around the powers in the Bill.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, feels that these need a proper definition and control. However, despite the noble Lord’s best efforts this amendment is not the finished article. Sadly, there are still discussions taking place. Noble Lords have had a great deal of material from governing bodies, including the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Rugby Football Union, the British Horseracing Authority and the Sport and Recreation Alliance, which by itself represents some 320 organisations.
Further discussions need to take place so that we get to an agreed position. I feel very uncomfortable at this point. All those governing bodies may be speaking with different voices, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, suggests, and he has entered discussion with them in good faith, but other voices have come to us saying that they are not yet able to accept what he has put forward. There is still work to be done. I very much hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that many of us around the House, particularly on these Benches, want those conversations to continue and an agreed amendment to be brought forth at Third Reading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am not quaking in my boots when addressing an amendment from my noble friend, first, because he is a helpful man and, secondly, because I am getting quite used to it, to be quite honest, particularly after the Digital Economy Bill.
As we heard, my noble friend’s amendment would restrict the provision in the Bill that allows anti-doping bodies to process sensitive personal data without consent to just UK Anti-Doping. It would permit other bodies to process sensitive data only if allowed by the Secretary of State. This House agrees, I think, how important sport is and that it can only continue to be successful if it is, and is seen to be, clean. It should therefore come as no surprise when I say that the Government remain fully committed to combating doping and protecting the integrity of sport. We are at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, on that.
At the moment, a large number of organisations, both domestic and international, work to prevent and eliminate doping in sport in this country in accordance with agreed international standards. UKAD, as the UK’s national anti-doping organisation, plays a vital role. But we must recognise that other bodies, some of which have been mentioned, also have important roles to play, including in particular sports’ national governing bodies. The amendment would see UKAD as the only body with automatic responsibility for processing sensitive data for the purposes of preventing doping in the UK. Other bodies would have a role only if named by the Secretary of State.
I am not convinced that this is a positive change for a number of reasons. First, it is not immediately clear to me why such an amendment is needed. UKAD’s role, and that of other sporting bodies, is set out in the national anti-doping policy, and this arrangement is largely seen to be effective, not just here in the UK but internationally. But we can never be complacent, and that is why my honourable friend the Minister for Sport, Tracey Crouch, has already commissioned a review of UKAD. That review is looking closely at UKAD’s functions, efficiency and effectiveness and has consulted widely. The findings of this review will be published early next year and will inform the revision of the UK national anti-doping policy, which will also take account of the recently published review of the criminalisation of doping. As part of this policy revision process, the Government will consult all relevant stakeholders, and will no doubt welcome discussions with my noble friend Lord Moynihan.
In addition, the arrangement outlined in my noble friend’s amendment would appear to present a number of risks. As he mentioned, the World Anti-Doping Code and the UNESCO convention set a clear framework that allows major events organisers and international federations to conduct their own anti-doping activities. Their ability to test cannot, without risking a breach of the convention, be contingent on them having obtained prior authorisation by a national Government.
Sports bodies change regularly as new sports are recognised and new bodies gain funding and manage competitions. A new round of designations would be required every time a new sporting body came into being or organised competitions or an old body changed its name. Under the system proposed by my noble friend, even a short delay in doing so could allow a drugs cheat to escape sanction by challenging the validity of the data processing undertaken by a sports body weeks, months or even years prior. That is not least because the Secretary of State’s decision to designate a body would itself be subject to judicial review. This could turn a relatively straightforward process of designation into a lengthy process of review, consultation and litigation. Similarly, if international bodies wanted to hold competitions in this country, they would, on the face of it, need to be officially designated by the Secretary of State. In a competitive marketplace, this could discourage organisers of major events from bringing their events to the UK.
To summarise, the Government believe that my noble friend’s amendment will put the UK’s status as a leading destination for clean sport at risk. It will create uncertainty in the sporting world and will be out of step with the recognised international framework that is already in place. It is widely understood that UKAD is the recognised body in the UK with responsibility for enforcing anti-doping rules. But the Bill must not be used as a tool to limit interventions by internationally recognised sporting bodies, such as the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Football Association and the Rugby Football Union. They, like UKAD, should be allowed to set and enforce anti-doping rules in sports. The fact that these bodies are not governed entirely by UKAD’s rules does not make their need to process data without consent for anti-doping purposes any less important. We are clear on that, the World Anti-Doping Code is clear on that, and the bodies themselves are clear on that.
Indeed, I have a statement from four of our leading sports bodies: the Football Association, the Rugby Football Union, the England and Wales Cricket Board, and the British Horseracing Authority. They are not speaking with different voices. This is a joint quote, which they have authorised me to announce. They say:
“We welcome further discussion with all parties on this issue but do not believe that this Amendment, that has not been discussed with or subject to any consultation with our organisations, is the right way to proceed today”.
In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who asked about the horseracing authority, I am afraid he should direct his question to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, because it is his amendment that would change the current system. Therefore, while I understand the desire of my noble friend to assist in the fight against doping, which we all support, I do not believe that the Bill is the proper vehicle to achieve it; nor do I believe that my noble friend’s amendment would in fact achieve it.
Let me be clear: if my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, want to keep talking about anti-doping in general, I am very happy to do so, as is my honourable friend the Minister for Sport; I have already said that. But the Government have spent a great deal of time working with UKAD and sports bodies to design paragraph 23 of Schedule 1, and I have heard nothing in the debates in Committee and today that would suggest that we should alter our view before the review of UKAD is complete. On that basis, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. I will respond to the Minister first. I was disappointed that he did not respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I also touched on, namely, that it was important, if at all possible, to take away this amendment and consider it in greater detail so that the Government could bring it back at Third Reading. The Government have decided not to do so, and in so doing they have argued the following points.
The first was that there has been inadequate consultation—for example, no discussion between the BHA and myself. If I may respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I had a conference call with, I think, four BHA people last Friday to discuss in detail the consequences of the proposed amendment. It was a constructive and helpful discussion. It was very important to them that they did not come under the umbrella of UKAD, and they would not. Amendment 31 says very specifically that the references are,
“to be read as references to … UKAD … , its successor bodies or a body designated by the Secretary of State”.
They asked me whether that would be a cumbersome process, and I said, “Certainly not”. The Secretary of State could respond to a letter pretty much immediately by saying, “Continue the good work that you’re doing”. That would be absolutely fine under the amendments I have tabled to Schedule 1.
This would apply to any organising group that exercises authority in anti-doping in this country outside UKAD, which covers the wide majority. Indeed, UKAD can test any athlete in this country, if it so wishes, at any level of competition. But there are organisations which will operate outside UKAD, for example the international federations and the International Olympic Committee. The other organisations which the noble Lord mentioned operate within UKAD in any event. Organisations such as the Football Association and the Rugby Football Union have a relationship with it to continue its good work, not least because those are Olympic sports, so they are covered in any event by the phrase,
“a body designated by the Secretary of State”.
I want further to assist my noble friend the Minister by suggesting that, instead of simply leaving it at that, every single point that he made could be covered by the regulations that he is being asked to bring forward under the Bill. There would be no uncertainty; there would be complete clarity, and we would have the opportunity to address those points in detail prior to that secondary legislation coming forward.
Why was it important to amend a general catch-all clause on sport to deal with these issues? It was important so that the BHA knew its position and could continue the good work with minimum bureaucracy, simply by a letter recognising that it continues the good work. I have heard nobody—not from the Bill team, which I met, not the policy advisers from DCMS and not the BHA, which I had a long conference call with last Friday—mention that there is anybody who seeks to change the way in which the BHA does excellent work in this area. It would simply be recognised on the face of the secondary legislation and so it should be—
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Does my noble friend not accept, then, that if the situation is exactly the same as now, he is proposing a new process which will possibly be subject to litigation and achieve exactly the same status that we have today?
Lord Moynihan
First, there is no evidence whatever that it is subject to litigation. If the Secretary of State—
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am sorry to interrupt again. Of course there has not been any litigation because the system that my noble friend proposes has not been put in place.
Lord Moynihan
But there are no grounds for litigation. If the BHA is doing good work in anti-doping then, in the context of this paragraph, all that is being done is for that to be recognised within the legislation and by the Secretary of State in designating the BHA to continue its good work. Who would wish to litigate on that? Nobody is changing any relationship between the BHA, and those who work within it, and the excellent anti-doping policy that it currently runs. I am sure the Government would not want to change that.
The reason why this should be on the face of the Bill and in the secondary legislation—the regulations—is that this is of serious importance. We are asking athletes to give up a lot of personal data, and we should protect them when giving up personal data. It is important and right for an anti-doping policy that they should do so, but its importance should be recognised and my noble friend the Minister did not even mention it in his response. It is about the data management.
I conclude by saying simply this, and I will happily give way to my noble friend the Minister. If he is prepared, as I hope he is, to follow the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I fully support, on improving the wording of the amendment, I stand absolutely ready to find consensus with all governing bodies, the Government, the Bill team and everybody else who is interested in the subject, including all Members of your Lordships’ House, in order to find an improved amendment. I think the amendment works perfectly satisfactorily, and I have just tried to explain that to my noble friend and the House, but I am sure it could be improved by further discussions. Is my noble friend the Minister willing to take it away and bring it back at Third Reading? If he is, I will happily give way.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I have to be very clear about what we are doing, particularly as this is the first group on our first day on Report. To be absolutely clear, I am not content to return to this issue at Third Reading of the Data Protection Bill because we have heard nothing that would suggest to us that paragraph 23 would benefit from further consideration at this time. I have to repeat that the wording on the face of the Bill was drawn up—this is a quote from the governing bodies that I mentioned—
“in close consultation with the sports governing bodies and the Sport and Recreation Alliance and we support the original wording as the right way forward”.
Lord Moynihan
I hear what the Minister said. We have had many discussions with different members of governing bodies and others who have argued that this provision could be improved. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I sat opposite UKAD and governing bodies last Monday, so what the right hand in some of these governing bodies is doing is clearly not what the left hand is doing. I think this amendment is a significant improvement that protects the rights of individual athletes. That is what we should be doing in this Bill because it is about data management. Regretfully, because I hoped that the Minister would take this away and come back with a consensus on something better, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults
32A(1) This condition is met if the processing— (a) is necessary for the exercise of a safeguarding activity,(b) is carried out without the consent of the data subject so as not to prejudice the exercise of that activity, and(c) is carried out in compliance with any guidance issued under statute by a Minister of the Crown or a Scottish Minister or Welsh Minister as the case may be.(2) In this paragraph, “safeguarding activity” means an activity designed to—(a) protect children and vulnerable or protected adults from maltreatment,(b) prevent the impairment of children’s, or vulnerable or protected adults’, health or development,(c) ensure that children grow up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care, or(d) enable children and vulnerable or protected adults to have the best outcomes. (3) This paragraph applies to a safeguarding activity carried out whether as part of a statutory function or otherwise by any holder of a public office, institution, authority, church or religious congregation, company, organisation, body, or association, whether or not having corporate status.(4) This paragraph does not apply to the activities of individuals acting in a private capacity.(5) In this paragraph—“child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18;“vulnerable adult” has the same meaning as in paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006;“protected adult” has the same meaning as in the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I intend to be brief, but not because this is a minor matter—quite the reverse. This is one of the biggest concerns that we should have about how we engage through the public view on the issues that affect many of our citizens. I am talking particularly here about safeguarding, especially in relation to sport, although it also has wider concerns, wherever an adult has responsibility for a child.
The public concern has mostly focused on issues such as football and swimming in recent months and the last few years, but there are wider concerns that have been dealt with under various inquiries, and we await the results. The narrow issue relating to this Bill is that those individuals or bodies that have a protective function of safeguarding children or, indeed, vulnerable adults, and need to process sensitive data, even though they have no legal obligation to do it and have no statutory function may be an issue that the Government wish to return to. There is no doubt that UK Anti-Doping has the powers that are necessary in sports. But when members of the public and their children are not being sufficiently looked after, extra vigilance must be taken, and we must ensure that the Bill in no way affects that.
I have tabled this amendment, sent to us by a number of bodies involved in sport, but there are other groups outside the sporting area with interests here. The Government are currently discussing these issues and hoping to come to a conclusion shortly. On that basis, I hope that the Minister can give us some indication of the progress that has been made here and, if he can, some sense of the timescale in which the Government will act. I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I will be brief. Amendment 33 seeks to introduce a condition permitting the processing of special categories of personal data where it is necessary for the purposes of safeguarding children or vulnerable adults. The Government take the issue of safeguarding extremely seriously and recognise the need for the Bill to provide certainty to organisations with safeguarding responsibilities, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for raising this issue.
Organisations in all sectors wish to ensure that they have a lawful basis when they process special categories of data for safeguarding purposes. In many—maybe even all—circumstances, organisations will be able to rely on existing conditions under the Bill: for example, where processing is necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting unlawful acts or where the processing is necessary for the exercise of functions under legislation or under a rule of law. However, I recognise that there is an argument for having a specific safeguarding condition to put the issue beyond doubt.
This is an issue which requires careful consideration and noble Lords may be assured that my department is actively working across government and with stakeholders in the voluntary and private sectors to consider the issue. We must be mindful, for example, of the broader implications of defining safeguarding and vulnerability within data protection law. Inclusion of such definitions within the Bill could have unforeseen consequences for other legislation which uses the same, or similar, terminology. As such, I can assure noble Lords that the Government are sympathetic to the objective of this amendment. However, given the importance of this issue and the potential impacts both within and beyond data protection law, we are sure that further consideration is required before any amendment can be brought forward. I can assure noble Lords that we will continue to examine this issue urgently. While it will not be possible to conclude our consideration in time for Third Reading, I am confident of doing so in time for Committee stage in the Commons. On the understanding that we will return to the issue of safeguarding in the Commons, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment this evening.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am grateful to the Minister for giving such a precise response to this, not only on the substance, recognising the issue and confirming that it needs to be put beyond doubt that the powers will exist, but giving us the assurance that this matter will be brought back in the Commons, which is wonderful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I will speak also to a number of other amendments to Clause 13 in this group. I regret that the rules of drafting on Report mean that I was not able to produce a consolidated clause; it is rather bitty in the way it is presented in the amendments, but I very much hope that the Minister will be able to interpret the bits as eventually forming a perfectly-formed whole and a much preferable alternative Clause 13. In addition to those amendments I will speak to Amendment 41, which constitutes a new clause after Clause 13.
Clause 13 concerns the prohibition and exemptions around significant solely automated decisions. However, it can be confusing. There are three grounds on which such decisions are permitted under the GDPR: to enter or to perform a contract, to give explicit consent or to be authorised under UK law. Clause 13 concerns only the safeguards for the last category. Therefore, our amended version of Clause 13 has the following important four aims.
First, it clarifies that an individual’s ability to claim that a decision had a significant effect on them—a prerequisite for triggering any of the protections that the GDPR has to offer relating to automated decision-making—can be grounded in a significant effect on a protected group under the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act is a strong piece of legislation, but it contains no information rights for individuals to investigate suspicions of machine bias or illegal discrimination. Given that the Information Commissioner will already be overloaded with work, given the changes accompanying the GDPR and the speed of technological development, this is a simple and crucial check and balance that will strengthen enforcement of not just data protection but many UK laws.
Secondly, the amendments further clarify that in order to claim that a decision was not solely automated—and therefore benefiting from none of this clause’s protections—there must be “meaningful human input”. The Minister argued in Committee that this is,
“precisely the meaning that that phrase already has”.—[Official Report, 13/11/17; col. 1869.]
Unfortunately, we have reason for concern because, in respect of identical wording in the 1995 data protection directive, German courts, for instance, have previously read “solely” in a restricted, narrow sense. Therefore, having such clarification in the Bill would ensure that the Minister’s understanding of the protection afforded to data subjects is the protection they will receive. This clarification is in line with the article 29 working party guidance—I recognise that the Minister corresponded with me on the subject of article 29 guidance—but it takes us closer to an adequacy agreement if one is sought upon leaving the EU.
Thirdly, the Explanatory Notes in paragraph 115 promise a safeguard that is not found in any of the articles of the GDPR, nor the safeguards laid out by the Government: a right to,
“an explanation of the decision reached after an assessment”.
The cause of this is that its position is in a non-binding recital, and there is a contradiction between the recitals and the main text. This is easily rectified for the decisions authorised by law, as the purpose of Clause 13 is to specify safeguards for these particularly impactful and largely public sector decisions.
It is included as well to indicate—in a very similar way to a recent French law on exactly the same issue—what such an explanation should provide to be useful. These explanations are possible even with black box algorithms. I have tabled an additional simple amendment to include this safeguard explicitly for automated decisions authorised by consent or contract, not just those authorised by law.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 34 and will speak to Amendments 35, 93, 100, 101 and 102. I retabled these amendments because I think I did not make myself clear in Committee and some of the Ministers’ replies seemed confused. It was pacifying to be soothed in that way but I still have a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Ashton, said:
“All decisions relating to the processing of personal data engage an individual’s human rights, so it would not be appropriate to exclude automated decisions on this basis”.—[Official Report, 13/11/17; col. 1871.]
My point was that there is confusion between the gathering of evidence, the processing and decision-making. My amendments do nothing to inhibit automated data processing or seek to move us back to handwritten records. Automated data processing is unaffected by my amendments, which focus on decisions based on data, however the data is processed. Data could be gathered, processed and analysed completely automatically with no human involvement—a computer could even generate a recommended decision—but where human rights are engaged, the final decision must be made by a human being.
There was similar confusion in the replies of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in regard to law enforcement and intelligence service decisions. She said that,
“the unintended consequences of this could be very damaging. For example, any intelligence work by the intelligence services relating to an individual would almost certainly engage the right to respect for private life. The effect of the amendment on Part 4 would therefore prevent the intelligence services taking any further action based on automated processing, even if that further action was necessary, proportionate, authorised under the law and fully compliant with the Human Rights Act”.—[Official Report, 15/11/17; col. 2073.]
Again, there is confusion between the processing, gathering of data and making the decision where human rights are engaged.
I repeat that my amendments allow for data to be processed automatically: they do not allow for a computer to make a decision contrary to someone’s human rights. Decision-makers can be supported by automated processing but the ultimate decisions must be made by a human being. We have to have this vital safeguard for human rights. After all the automated processing has been carried out, a human has to decide whether or not it is a reasonable decision to proceed. In this way we know where the decision lay and where the responsibility lies. No one can ever say, “We messed up your human rights. We interfered with your human rights and it is the computer’s fault”.
I am grateful to Liberty for drafting the amendments I have tabled and I hope that I have explained them fully and rather better than in Committee. I look forward to the Ministers’ replies. I feel strongly about this issue. These words have to be in the Bill so that it is absolutely clear that human rights are protected.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. The points that he made apply almost entirely to Amendments 91, 92 and 94, which relate to later parts of the Bill, including particularly the phraseology “solely” and in Amendment 94 “solely” or “partially”.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, decided to retable her amendments. What she said can be summed up as, “Human rights, so human decision”. Human beings will ensure transparency and accountability in a way that machines simply do not. The Minister smiled when the noble Baroness said that she was not sure whether she was clear on the last occasion. I rather wish that I could ask her to give us the reassurances and concessions that that smile might have indicated, but I do not know.
These issues are extremely important. I was thinking about them over the weekend and, although it sounds patronising, the Government are entirely correct to ensure that human rights are engaged in these subjects. Given how central human rights are, they cannot be thought of as an occasional peripheral, particularly not as regards law enforcement and security issues. I have come full circle to thinking that the protection of human rights should be spelled out at the start of the Bill, which would take us back to our debate on Monday about an introductory clause covering the protection of a subject where the right is not absolute because of the criteria of necessity and proportionality. I think that that should be made clear in the Bill and it would put what the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve in her amendments in the right context. I support her in this.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we have Amendment 37 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy in this group. The focus of our amendment is to tease out from the Dispatch Box a sense of what is meant by “meaningful” in the context of the discussions we have already had about how organisations might disclose details of algorithms used in profiling and data-driven decision systems, to meet the obligation in the GDPR to provide meaningful information about what has been going on in that space. It will be difficult to do this because “meaningful” can involve many words and obligations and is, I think, a slightly slippery concept. It will probably exercise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in its imprecision—but do not blame us, mate; it is the GDPR, which we are not allowed to discuss. However, I think that the Minister can help us here by providing a bit more information.
We have suggested that a way of dealing with this would be to look at how the information is used and make it a requirement that it should,
“be sufficient to enable the data subject to assess whether the profiling will be beneficial or harmful to their interests”.
That may not be sufficiently strict legal language but, if it is an important distinction, it would help to get us to the point at which the Minister might say that she will bring back improved wording in an amendment at Third Reading.
The real issue which is not discussed here is the question of whether we can access the algorithms themselves. The problem, and the reason for the solution to that problem lying in terms of the test of how it works in practice, is that it is not sufficient just to have simple information about the actual mathematics of the algorithm because that in itself would not give us enough information. What we need, for those in a particular part of the population cohort, is knowledge of the consequences of being in one category or another and how that is weighed up by those carrying out the processing. This covers all the ways in which decisions are made on credit, on our purchases and how we are advertised to. It is happening now, so the sooner we can get the information, the better. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments when she comes to respond.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for their amendments, which bring us back to the important issues around the use of automated processing in what is an increasingly digital world. I apologise if my smile was misleading, I was just very pleased to see the noble Baroness in her place; it did not indicate anything other than that.
The range in which automated processing is applied includes everything from suggested views on YouTube to quotes for home insurance and beyond. In considering these amendments it is important to bear in mind that automated decision-making can bring benefits to data subjects, so we should not view these provisions simply through the prism of threats to data subjects’ rights. The Government are conscious of the need to ensure that stringent provisions are in place to regulate appropriately decisions based solely on automated processing. We have included in the Bill the necessary safeguards such as the right to be informed of automated processing as soon as possible, along with the right to challenge an automated decision made by a data controller or processor. We have considered the amendments proposed by noble Lords and believe that Clauses 13, 43, 48, 94, 95, 111 and 189 provide sufficient safeguards to protect data subjects of all ages—adults as well as children.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful unpacking of the amendments. I hope that the ICO will read her speech because, in essence, it has helpfully brought together a series of glosses on automated decision-making and the rights of the data subject. My amendments tried to bring together those rights specifically on the face of the Bill. The fact that the Minister had to unpack them from quite a number of articles and recitals demonstrates just how opaque is the GDPR for many of us, including those of us who have spent many weeks in the salt mines—it is no less opaque than when we started. Her response was extremely helpful. I hope that some sort of explanatory memorandum produced by the ICO might help because many of us around the House are trying to future-proof the Data Protection Bill so that we do not have to keep coming back and invoking Clause 15, Clause 9 and so on—whatever our differences may be about Henry VIII powers. We want to come to some conclusions while the Bill is going through and really understand what the rights of the data subject are in the face of increasing use of algorithms and so on.
There are just a couple of areas in which I should push, in particular the article 29 working group guidance on “meaningful”. None of us really knows what the status of the article 29 working group will be. Will we have a 29 March 2019 working group? Does everything change after that or not? If we are relying on that kind of interpretation, we need to have a pretty clear idea and a pretty good statement from the Government that it will continue after Brexit.
Where I am still unpersuaded and thought the argument was not really as good as it could have been was over my Amendment 41, on recital 71. Children are not adequately drawn into the legislation or protected from automated decision-making—that was the reason for proposing that additional clause.
I will withdraw my amendment, but I will read very carefully what the Minister has had to say. I am sure we will have many more happy hours corresponding in this area, because it will provide grist to the mill for quite a number of observers who are extremely interested in the consequences of artificial intelligence and the data it uses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Use of private personal data accounts
(1) Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Commissioner must carry out a public consultation on the use of private personal data accounts by data subjects.(2) The consultation must include, but is not limited to—(a) how the rights accorded to data subjects under the GDPR and this Act, including the rights to rectification and to be forgotten, may be affected by having a private personal data account;(b) the conditions under which a data subject may make their personal data available to data controllers via a private personal data account; and(c) the remuneration arrangements which may arise between a data subject and a data controller through the use of a private personal data account.(3) In this section, “private personal data account” means a single account through which a data subject can store and share their personal data with data controllers.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I can be brief, I hope. Amendment 41A builds on a discussion held in Committee. We were trying to articulate, perhaps not very successfully but with some justification, the nature of the relationship between data subjects and data controllers when data is passed across for processing and use by that data controller. At that time my thinking was stimulated by work that we had read and heard about in relation to the idea that a person’s data could be given a personal copyright. That would open up to data subjects who are giving data to data controllers the rights that come with copyright ordinarily, such as a limited time—quite a long time, though—in which they have ownership and therefore are licensing their data for use. That could be subject to remuneration, as is very often the case in the creative industries where copyrights are used; they are used on a licensed basis for which remuneration is returned. If that were the case, one might also question whether copyright should be time-limited. That would put an end to the question of whether data subjects could withhold or retract their information in some sense, or rectify it so that it would not, therefore, be archived or go forward into other activities.
Since that time, a surprisingly large number of people have contacted me about this and offered advice and thoughts—not all of it helpful, I have to say. There seems to be a certain feeling that personal copyright is not the way to go forward on this, although I am still quite attracted to it. However, in that process I got a very interesting set of communications around the idea of data subjects becoming controllers of their own data; in other words, personal data controllers. This is a difficult concept. It seems to suggest that two characteristics are existing in the same time and space. Of course, the force will be with us when we get to this, but I am not sure I quite understand how it would happen. I think the problem has come because of the timeframe in which the GDPR was created. Preliminary debates took place in 2012 to 2014, and the GDPR dates from 2016 and will come in in 2018. We are talking about six to eight years since the original thinking, which is a very long time in cyberspace.
We have found that technology has moved ahead of us and the issue raised by this amendment, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, is that we will have to think quite hard about how individual data is used by data controllers, in the context not just of the Bill, but of the way in which the technology is moving. I fully expect the Minister to say that this is a blue-sky issue that needs to be picked up and looked at. Warm words will be offered and even a smile or two might glance its way across the Chamber to me and I will sit down in a miasma of happiness as a result, but the truth is that we need expertise and advice—this is not an easy concept, even if the force is with us. We will need to think harder about all these issues, including the points we have been talking about in terms of algorithms and automated use, in the context of people’s advancing rights and use of their data. It calls for a data ethics commission. The subject will come up again and I am sure that we will return to it on day three of Report, but in the interim I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, this amendment has a lot of merit. For some time I have been discussing with certain people who know an awful lot about this, as has the noble Lord, the concept of agency: having control over your own information. It is a very important concept because the GDPR and the Bill are all about data processors looking after your stuff for you, but the real issue is having control over things that affect you. Why, if people are using it to make money out of you or on your behalf, should you not sell them that control in return for better access?
There are many issues around this that might suit a modern world in which your data can be useful, but to you, so that data processors do not just mine it and use it for their own purposes—you have control over it. This amendment has a lot of merit because it gives a foundation for us to start researching this. There is no compulsion here, but it could move us down a line whereby the data subject—the person in the street— suddenly gets some control over what happens when people research things for their own good. We are going to have to give away our location and other things to use most of these apps, so why can we not also control that and decide how to sell it to other people and benefit from it ourselves?
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I, too, support the amendment. I raised this issue at Second Reading and pointed to the work of the ethics committee of the IEEE, which has done a lot of work on this. This is not as blue sky as the noble Lord suggested; this is indeed the direction of travel.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I am inspired by the last two speeches to add some words here. This is a very imaginative amendment. There is a great debate about ownership or control of one’s personal data, and this may be an elegant solution to some of that in future, although I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, may be right in his prediction about the Government’s response at this stage. Again, it is a bit of future-proofing that we really should think about.
If the Government do not like this, how do they think portability will work? If portability is to be a substantive right that can be taken advantage of under the GDPR, this is a very good way to make sure that data can then be inserted into a vehicle as a result of it having been sought in a portable way. This could be a very imaginative way to give teeth to the right of portability. I shall be extremely interested to hear how, otherwise, the Government think it will take effect.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for explaining the amendment, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their words. The amendment is fascinating. When I talked to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about it earlier today, I thought that it just shows how interesting it is, how fast everything is moving in this world and how difficult it will be for us to keep up. I feel rather relieved that I may not be around to have to grapple with it myself and that there will be younger people better at dealing with it than I am.
The amendment would require the Information Commissioner to consult on the use of private personal data accounts, which provide for people to retain greater ownership of their data. While I recognise the intention behind this amendment—to stimulate debate and a shift in public attitudes towards personal data and its value—this is not the appropriate means through which to pursue these aims.
By way of explanation, I have three quick points to make. First, I question the value of the Information Commissioner consulting on the use of private data accounts, which are already available to those members of the public who wish to use them. Importantly, the priority for the commissioner at the moment and for the foreseeable future is helping companies and organisations of all sizes to implement the new law to ensure that the UK has the comprehensive data protection regime we need in place, and to help prepare the UK for our exit from the EU. I hardly need to point out that these are massive tasks, and we must not divert the commissioner’s resources from them at this point.
Secondly, it is a question not only of resource, but of remit. It is right that the commissioner monitors and advises on developments in the use and storage of personal data, but it is not her role to advise on broader issues in society. The question of whether individuals should have ownership of their personal data and be remunerated by companies for its use falls squarely into that category. The commissioner is first and foremost a regulatory body.
Thirdly, I take this opportunity to highlight that there are already mechanisms in the new regime which will support individuals to have more control over their data and place additional requirements on data subjects. For example, data controllers will be required, when obtaining personal data from an individual, to inform that person of: the purposes for which their personal data are being processed; the period for which their data will be stored, to the extent that this possible; their right, where applicable, to withdraw consent for their data to be used; and their right to lodge a complaint with the supervisory authority. Obviously, that is not an exhaustive list but it is illustrative of the protections that will be put in place. Such information must also be updated if the controller intends to process the personal data for any new purpose.
I fully agree with the noble Lord that the questions of an individual’s control over their data and the value of that data are worthy of debate and, as I said earlier, we will have to wrestle with them for years to come as the digital economy evolves. However, the Government’s view is that the Bill strikes the right balance between protecting the rights of data subjects and facilitating growth and innovation in the digital economy, and that placing an arbitrary requirement on the commissioner to consult would not be appropriate or the best use of her resources at this point. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for the idea about agency, which is an important construct that we will need to keep an eye on. He is quite right about that. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for reminding me, correctly, that I had got a lot of information from the IEEE, whose work on this I have praised before. I reiterate that: it has done a great job in trying to think through some of the bigger issues involved in this area. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the debt I owe an organisation called HATDeX, which has been working in this area and from which I got the original idea of a private personal data account.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this is something that will come back to haunt us. Obviously, as long as the Minister is there with her beaming smile, we will be able to resist all blandishments to come at it, but I think it will come and bite us. It was not an arbitrary thought of mine that it might be something that the ICO would want to look at it. I know from talking to the ICO that it is interested in this as well. I think the Minister is saying that the proposal, as it is, stands outside the Bill framework, but that is because the Bill focuses on a particular area, and perhaps that is a pity. But if it is not the ICO, who is it? I hope it will be the data ethics commissioner that we hope to establish in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon) (Lab)
I must advise your Lordships that if Amendment 42 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 43 or 44 due to pre-emption.
Schedule 2: Exemptions etc from the GDPR
Amendment 42
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, which this amendment would delete, deals with the provisions of the GDPR—that is, protections—which do not apply to immigration control. Government Amendment 44 alters that by removing some of the protections from the list; in other words, the protections would continue to apply in relation to the rights to rectification and data portability.
So what protections will the data subject forgo? I suggest that they are almost all basic safeguards, including: that the processing of someone’s personal information must be lawful, fair and transparent; that data must be processed accurately and kept up to date; that it be held securely; that the person to whom the data relates is informed of the data being held, for how long it may be held and for what purpose it may be used; and that the person to whom the data relates may inspect it and request its erasure. I am not clear what use the right to rectification, which will be retained, would be without one being able to access the data being held so that one could identify the factual inaccuracies. The Information Commissioner’s Office says that this will mean that,
“the system lacks transparency and is fundamentally unfair”.
The list may appear innocuous because not every paragraph in the articles listed is in play, but what is left are things such as that this right,
“shall not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others”;
the best part of each of the articles listed will no longer apply. This is not a limited or modest modification of the basic safeguards but a wholesale removal.
What is the purpose of this? The purpose is for,
“the maintenance of effective immigration control, or … the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control, to the extent that the … provisions would be likely to prejudice”,
these matters. In other words, this is very far-reaching indeed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 42, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was also debated in Committee. The noble Baroness, her noble friend and other noble Lords raised concerns in Committee about paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 in respect of the broad nature, the wide-ranging exemptions and the application of those exemptions. I see the point about the application of this part of the Bill. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, set out in the Bill those rights which might be restricted by virtue of article 23(1) of the GDPR and so give more focus to this part of the schedule.
I want to see effective immigration controls and also fair immigration controls, but I do not want to see people unable to get access to data held on them or to how that data is being used and shared except in limited circumstances. I hope the Minister can confirm that the government amendments will do this on a case-by-case basis and do not provide a blanket power. These things are very sensitive and are a matter of balancing important principles, protections and rights carefully and coming down with the right protections in place. I think it would be a problem if we were left in a situation where we could disclose to data subjects information that could give them the opportunity to circumvent our immigration controls.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, gave a detailed explanation of the Government’s opposition to the amendment in Committee and highlighted a number of the issues that would come forward. I do not think anyone wants a situation where we are making things worse for ourselves. I recall the examples given of an overstayer where the authorities are seeking to enforce an administrative removal or where there is an application to extend the leave to stay and it is suspected that false information has been given. These seem perfectly reasonable to me. The amendments tabled by the Government provide important clarification on what is exempt, limit the power in the Bill and seek to address the concerns highlighted during the previous debate and today.
Lord Clement-Jones
Before the noble Lord sits down, does he therefore agree with the Government that this is all about the circumvention of immigration controls? Does he not think that essentially, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned, most of the circumstances are about people asserting their rights?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I accept that people want to assert their rights. Of course I do. I also think that we had a very detailed debate in Committee. Points were raised about the broad-brush approach; the Government have responded, and I am happy to support their amendments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, these amendments bring us back to the immigration exemption in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, was debated at some length in Committee. As this is Report, I am not going to repeat all the arguments I made in the earlier debate, not least because noble Lords will have seen my follow-up letter of 23 November, but it is important to reiterate a few key points about the nature of this provision, not least to allay the concerns that have been expressed by noble Lords.
Let me begin by restating the core objective underpinning this provision. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, specifically asked for further clarity on this point. The UK’s ability to maintain an effective system of immigration control and to enforce our immigration laws should not be threatened by the impact of the GDPR. It is therefore entirely appropriate to restrict, on a case-by-case basis, certain rights of a data subject in circumstances where giving effect to those rights would undermine that objective. That is the sole purpose and effect of this provision—nothing more, nothing less.
The GDPR recognises this by enabling member states to place restrictions on the rights of data subjects where it is necessary and proportionate to do so to safeguard,
“important objectives of general public interest”.
The maintenance of effective immigration control is one such objective. This is the basis for the provision in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2.
The noble Baroness referred to article 23 of the GDPR. It does not expressly allow restrictions for the purposes of immigration control. She asked whether the immigration restriction is legal. She pointed to Liberty’s claim that the exemption is unlawful. It is not the case.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister is reading from her brief, but I do not think I made any of the statements it anticipated I would make.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I have been badly advised somewhere. Shall I just get on with what I was going to say?
I made clear in Committee that the exemption is not a blanket provision applying to a whole class of data subjects. It is important to note that Schedule 2 does not create a basis for processing personal data. The exemptions in that schedule operate as a shield allowing data controllers to resist the exercise or application of the data subjects’ rights as set out in chapter III of the GDPR. It is the assertion or application of those rights that triggers the exemptions in Schedule 2. Given this, it is simply not the case that the Home Office, or any other data controller, can invoke the immigration exemption or, for that matter, any other exemption as a default response to subject access requests by a group of persons. Instead, an individual decision must be taken as to whether to apply the exemption in circumstances where a data subject’s rights are engaged.
Moreover, before a right can be restricted, the controller must be satisfied that there would be a likelihood of prejudice to the maintenance of effective immigration control or the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control. Only if that test is satisfied will the controller be able to apply the restriction on the data subject’s rights. I should also stress that this restriction should be seen as a pause button and not something to be applied in perpetuity to the data subject. If circumstances change so that the test is no longer satisfied in a given case, then the restriction will have to be lifted.
Having said that, I recognise the concerns that were expressed in Committee about the breadth of the exemption, and government Amendments 43 and 44, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, respond to those concerns. These amendments remove the right to rectification and the right to data portability from the list of data subjects’ rights that may be restricted. On further examination of the listed GDPR provisions in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2, we have concluded that the risk of any prejudicial impact on our ability to maintain effective immigration control that might arise from the exercise of the rights in articles 16 and 20 of the GDPR is likely to be low.
Having clarified both the purpose of this provision and the way it will operate, and having addressed the concerns about the extent of the exemption, I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw her amendment and support the government amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am obviously disappointed by both those speeches. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that immigration control should be effective and fair, which is precisely what I was driving at. He referred to balance; I quoted article 23(1), which requires necessity and proportionality.
I thank the Minister for her answers and for her response to Liberty. She talked about taking this “case by case”, but is that not how we deal with all our immigration control? We do not apply wholesale visa bans; we are not Trump’s poodle. Data requests are made on a case-by-case, individual basis, but you need to know what data is held in order to make the request.
The Minister referred to a “pause button”. I am afraid that does not, to me, have the air of reality or really offer any assurance in the real world.
Amendment 44 does not respond to our concerns. As I commented, you cannot exercise the right of rectification unless you know what is said about you. I feel we are hardly even talking the same language, although it gives me no pleasure to say that. I think I must seek to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(1A) The GDPR provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (1) are—(a) the following provisions of the GDPR (the rights and obligations in which may be restricted by virtue of Article 23(1) of the GDPR)—(i) Article 13(1) to (3) (personal data collected from data subject: information to be provided);(ii) Article 14(1) to (4) (personal data collected other than from data subject: information to be provided);(iii) Article 15(1) to (3) (confirmation of processing, access to data and safeguards for third country transfers);(iv) Article 17(1) and (2) (right to erasure);(v) Article 18(1) (restriction of processing);(vi) Article 21(1) (objections to processing);(vii) Article 5 (general principles) so far as its provisions correspond to the rights and obligations provided for in the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) to (vi); and(b) the following provisions of the GDPR (the application of which may be adapted by virtue of Article 6(3) of the GDPR)—(i) Article 5(1)(a) (lawful, fair and transparent processing), other than the lawfulness requirements set out in Article 6;(ii) Article 5(1)(b) (purpose limitation).(That is, the listed GDPR provisions other than Article 16 (right to rectification) and Article 20(1) and (2) (right to data portability).)”
“( ) the Prison Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, or” |
Lord Pannick
“Confidential trust information
The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data in respect of which the controller is (or acts as agent or confidential adviser to) a trustee or other officer of a private trust to the extent that the data consists of information—(a) which records any person’s deliberations about the manner of exercise of a power or discretion under that trust, (b) which discloses any person’s reasons for any particular exercise of such power or discretion, or(c) upon which such deliberations or reasons were or might have been based.”
Lord Pannick (CB)
Amendment 48 is in my name and the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. It concerns the law of trusts, and I should mention, as the noble and learned Lord is unlikely to do so, that for many years he was the leading trusts practitioner at the Bar. During his career on the Bench, including in the Appellate Committee of this House, in the Supreme Court and in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, he gave many of the leading judgments that define the modern law of trusts.
I declare a much more modest interest as a practising barrister. I am not a specialist in the law of trusts but, as I explained in Committee, I know that the law has long recognised that a trustee is not obliged to disclose to a beneficiary the trustee’s confidential reasons for exercising or not exercising a discretionary power. The law recognises that if the trustee were to have such a duty of disclosure it would impede the trustee’s ability to perform his or her function, the effective exercise of which depends on confidentiality. The public interest is protected because the court has an inherent jurisdiction to supervise and, where appropriate, to intervene in the administration of trusts.
A recent Court of Appeal judgment, Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing, has prompted a concern of trust practitioners about the applicability of data protection law in this context. I have received powerful representations on this subject from the Trust Law Committee, which is a group of leading academics and practising lawyers. One of its concerns is that in other jurisdictions, such as Jersey, the data protection legislation contains express statutory restrictions on the right of a data subject to make a subject access request where that would intrude on the principle of confidentiality. Those who practise in this area are very concerned that offshore trusts, and offshore professionals providing trust services, are already actively encouraging the transfer of trusts business away from this jurisdiction because of data protection concerns. The irony in this is that data protection law may be driving trust business towards less transparent offshore jurisdictions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, and I, accompanied by other trusts lawyers, had the benefit of a very helpful meeting with the Minister—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—and members of the Bill team. I am extremely grateful to them for the very constructive discussions we had. I very much hope that the Minister, when he replies to this short debate—I hope it will be short—will be able to confirm three matters.
The first is that the Government understand and are sympathetic to the concerns raised by the Trust Law Committee, which I have just summarised. The second matter, which I hope the Minister can confirm, is that the Government’s view is that article 15(4) of the GDPR, which states that the right of access,
“shall not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others”,
applies in this context to protect the confidentiality principle. The third matter, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond, is that if that view is shown to be erroneous in future litigation—I anticipate the Government do not believe this will be the case, but if it were to occur—I hope the Government would consider using the delegated powers conferred by this Bill to enact a specific and express exemption. I recognise, of course, that the Minister will be unable to commit the Government to any future course of action. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively on those three matters. They would go a long way to alleviating the concerns of trusts lawyers. I beg to move.
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (CB)
I have added my name to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Pannick, and I shall say a few words in support of it. I do not want to repeat any of the points my noble friend has made, but I shall say a little bit about the practicalities of the documents that are likely to be the subject of data access requests by a disappointed beneficiary who wants to circumvent by the use of these powers the traditional confidentiality of discussions between trustees, even if put down on paper, which has been established in English law for about 50 years or more.
Discretionary trusts are still very common—surprisingly, in a way, given the increasingly complex inheritance tax provisions that affect them. I am talking about trusts with English law as the proper law and trustees resident in this country, who pay all the income tax, capital gains and inheritance tax that is due from them from time to time. In my experience, trustees of long-term discretionary trusts are often not solicitors or accountants but friends or acquaintances—reliable people trusted by the settlor with important discretions. Solicitors and accountants are, of course, involved, but they get their fees for professional advice. The trustees themselves generally get no remuneration for taking on what are sometimes huge and increasingly worrying responsibilities.
Discretionary trusts commonly confer wide discretions over both the disposition of income and the eventual destination of capital—usually it is a trust over income and powers over capital, but I need not go into those technicalities. Often, there will be a large class of beneficiaries who can be the objects of the exercise of the trustees’ discretion, typically a settlor’s children and remoter issue, very often their spouses or some remoter relatives or friends—named, of course, rather than just left as “friend”—and named employees and retainers. All those beneficiaries are, in a sense, in competition with one another. They do not, of course, seek favours from the trustees, but the fact is that the trustees sometimes have to exercise very difficult decisions on how to spend resources.
It is the duty of the unremunerated trustees to keep themselves fully informed about the beneficiaries. They have to take account of births, deaths, marriages, separations and divorces; of success or failure in education, and in business or professional life; of disability or injury—and sometimes, sadly, of beneficiaries who have become addicted to drink, drugs or gambling. So let us imagine trustees of a discretionary trust who meet once or twice a year to consider how they will distribute income and whether they will distribute capital in the course of that year, or six months. In a sense, all the beneficiaries are in competition, and inevitably the confidential minutes of the trustees’ deliberations will record how the trustees approached those competing demands and how they measured up, as they have to in a sense, the claims of one beneficiary rather than another on the settlor’s bounty. It is a consideration by the trustees collectively of all the competing claims on the settlor’s bounty, yet the data subject, to use the phrase in the Bill, who will in this case typically be a disgruntled and disaffected beneficiary, is entitled to information about the data subject himself or herself alone. That is fundamental to how the provisions work, which is underlined by paragraph 14 in Part 3 of Schedule 2, which relieves the data controller, who in this case will be the solicitor or accountant who keeps the trust records,
“to the extent that doing so would involve disclosing information relating to another individual who can be identified from the information”.
If one looks at the practicalities, the likelihood is that those confidential minutes would have to be so savagely redacted with the censor’s blue pencil as to be barely comprehensible—certainly, not giving any sort of true picture of how the trustees had operated. Redaction would be troublesome and oppressive to the trustees, but even more oppressive—and I come back to the central point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—is the fact that the trustees, who are typically unremunerated and doing their best to do what is sometimes a very difficult job, would be compelled to disclose what was not redacted to the disaffected beneficiary: the data subject. For those reasons, which I have briefly given, and all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I support the amendment.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, for taking the time to meet me and officials to explain in detail the concerns following the debate in Committee. The question about the interaction of the fundamental principles of trust law and the GDPR is a valid one that we understand, and which deserves a response.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister conveyed that it is not our intention to compel trustees to disclose the kind of information described in the noble Lord’s amendment. The Government both understand and are sympathetic to the noble Lord’s concerns in this respect.
Article 15 of the GDPR confers a general right for a data subject to seek access to personal data held by a controller, but there are a number of exemptions, set out directly in both article 15 and in Schedule 2 to the Bill. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, seeks to add an additional exemption to Schedule 2 to preserve the confidentiality of trustees’ decision-making and to minimise the risk of disagreement between beneficiaries and trustees, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, referred. The Government’s position remains that article 15(4) of the GDPR already prevents the disclosure of the material the noble Lord’s amendment is concerned with. This is because the Government consider that the,
“rights and freedoms of others”,
referred to in article 15(4) includes the rights of both trustees and other beneficiaries. Where disclosure under data protection law would reveal information about a trustee’s deliberations or reasons for their decisions that would otherwise be protected from disclosure under trust law, the Government’s view is that disclosure would adversely affect the rights and freedoms of trustees and beneficiaries in the trustees’ ability to make independent decisions in the best interests of the trust without fear of disagreement with beneficiaries.
While I appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns, rushing to codify what in trust law is generally referred to as the Londonderry principle would, we consider, be a disproportionate step. The wider potential risks and unintended consequences involved mean that pre-emptive action in this area, far from clarifying the position, might actually confuse it. Should the law be tested after Royal Assent and found wanting—which, I stress, the Government do not expect to happen—the delegated power in Clause 15(1) allows the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to correct this. By that point it will be much clearer what deficiency, if any, has in fact been identified in the law and we would expect a Government to consider those powers in such circumstances. I hope that is a full and adequate response to the three points the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made. In those circumstances, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the Minister. He has responded positively to each of the points that I made. I know that the House is anxious to move on to reaffirming freedom of speech. Therefore, I will say no more other than to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Keen of Elie
“(2) Sub-paragraph (2A) applies to the processing of personal data carried out for the special purposes if—(a) the processing is being carried out with a view to the publication by a person of journalistic, academic, artistic or literary material, and(b) the controller reasonably believes that the publication of the material would be in the public interest.(2A) The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to the extent that the controller reasonably believes that the application of those provisions would be incompatible with the special purposes.”
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, exactly a month ago, we had an interesting debate concerning a range of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Black. It was a surprisingly consensual debate, and I am rather hoping for more of the same this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, agreed that there were serious issues raised that needed to be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, agreed that the Bill needed amending to ensure that it did not undermine the work of investigative journalists. The Government have listened, as we have on so many issues raised by noble Lords, and we have tabled appropriate amendments.
Government Amendment 50 deals with the issue raised by my noble friend that the Bill applies the exemptions only where processing is for the special purposes. We heard the persuasive example of the media being penalised if, for example, the police sought the pre-broadcast disclosure of journalistic material in relation to an undercover investigation because they wanted to see whether the alleged wrongdoing uncovered by the broadcaster’s investigation merited further police investigation. We agree that it is unfair and our amendment puts this right.
Government Amendment 57 concerns the list of journalistic codes of practice that appears in paragraph 24 of Schedule 2, which is also the focus of a number of amendments tabled by noble Lords, from whom I am sure we will hear in due course. In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Stevenson and Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, all highlighted that the editors’ code is incorrectly described in the Bill as the IPSO editors’ code. Having looked at this further, we concede the point and the Government’s amendment removes the reference to IPSO. The legal effect of this is nil but we should use the correct label. We are grateful to noble Lords for bringing this fault to our attention.
Government Amendment 61 is a further concession to deal with further concerns raised by noble Lords. Article 36 of the GDPR would have required investigative journalists to consult with the ICO before instigating covert filming, such as when investigating allegations of abuse against vulnerable residents at a care home. Article 44 of the GDPR might disproportionately impact on collaborative investigative journalism, including the sharing of data across borders where appropriate, such as with, for example, the Panama papers. The government amendment allows journalists to be exempted from these restrictions where the public interest test is otherwise met.
Government Amendments 150, 156 and 161, as well as a number of consequential amendments, create journalistic defences to the offences in Clauses 161 and 162 in respect of unlawfully obtaining personal data or unlawfully reidentifying de-identified data. We accept the arguments of my noble friend Lord Black that what processing is permitted for the special purposes under Schedule 2 should not be criminalised later in the Bill. These amendments remove any doubt on this matter. We wish to ensure that we do not criminalise journalistic or whistleblowing activities that are believed to be in the public interest.
Government Amendment 162 removes paragraph (c) from Clause 164(3). This measure allowed the Information Commissioner to determine prepublication whether processing could be done without reliance on the special purpose provisions. Many noble Lords felt this was a power to allow the commissioner to overreach and interfere in journalistic decisions. I am grateful for the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, together with that of my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who took the time to come and see me about this provision and further explain its dangers. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, set out similarly powerful arguments in Committee. Following further discussions with stakeholders and the commissioner, the Government have concluded that giving the commissioner power to take such enforcement action in relation to data being processed for the special purposes before the journalist or author publishes their work goes beyond what we consider is the appropriate role of the commissioner as the regulator and enforcer of the data protection legislation. With Amendment 162, the circumstances in which enforcement action would be available to the commissioner in relation to the special purposes would be limited to that of the existing position under the 1998 Act.
I will respond in full on the other amendments in this group once noble Lords have explained their intent. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendments 50 or 50A are agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 51 or 52 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, the government amendment is excellent and I support it. However, it does not go far enough. I have therefore introduced a manuscript amendment.
My Amendment 50A would simply add two further provisions—my Amendments 51 and 52—into government Amendment 50, and would do no more than what Lord Justice Leveson recommended: to rebalance data protection law and prevent speculative trawling for stories. Operation Motorman was a police investigation in 2003, which I have mentioned before in debate, and it found that private data was being stolen on behalf of newspapers. That information, taken from private, medical, police, local authority, bank and many other confidential records, was used for stories or to hack phones. Those findings were considered by Leveson, who also reviewed the submissions of media organisations, and he was able to cut through some of the rhetoric—the kind of rhetoric that we have seen splashed across several newspapers today. He found that data protection law was fundamentally imbalanced in favour of publications at the expense of the public. That is not right. Just as the Human Rights Act strikes a balance between Article 10 speech rights and Article 8 privacy rights, so the GDPR obliges us to strike the same balance on data protection. This is not just following our own precedent; it is the right thing to do and is a legal requirement.
This amendment would implement some of Leveson’s recommendations. First, it would change the test for the exemption to apply to ensuring that the data processing in breach of the individual’s rights was necessary for future or continuing publication rather than undertaken just with a view to publication, as in the DPA and currently in the Bill. This is Leveson recommendation 48A and would protect the public from fishing operations when journalists process data without any specific intention to publish. Let me be clear: the data itself would not have to be published but the processing would need to have been done with an intention to publish—that is all. Secondly, this amendment would ensure that the exemption should be available only where the likely interference with privacy resulting from the processing of the data is outweighed by the public interest in publication. This properly strikes the balance between privacy and freedom of expression—this is Leveson recommendation 48C—and this balance is specified in the GDPR.
These amendments are the product of representations from all sides at the Leveson inquiry which sought a compromise—a way to protect the free-expression rights of publishers and to ensure that the public are protected. I thank the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Stevenson, who have supported this amendment, and I also acknowledge assistance from a number of sources including the victim-representative organisation Hacked Off. I hope the House will support these reforms to bring balance to data protection law.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, in this group of amendments I support government Amendment 50 and oppose, therefore, the plainly incompatible manuscript amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, just spoke. Its incompatibility is surely obvious. First, and perhaps most critically, in proposed new sub-paragraph (2)(a) it would substitute the words,
“necessary for the future or continuing publication”,
for the Minister’s words,
“being carried out with a view to the publication”.
There would be two important consequences of that. First, as the noble Baroness said, it would involve establishing the necessity of processing, plainly a steeper and more exacting test to be satisfied than the test of processing “with a view to” publication. I respectfully suggest that necessity is too high a hurdle to demand with regard to processing data in these most important areas of our life—journalism, academe, art and literature. Linked to that, the proposed change would seriously inhibit prepublication preparatory work, most obviously and particularly work of investigation and research with a view to publication but which may in the end never result in publication.
As the noble Baroness also rightly told your Lordships, the second change from the Minister’s draft is the proposed addition by her of new sub-paragraph (2)(c), which again is designed to stand as a possible obstacle to the journalistic processing of data. Essentially, I am sure it will be accepted that Amendment 50A attempts to tip the balance rather against journalists and others who are seeking to invoke these exemptions. They tend to introduce a presumption in favour of privilege whereas I suggest it ought properly to be a presumption in favour of freedom of speech.
I would respectfully remind the House of Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is headed “Freedom of expression”. It basically forbids any restraint on pretrial publication unless the court or tribunal,
“is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed”;
and it requires that particular regard be had to the importance of the convention right to freedom of expression and, so far as journalistic, literary or artistic material is concerned, regard also to the extent to which publication would be in the public interest.
I respectfully urge the Minister to stick with his draft, brought before us in the shape of Amendment 50.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a series producer at ITN Productions. I thank the Minister for responding so positively to the concerns expressed by myself and other noble Lords from across the House in Committee who were worried about the effect that Clause 164(3)(c) would have on free speech. I am therefore grateful to him for bringing forward government Amendment 162, and I also support government Amendment 50.
I have concerns about my noble friend’s Amendment 50A. It replaces the phrase,
“with a view to the publication”,
with the term “necessary”—which, I fear, would cause huge problems for journalists, authors and academics. The present wording in the Bill allows them to take the view that material can, and indeed should, be appropriately retained, even if it is not for publication. This could be necessary to respond to any possible legal or editorial complaints which might arise from the publication of a programme or article. Surely noble Lords would want these complaints or legal actions to be responded to as fully and accurately as possible. The ability to defend a publication surely supports the act of publication itself. This amendment would not allow data to be retained for those purposes.
I am also concerned that data collected which might not be used in the original publication could be crucial in supporting subsequent stories on the subject. In Committee I referred to the investigation by the Sunday Times of drugs cheating by the cyclist Lance Armstrong. Initially, Mr Armstrong sued the paper for defamation. But, despite settling, the newspaper persevered in its investigations, which ultimately led to Mr Armstrong confessing that he was indeed a drugs cheat.
Keeping hold of data in many investigations can be crucial, even if it is not necessarily obvious at the time whether it should be so. The Hillsborough inquiry and subsequent stories over 20 years relied heavily on unbroadcast BBC footage from the Hillsborough football stadium at the time of the tragedy. It provided vital information for subsequent inquiries and inquests. Surely noble Lords would not want that sort of material, which might seem unimportant at the time, to be deleted. I therefore ask the Minister to stick to his guns and reject Amendment 50A.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, we had rather strong debates in Committee and I am not going to repeat any part of those. I have thought about how I could best help the House at this stage, and I think it is by stating what I believe the law to be and why Amendment 50A, if carried, would put the Bill in breach of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
When the Bill was first introduced, the Minister certified, as is required under the Human Rights Act, that in his view it was compatible with the convention rights; those being the right to free speech, the right to personal privacy and the right to equal treatment without discrimination. The amendments that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has introduced in this group would pursue the convention rights and, if carried, as I hope they will be, make sure that the Bill continues to be compatible with the convention rights.
In the light of the speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, it would be quite unnecessary and wrong for me to go through the relevant law in any detail. But perhaps I can help the House a bit by giving a very brief summary of why I consider the government amendment compatible, and the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, or those supporting Hacked Off and all the rest, incompatible.
The position is this. Article 10 of the convention protects the right to free speech and freedom of the press, subject to necessary and appropriate exceptions. One exception is, of course, personal privacy, which is guaranteed by Article 8 of the convention. The test the convention uses, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, is a pressing social need test. The starting point is free expression and any restriction or limitation on that right must be in accordance with legal certainty and must be proportionate. The Human Rights Act requires that all legislation, old and new, including this Bill, must be compatible with the convention rights. It also requires courts to read and give effect to the convention compatibly with those rights.
Together with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I edited a textbook, the third edition of which we published in 2009. It has a whole chapter on free speech and another on privacy. What I am trying to summarise now, we spelled out in that large textbook some years ago. I am trying to help the House by giving a legal opinion on what I consider the law to be. I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will correct me if I have got it wrong in any respect, because the House needs to know that if it were to support Amendment 50A, it would, in my view and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, put the Bill in breach of the convention and the Human Rights Act. The Minister could then no longer certify that it was compatible with the convention rights.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-author with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, of Human Rights Law and Practice, available in all good bookshops. I declare an interest also as a practising barrister. I have represented newspaper groups many times in relation to privacy and freedom of speech issues, but I have also represented individuals complaining about breaches of their privacy—individuals as diverse as Max Mosley and Her Majesty the Queen. Noble Lords may remember that the contents of Her Majesty the Queen’s breakfast tray were disclosed in the Daily Mirror by a footman who was, in truth, a foot-in-the-door man from that paper. I speak, therefore, from legal experience.
I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and my noble friend Lord Colville. We should be very slow indeed to limit the scope of the exemptions for journalists and in relation to academic, artistic and literary material. Without these exemptions, as defined in government Amendment 50, journalists cannot do their job effectively: you cannot investigate child sex abuse in Rotherham, corruption in Tower Hamlets or any of the other examples that have been given if those you are investigating are entitled to see the data you are processing that relates to them. Such data may not be “necessary” but it may be material that needs to be retained and published. It is as serious as that.
These are not theoretical concerns. Earlier this year, Mr Justice Popplewell dismissed a claim by James Stunt, a businessman who was married to one of Bernie Ecclestone’s daughters. Mr Stunt complained about a number of articles in the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, claiming rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. The judge dismissed the claim, stating in paragraph 56 of the judgment that journalism would be discouraged or impeded,
“if the subject had access to the detailed extent or direction of the investigation, of the information gathered or of the intended story”.
That is right. In my view, government Amendment 50 adopts the right approach with its focus on the reasonable belief—not any belief, but the reasonable belief—of the data controller that publication is in the public interest.
It gives me no pleasure to say that many of the amendments in this and the next group are not concerned with promoting the ability of journalists and others to carry out their essential functions under Article 10 in relation to freedom of speech and freedom of information. They pursue a different agenda: either to encourage newspaper groups to join Impress as their regulator or to punish the press for the wrongdoing of some of its members. I say to noble Lords that that should not be the concern of this Bill, which should focus on protecting freedom of information in relation to data.
I cannot agree with manuscript Amendment 50A. It would provide a field day for those seeking to impede academic work, artistic and literary expression, and journalism that they do not welcome. It would inevitably create a chilling effect on work in academia, the arts, literature and journalism. I simply do not understand how a necessity test would work. When the journalist, the academic or the artistic or literary individual is conducting the processing, they cannot know whether it is necessary for future publication—they may reasonably believe that it will be or that it may be, and that is enough. Manuscript Amendment 50A, if accepted, would seriously damage freedom of expression in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, it would be a blatant breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Prescott (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot give this House a legal opinion but I can give an opinion based on experience. I declare an interest: I attended the Leveson inquiry because I was on the end of illegal tapping of my phone. Public interest was not defined there; it was defined by the editors of the papers. They said it was not illegal, but clearly it was.
I support what the noble Baroness has said tonight. She is absolutely right and I am glad that there is a lot of support for her amendment. However, I am concerned that it addresses only a small part of what Leveson recommended. He made recommendations about public interest—it is an important issue and I welcome the amendment—but even though we all voted unanimously for the royal charter and the proposals of Leveson, we keep hiding away from debating his main recommendations. He made 37 recommendations and only 12 have been implemented. We have taken a small step forward but to have a serious debate about public interest you have to cover all the things that Leveson recommended—and we do not do that. We have to ride on the back of a single piece of legislation, and the answer always comes that it is not realistic to put such a proposal in the legislation. I am glad that tonight there has at least been agreement—presumably by both sides, for whatever political reason—that we have to move to do something about the important issue of public interest.
I will not go on about that. I have a couple of questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer. I wonder whether we are taking into account here the hacking actions that are going on at present in the courts. The Government have always said that they will wait until the courts have finished, but hacking actions are continuing. Statements have been made in court that hacking is still going on, involving and paid for by some members of the press.
The royal charter involves the monarchy in politics. It is where the divisions are and why I resigned as a privy counsellor. I thought it was designed to keep the monarchy out of it, but now it is right in the middle of it as we get more and more into whether we are for or against the Leveson proposals. Is it still the Government’s policy that they will wait until all the court trials have finished before they give their view of the many recommendations in Leveson? Is it the position that the Government do not want to accept Leveson’s recommendation for a second inquiry into the relationship between the police and the press, which is still at the heart of many of these problems at the present stage?
To show that I am intellectual, I read in the Times—which is not a paper I support—an editorial headed “Free Speech in Peril”, which covers the very things we are discussing at the moment. It states:
“A number of peers have seized on a chance to curb press freedom by meddling with new data protection legislation. They should desist”.
I hope that tonight we will not desist but will carry it through.
The charge levelled in the Times—that this is an attack on press freedom—is signed by 70 newspaper editors. In fact, that means it is signed by seven owners of different papers. Seven cabal owners decide to describe Leveson as a big attack on press freedom, so why is it that the same papers that object to interference, in regulatory form or by government, all sign up for press regulation in Ireland? Every one of the papers we are talking about, which tell us that we are threatening freedom, have now signed up recently. I do not know whether they are less democratic or whether their freedom is threatened in Ireland, but they are the same people. It is hypocrisy.
Have the Government looked at what they have done in Ireland? A Minister is in charge in Ireland, not an independent regulator as proposed by Leveson. In Ireland a government Minister—a direct political person—decides whether the press is acting in a responsible way and, presumably, in the public interest.
The amendment is a small step forward and there is a long way to go yet, without a doubt. I hope that we will give more consideration to those factors. Basically, there is a lot more to be done. I am thankful that the Government, as I have heard, are supporting the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It is a small step but there is a lot more to be done. These threats to press freedom are not coming from the politicians but from the press—and it is about time we took account of that.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, as these amendments deal with the media, I declare my interest as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group and draw attention to my other media interests in the register.
I will say a brief word first about Amendment 50 and the other government amendments in this group. These amendments seek to deal with a number of the problems raised in Committee by noble Lords across the House, as my noble friend said. I have a number of times during the course of the Bill commended the Government for their commitment to consultation on all the issues impacting on media freedom and for their willingness to discuss them with interested parties. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he has approached these issues and I strongly support the amendments.
Manuscript Amendment 50A, like Amendments 51 and 52—especially in combination with later amendments with which we will deal in due course—point, I fear, in absolutely the other direction. The issue surrounding them has been eloquently and cogently set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Pannick. I could not improve on what they have said in any way, shape or form. Those amendments would, in short, cripple investigative journalism for all the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, set out.
Above all, they would create a deeply repressive data protection regime for all those involved in journalistic, academic, literary and artistic activities. It is not only journalists on national newspapers, who are so clearly targeted by these amendments, who would be punished but the local press, broadcasters, academics, film producers, playwrights, book producers and many others. As they all use data regularly in the course of their activities, it would make their day-to-day work almost impossible. This House, which contains so many people drawn from academia, the arts and the world of literature—I see many around me here today—has always prided itself on championing the UK’s creative industries. How ironic that we should even be debating these repressive amendments, which would be a body blow to the entire sector. They would place all those who work in it—many tens of thousands of people—at a huge disadvantage compared with their colleagues and competitors in the rest of Europe and elsewhere in the world.
On the amendments concerning the designation of codes by which the media should reference the public interest in publication, Amendments 54 and 56 seek to downplay the role of the Ofcom code, BBC guidelines and the Editors’ Code of Practice, all of which the 1998 Act sought to safeguard, and Amendment 55 would sweep them out completely. Amendment 55 seeks to give a statutory regulator, the Information Commissioner, power to determine codes of practice and guidance for the purposes of operating the journalistic exemptions and applying the public interest criteria within the Bill. This, again, is a significant departure from the terms of the 1998 Act, which has worked so well.
The Information Commissioner could choose not to determine particular codes even though they are recognised by the courts and elsewhere in legislation. She could even draw up and determine her own codes and guidance, without any reference to the long-established regulators of the broadcasters and the press, which would then have legal status. Even to a non-lawyer such as me, codes and guidance with legal status determined, drawn-up and administered by a statutory regulator is a system of statutory press regulation in the making—to which the vast majority of Members of this House say they are opposed—and is therefore a dangerous step which we should not take.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, I shall speak in support of Amendment 58, which is in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord McNally, and myself.
The Bill contains an exemption for publication which is for journalistic, academic, artistic and literary purposes and is in the public interest. In determining whether publication is in the public interest, regard must be had to,
“any of the codes of practice or guidelines listed in sub-paragraph (5)”,
of paragraph 24, which is in Part 5 of Schedule 2. The codes of practice listed in sub-paragraph (5) are the,
“BBC Editorial Guidelines; … Ofcom Broadcasting Code; … IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice”.
The purpose of Amendment 58 is to add to that finite list a further, open-ended category of codes to cater for any other relevant code of practice approved by the Press Recognition Panel. The immediate effect of the amendment would be to add the Impress standards code to the list of journalism standards codes recognised in the Bill, because so far it is the only one which has been approved by the Press Recognition Panel.
The Bill rightly recognises that journalists may sometimes have occasion to process and publish people’s personal data. On the rare occasions when a journalist has occasion to breach someone’s data privacy, the Bill requires them to show a reasonable belief that doing so was in the public interest. The Bill itself does not include a public interest test. Instead, it refers to three codes which do: the BBC Editorial Guidelines, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code and the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice. Our amendment would add a fourth code, or rather a class of codes, to the list:
“any code which is adopted by an approved regulator as defined by … the Crime and Courts Act 2013”.
This modest amendment would bring the Bill closer to the recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson following his inquiry into press standards and press regulation. It would also reflect the changing nature of news publication in this digital age. An approved regulator as defined in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is a regulator that is compliant with the Leveson recommendations as distilled in the royal charter on self-regulation of the press. The royal charter requires an approved regulator to have an independent board, to have effective powers and remedies, to provide a low-cost arbitration scheme for civil disputes and to take responsibility for a standards code. According to the charter, the standards code of an approved regulator,
“must take into account the importance of freedom of speech, the interests of the public … and the rights of individuals”.
In particular, it must include appropriate “respect for privacy” where there is no sufficient public interest justification for breach.
The charter also states that a regulator can be approved only if it provides,
“non-binding guidance on the interpretation of the public interest that justifies what would otherwise constitute a breach of the standards code”.
In other words, a regulator can be approved only if its code properly balances the interests of freedom of speech with appropriate respect for privacy and if it provides guidance on what this means in practice. In order to be listed, an approved regulator must not just be likely to have the right kind of code; it must be guaranteed to do so.
At present, the only approved press regulator is Impress, the Independent Monitor for the Press, which was recognised by the Press Regulation Panel in October 2016 after a nine-month application process. The decision of the Press Recognition Panel to approve Impress has recently been upheld by the High Court, which dismissed an application for judicial review brought by the News Media Association on all six counts. In due course, other regulators may be recognised.
The system we envisage is not exclusive and more than one regulator at a time may enjoy approved status. In this way, Amendment 58 allows for changes in the regulatory landscape. So long as a regulator has successfully completed the rigorous approval process, its standards code would be included; if a regulator withdraws from the recognition system or loses its approved status, its code would no longer be included.
Impress now regulates 78 news publications across the UK that reach almost 7 million readers every month. A further 36 publishers have applied to join. Without this amendment, these publications would not enjoy the same protections as members of IPSO, which does not meet the Leveson criteria and is not externally accountable. In these circumstances, for the Bill not to contain a framework that covers Impress and other Press Recognition Panel-approved publishers beyond the three codes currently listed would be perverse.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for giving way. I rise to answer the question that he put to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on what he thought of the amendment. Speaking for myself, I cannot think of any objection to including the Impress code as well as the IPSO code. In my speech, I did not say anything about the IPSO code because I thought it was inappropriate in this debate. I have a detailed brief about that from Sir Alan Moses but I will not talk about it any more because this is not a competition between IPSO and Impress.
Lord Low of Dalston
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention, which I think supports my contention that there is nothing in the inclusion of the Impress code that strikes at the heart of press freedom.
As I was saying in concluding my remarks, it would be perverse if the Bill did not include a code such as that of Impress but one of an organisation that is not approved by the Press Recognition Panel and does not meet Leveson criteria, such as IPSO. I hope that the Government and the Minister accept that, but at the very least I hope that the Minister will be prepared to assure the House that the Government are not opposed to the Impress standards code being listed in the Bill.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I follow what the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, which is of considerable importance. In doing so, I address Amendment 55, which has not yet been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I have both an observation and suggestion to make and I would be very grateful if he could let me have his views on them.
I suggest to your Lordships that Amendment 55, as it stands, goes too far, in that it gives great power to the commissioner, who is in no way subject to parliamentary control. Given the nature of the powers to determine appropriate guidance and practice, that is undesirable, on the face of it. That said, I have considerable sympathy for the proposition that the commissioner should be involved in the formulation of policy and in identifying amendments to the list. One way to address that is as follows: under subsection (6) of the clause we are dealing with, the Secretary of State has a power to make regulations that amend the list, which is itself subject to affirmative procedure. If we were minded to do so, we could make it explicit that the power exercised by the Secretary of State under subsection (6) should be used after representations made to him or her by the commissioner, and furthermore that, in any event and at all times, the power to amend the regulation should be used after consultation with the commissioner. If we went down this road, it would enable the commissioner to play a proactive role in shaping a very important list; in any event, it would involve the commissioner in the policy-making process.
Lord Keen of Elie
It may have gone unnoticed in Committee, because we considered no fewer than 432 amendments, but I say this in the context of Amendment 55—to be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—and in the light of observations made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham: the then Amendment 181 amended Clause 169 to ensure that when regulations are made to amend the list of codes of practice, the Secretary of State must consult the Information Commissioner.
Viscount Hailsham
That is extremely helpful and I am grateful to hear it, but I do not think that it says that the commissioner can be proactive in the regulation. The point made by my noble and learned friend is that the Secretary of State must involve the commissioner in discussions but it does not make it explicit that the commissioner can be proactive by making suggestions to the amendment of the list. My suggestions are twofold and I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would share his thoughts on the matter.
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to briefly bring us back to Amendment 50A of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I declare an interest; I have been a journalist for about 15 years and have won several prizes for investigative journalism. One of my campaigns, which exposed miscarriages of justice, led to the Blair Government changing the law in 2009. Looking back on that case—and the Rochdale and Rotherham sexual harassment and grooming cases, which I was involved in as part of the investigative team at the Times—I feel that the use of “necessary”, which the noble Baroness is suggesting, is fraught with more difficulty than it may appear.
It is perhaps difficult to understand quite how difficult it is for journalists to do some of the deep, preparatory investigative work that results in some of these exposés. The vested interests arranged against the exposure of some of these cases are phenomenal; the legal remedies available are quite significant. Indeed, I think someone mentioned earlier that, only two years ago, the Sunday Times was faced with the threat of an injunction and civil proceedings for the publication of what turned out to be completely accurate information about doping among gold-medal athletes. That paper was protected under the Data Protection Act 1998, but the cases were brought under that Act. It is important to remember that journalists do not have the entirely free hand that we perhaps imagine.
I find myself standing in this Chamber, which has historically been a bastion of freedom, and looking at a series of largely well-meaning amendments that would amount to a shift towards presumption of privacy, which would protect precisely the kind of vested interests that I have spent part of my career challenging. I come back to the point about necessity: as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested earlier, it is extremely difficult to understand, as a journalist, how this would work in practice. The definition of what is necessary seems extremely difficult. I foresee that that would be a gift to those who have an interest in preventing the investigation and publication of their activities—some of whom would be perfectly innocent and some of whom would be precisely the kind of people that this House would want to expose, I hope—because it would enable them to debate the definition of necessity and to delay investigation, potentially stopping it altogether. Delay is an enormously powerful weapon—do not underestimate it—when people are up against newspapers; do not forget about local newspapers, which sometimes have extremely limited resources.
I am deeply worried about the wording of the amendment; I would prefer the House to support Amendment 50.
Lord McNally (LD)
We need to get to the Front Benches soon. I am sorry but I think the Times newspaper has had quite a good run tonight.
Lord McNally
We have heard from journalists, we have heard from lawyers—come on.
Before we hear from the Front Benches, I want to say that it would be perfectly good to have this debate and listen to all these distinguished speakers if we were looking at a few tweaks to the 1998 Act, which otherwise had run perfectly smoothly, and if in the 20 years since then we had seen nothing to perturb us about how the law was working. The truth is that we are operating against the background of Lord Leveson’s report. I have the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as all three of them know, but I also have the greatest respect for Lord Leveson. I saw him week after week in one of the most public examinations of how the law was working that we have ever seen in this country. It revealed abuse on an industrial scale by many of the people who have spoken about their profession tonight.
Viscount Hailsham
Does the noble Lord accept that the amendment he supports will tilt the argument against free speech and chill the ability of the press to publish?
Lord McNally
No. The amendment I have put forward is exactly the finding of Leveson—that what was wrong in the 1998 Act was an imbalance the wrong way. That is what Leveson found and suggested that Parliament put right. There may be many other ways of putting it right, but to say that what Leveson did was somehow to be totally ignored ignores not only Leveson itself but the findings and support of both Houses of Parliament. Since Leveson and the setting up of the royal charter—I was the Minister involved with that—nobody could have tried more than that set of Ministers to find a solution that was as far away from state regulation as we could possibly find.
Lord Low of Dalston
The noble Lord said that Leveson found that the press had abused its position and looked to Parliament to put it right. Would the noble Lord not agree that Parliament has put it right with Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, but that the Government have not given effect to that provision?
Lord McNally
I am grateful for that accurate intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asks from a sedentary position what the answer is. The noble Lord, Lord Low, is right: the Government have not gone ahead with Section 40. The Government have sat on their hands.
All I will say in conclusion is that the media can roll out all their lawyers and journalists, and they can write their editorials suggesting that we are attacking press freedom: they know it is rubbish and not true. Unless the Government deal with the real hurt, problem and exposed faults of the media, this will continue. A sensible, smart Government—one advised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—would deal with these problems now rather than let it drag on into 2018, as it will. We will vote for the amendment.
Lord Finkelstein
I hope the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will forgive me, but I feel his comments require response. I recall at a university meeting when we had to discuss rules for debate, one student started a speech with, “I’m a liberal, but I’m against free speech”. I notice we have a very large turnout of both small “l” and big “L” liberals in the House, which usually suggests we are about to ban something. I am very sorry to be on the other side from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who has been my inspiration and mentor for many years, but I have to disagree with him on this.
First, the proponents of these various amendments argue that these changes are not an attack on free speech but, in practice, they are. They tilt the balance against investigative journalism, scrutiny of the powerful and legitimate inquiry. The high bar introduced of necessity would have a chilling effect for anyone who has worked on practical investigations. What will happen is not so much that the law will be used, but that it will never be used because investigations will not take place.
Secondly, the proponents say that this is not about state regulation of the media, but it is. It will be done in two ways. The Information Commissioner will end up with so much power that he or she will become a press regulator whether or not he or she wishes to. That would be the impact of Amendment 55. At the same time, newspapers will be pulled against their will into Impress, which has been the burden of several remarks in this debate. That is also an aim of Amendment 55. It is simply nonsense to say that all that is being sought is voluntary self-regulation when the failure to volunteer or regulate in a state-approved way and be licensed by a state body is backed up by repeated attempts to penalise and punish, as these amendments would do.
Thirdly, the proponents say that all we will be doing is controlling behaviour, not content. I am afraid that this is wilfully naive. Impress has been named as a regulator. That choice by the panel is instructive. The behaviour of the staff and board of Impress, the body the panel has approved, shows quite clearly the agenda being followed. Its chief executive has been sharing views such as:
“John Lewis is bringing its name into disrepute by advertising in a Neo-Fascist rag”,
and:
“I do like @StopFundingHate’s campaign to defund racist media”.
This means it cannot claim to be the independent regulator the noble Lord, Lord Low, talked about. This is apparently acceptable as charter-approved behaviour, yet some noble Lords are critical that national newspapers are suspicious of the charter and fear Impress.
My fourth point is very important because the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said this in Committee. I respected it and listened to it. He said that newspapers have “got away with it”. This is not the case. People went to jail, newspapers closed and the regulatory system changed utterly. Those of us working in the industry all know and agree that there has to be change. Anyone who thinks that there has not been has not read a newspaper or been in a newspaper office since the scandal broke. I respect and understand the pressure for change, but you have to take “yes” for an answer.
Finally, there is a suggestion that the public are crying out for further regulation and more inquiries. People who advance this argument must have been in different constituencies from me. The attempt to hijack Bills to bully the press into compliance is a diversion from the public interest and there is no public pressure for it. Of course, it is right to insist on high standards of behaviour, but to introduce amendments designed to help powerful people keep secrets and to make free publication harder is an odd position for liberals. All I ask is that we do not remove protections in Britain enjoyed by Europeans. Normally, this rallying cry is very effective in this House. Let us hope that it is today.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I had better deal with Amendment 55, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy. I am loath to do so at any length, so I simply say that it will be answered by the Minister when he responds. He has partially given me the answer and it would be wrong for me to anticipate the rest of it. I reassure him that I do not intend to press that amendment.
This debate is not about free speech; it is the latest exchange in a long-running debate on how in a democratic society we enshrine the press’s freedom to publish as it sees fit, root out the culture of abuse, illegality and criminality which has for too long involved all the newspapers at some point or other, and make sure that victims can get effective redress when such abuse happens. We should not lose sight of those cardinal aims.
If the House believes that everything in the garden is rosy, as the previous speaker tried to persuade us, we can of course do nothing and simply allow the Data Protection Bill to go forward as amended. I agree that the Minister has moved a long way and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Black, that we could now rely on the processes and procedures that have worked so well since 1998—for nearly 20 years. They could be allowed to continue, because they are tried and trusted and seem to do most of what we require.
But it is not like that. One could not listen to my noble friend Lord Prescott and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for any length of time without feeling that there is still a canker. Something needs to be cut out of what we currently do and we are failing as a House if we do not do what we must to get this right. We have a lot of problems. We had a cross-party agreement; that has gone. We have let down the victims grievously time and again. We are unable to discuss this without accusations of a ridiculous nature being thrown at us about our intentions and processes. We need to do this properly; we need to do it coolly and with some consideration. We need evidence of the changes that are affecting the press. Is it true that the traditional press as we know it is going down the tube? Is it true that fake news, other news sources and the other things that our children are reading and reporting to us will destroy our understanding in a democratic society of what it is to be informed about the way things are done? Will we lose the extremely good points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, who said that she was an investigative journalist and proud of her record, which is exemplary? We want that to continue, but we do not want people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to suffer as a result of it. We have to be mature about this; we have to get it right.
I have an amendment, Amendment 165, to be taken on Wednesday 10 January—buy your tickets now—which will rehash a lot of our discussion today. It is focused on running a proper inquiry into what needs to happen now to deal maturely with the issues which the press does not wish to be regulated. It tries to find a way forward, to investigate the illegality of the past and learn lessons from it. Above all, it seeks to get a handle on this whole issue and come forward with a proper set of recommendations that we can implement. I hope that the House will look at that carefully when we come to it. In the interim, my advice to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, whom I admire for the fantastic work she is doing and I want to be with her on it, is to withdraw her amendment now and live to fight another day on 10 January.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has reminded us a number of times in this House of the need for suitable press regulation, and she has some interesting arguments. I am grateful for the time she took earlier this week to meet me and explain her perspective and concerns. However, the position remains that the Government cannot accept her Amendment 50A. The Government support objective, high-quality journalism and a free press. We are committed to ensuring there is a sustainable, effective business model for high-quality media. Of course, we also need a fair system and this Bill is designed to strike a fair balance between individual privacy rights and the right to freedom of expression. The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, have just alluded to the requirement in law for us to maintain that balance. I do not seek to repeat that, but I gladly adopt the observations they made about the need for balance in the context of convention rights with regard to privacy and freedom of expression.
Lord Elton (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Low, in an intervention on the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to a provision, the name of which I do not recall. They both agreed that that, if implemented by the Government, would resolve the problem. Can the Minister say what the position is on that?
Lord Keen of Elie
It would not necessarily resolve any problem. As noble Lords may be aware, we have consulted on the question of Section 40 and the second part of the Leveson inquiry and there will in due course be a report upon that consultation. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has assisted my lip-reading by saying “soon”. He may be aware that a letter was recently sent by the Secretary of State to the Committee with regard to the timing of that report. If not, I can bring that news to him. Sir Brian Leveson himself has indicated that he would like the opportunity to consider the responses to the consultation and that will take a little time—of course, that has to be accommodated.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
Will the Minister do the House an enormous favour and make it clear that this not a debate between people who favour press freedom and people who are opposed to press freedom? There is nobody in your Lordships’ House who is opposed to press freedom. It is very important for all our sakes that this is made absolutely clear.
Lord Keen of Elie
I hope that I indicated that in my earlier comments but I make it clear that we are all concerned with maintaining the very delicate balance between the right to privacy and press freedom.
Baroness Hollins
“(2) Sub-paragraph (2A) applies to the processing of personal data carried out for the special purposes if—(a) the processing of the personal data is necessary for the future or continuing publication by a person of journalistic, academic, artistic or literary material,(b) the controller reasonably believes that the publication of the material would be in the public interest,(c) the likely interference with privacy resulting from the processing of the data is outweighed by the public interest in publication.(2A) The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to the extent that the controller reasonably believes that the application of those provisions would be incompatible with the special purposes.”
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I want to take a moment to respond to some points made by noble Lords who do not support my amendment. I suggest that they protest too much. Some noble Lords have suggested that the necessary test is too high, but I stress that the amendment simply requires an intention to publish, not a requirement to publish. I also understand that in 1998 the noble Lord, Lord Lester, argued that the provision “undertaken with a view” was too speculative. He did not support it at that time, so it is surprising that he opposes my amendment today.
My advice from eminent lawyers is that these amendments do not in any way breach human rights law. Instead, they reinstate an equal balance between freedom of speech and personal privacy. Nor is there any reason why, for example, this amendment would require footage from Hillsborough to be destroyed. It would stop newspapers hanging on to data illegally for any unspecified period. That is just one of the good things this amendment would do. The amendments would not allow debate on necessity from the subject of a planned story. The subject would not know about it, and many journalists have commended the importance of these amendments.
I have thought about these amendments. I think there has been some wilful misrepresentation of the role of the Press Recognition Panel. None of the amendments in this or the later group would favour Impress over any other recognised independent regulator. The noble Lord, Lord Black, implied in Committee that he believed that IPSO would meet the Leveson criteria if it applied to the Press Recognition Panel for approval. It could move towards recognition, so to say that this is about trying to favour Impress is nonsense.
I remind the House that my family was subject to data-fishing trips with no genuine public interest. Have the media changed their behaviour? I suggest not and I give a couple of quick examples. IPSO is not the game changer that has been suggested. It is still not a very clean game. I remind noble Lords of a couple of front page code breaches followed by tiny footnotes for a correction with no equivalent prominence. “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis”.
“Queen backs Brexit”. These reflect some of the most important topics being debated in the country today, yet they are not corrected adequately. Or the Mirror front page: “Ebola terror as passenger dies at Gatwick”.
In fact, nobody had Ebola, there was no terror because nobody knew about it and it was not at Gatwick. The Mirror printed a tiny apology and IPSO did nothing about it. Or the lady who lost a huge amount of weight and agreed to a feature in a local magazine which described her successful weight loss. She said she had had to shower before she lost weight because she could not fit in the bath. The Daily Star picked up the story: “Too fat to wash! Grubby gran who weighed 27 stone didn’t bath for 20 years”. This was not true, was not the story and IPSO did nothing.
I have listened to the Government’s arguments. All that Amendment 50A does is to raise the bar for processing data to be “necessary” for an intended future publication. I am an academic myself. I argue that the ethical standard of the processing of personal data being necessary is a standard that is already in place in our universities. These are Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. He considered that the Data Protection Act was not in balance. I think that it is right that the public’s privacy rights and publishers’ free expression rights are properly balanced to protect the best of both. We will not make progress in achieving this balance by some of the hyperbole we have seen in the press and in the House today about these amendments. We will make progress by listening to all sides, considering the arguments and coming to a reasoned conclusion. That is what Sir Brian Leveson was appointed to do.
I have heard the suggestion of noble Lords that it is not the right moment to vote on this amendment and that there is going to be an opportunity to debate these issues further in the new year, by which time, perhaps, we will have the result of the consultation that was begun as an urgent 10-week consultation a year ago, on the day that a previous amendment in a similar vein was to be voted on in the other place. We have still not got the report from that consultation. I think I want to wait to see what is going to emerge from the consultation and I hope that it will be forthcoming before we reach Third Reading.
Pensions
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will further consider transitional arrangements for state pension provision for women born in the 1950s.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I tabled this debate to bring the attention of the House to a major injustice which has been carried out against a large number of women in this country: some 3.8 million women who have been impacted by accelerated changes to the retirement age. In doing so, I pay tribute to the campaign being run by Women Against State Pension Inequality, which has so effectively highlighted this major injustice. I support the campaign but I am not a member of it. I am not affected and therefore have no personal interest, but I do believe that there is a point of principle here. It is not the principle of equalising the retirement age, for there is no argument about that, and the WASPI campaigners accept that. Nor is there an argument about retiring later, given the increased life expectancy nowadays. The principle is about the fair treatment by the state of those affected by the decisions it has made. In our democracy, it is right that Parliament makes changes but it is a basic role of government to ensure that those changes are implemented effectively, efficiently and in good time and are underpinned by principles of natural justice. And it is the basic role of Parliament—of this House—to hold the Government to account for the way they implement changes in legislation and policy.
Changes in legislation going as far back as 1995 were not acted upon, in some cases, for 14 years. For women born between April 1950 and April 1955, the Department for Work and Pensions began the task of writing to them in 2009. It completed the task in 2012. It is impossible to justify a delay of this length. I do not believe that Parliament would ever allow a private pension provider to behave in that way, but we seem to think it acceptable when the Government are doing it.
As far back as 2004, the department published a report about how the changes to pensions were being implemented. At that time, it indicated that only 43% of the women affected were aware of the impact on them. In other words, the Government knew about it but did not take any steps to address it with vigour.
Many women got to within 15 months of their retirement and at that point were told that they would have to work for up to another six years. During the summer, I met someone in exactly that position. She had retired what she thought was two years early to help her daughter with childcare and to assist with the care of her 90 year-old father. Having done so, and based her planning on a two-year wait until her pension would arrive, she was then told that she would have to wait an extra five years.
In this and other stories like it, the Government have failed a generation of women very badly indeed. This is a generation many of whom spent years at home looking after children and therefore have very poor pension provision to start with. Figures show that some 33% of men will rely solely on a state pension, while 53% of women will do so. This is a generation many of whom left school at 15 and worked all their lives with a significant gender pay gap; a generation who did not receive maternity leave and were not entitled to long-term sick pay until later on in their careers; a generation many of whom have caring responsibilities for parents in their 80s and 90s, and are helping their children with childcare duties.
Ministers have suggested that retraining and apprenticeships offer a way forward for those women, and sing the praises of jobcentres in helping to find new opportunities. Of course, if that is the route that someone wishes to take, I would not stand in their way, but the idea that this is a suitable option in the majority of cases is frankly risible. Jobcentres are closing all over the place. Good luck trying to find an employer who will take on a recently retrained 61 year-old. And what on earth happens to the elderly parent or child who is dependent on you for their care?
If all this was not bad enough, the whole issue continues to be handled very badly. Freedom of information requests have revealed that the DWP has received more than 4,500 complaints from WASPI women. Of these, six have been resolved. Three case workers have been assigned to this review. This is just adding insult to injury. We are recruiting thousands of civil servants to deal with Brexit, but cannot resource this task properly.
I am sure that other speakers will provide graphic illustrations of the impact these changes have had and the way the mishandling of this issue has affected individual women and their families, but there is one particular group that I would like to focus on this evening: women who have moved abroad to retire. Some have done so for health reasons, some to be closer to family, some because they worked abroad before they retired—in other cases, simply because they chose to move, as they are entitled to do. Many of these women made their decisions based on receiving the state pension at the age of 60. One woman told me that just after she moved, she discovered that her pension age was 63, not 60. She reorganised her finances to manage the three-year gap, only to be subsequently told that it would be 66.
These issues are common to all WASPI women, but those living abroad face particular challenges. For example, state pension age is also the point where these women would receive an S1 form giving them entitlement to reciprocal health care, so this is now an added financial burden. What the Government describe as mitigation—bus passes, apprenticeships and so on—are of absolutely no value if you live outside the country.
Another woman told me: “Before we left, my husband checked that we had enough years to qualify for a full pension and was assured we had, but I’ve now been widowed and I’ve been told I haven’t paid enough and that my rate will be reduced.” Of course, for women who have retired to EU countries, there is now the extra anxiety of not knowing what the ultimate agreement will be about their rights when, and if, we leave the EU.
I will not ask the Minister whether there has been an impact assessment on this, but I have one particular and specific question. Currently, pensions to those living outside the EU are frozen at the point of retirement, while those who live within the EU are treated the same as if they lived here. Post Brexit, will British pensioners in EU countries be treated as they are now, or will their pensions also be frozen? If British pensioners in the EU receive updated pensions, what plan do the Government have for those who have retired elsewhere?
We all agree that there is a crisis of trust in politics and politicians. Is it any wonder, when an issue of this importance is subject to ludicrous party-political bickering in the other place? The truth is that all political parties are in part culpable here, and we have a duty to work together to put it right with workable and fair transition arrangements.
This is impacting most seriously on poorer female pensioners. Research has shown that poverty levels among women aged 60 to 64 has risen by 6.2% as a result of these changes. Let us be clear: if these women are poor now, there is a likelihood that they will remain poor right the way through their retirement, and that these numbers will grow unless the Government act.
The Government should concede that the administration of these changes was fundamentally flawed and come up with proposals to put right this wrong. It is not about reversing the changes to pension age, but recognising that where implementation is flawed, the Government have a duty to come up with proposals to protect those impacted by those flaws. The Institute for Fiscal Studies report published in August estimates that the changes in women’s pension age have boosted government coffers by £5.1 billion. Surely to goodness, some transitional help is affordable and must be afforded.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on raising this issue, and all the women who are attending the debate—and by that I imply a criticism of all the men who have decided to stay away.
One day they will make a film about this issue. It will be a British film, made on a small budget and inspired by a sense of outrage that such an unfair treatment of British women could have persisted into the 2010s. It will join a fine tradition of films which have put on record the past struggles women have had to be heard. Recent ones include the 2010 film “Made in Dagenham” and the 2015 film “Suffragette”—both subjects that the establishment of the day hoped would go away once the fuss died down. But it did not, and the protests of the women finally won out.
The WASPI women are in that tradition. Indeed, their many branches wear the suffragette colours with pride. They persist in protesting the unfair treatment that women born in the 1950s have been given by the Government’s pensions policy, as expressed with increasing severity in the Pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011. The film of their story will detail how, in trying honourably to remedy one inequality—bringing women’s and men’s retirement ages into harmony—the Government of the day perpetrated another, subjecting 2.6 million women to unexpected delays to their pension dates, with too little warning, and throwing many of them into genuine hardship.
The film will show, with perhaps only slight exaggeration, bumbling officials—I suggest Jim Broadbent or Hugh Bonneville—overwhelmed with detail about changing demographics and passing on conflicting advice to the Ministers concerned. A lead role in the film will be the Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, Steve Webb, who will be shown as well-meaning but confused—a part for Hugh Grant, I think. Steve Webb was the longest-serving Minister at the DWP and effected important and successful changes, such as the triple lock on pensions that benefited many and continues to do so, and the automatic enrolment by businesses of their workers into pension schemes—all fine reforms by a man whose word we could surely trust.
That being so, Steve Webb will have written his own script for the film in June 2015, after he had left office and lost his parliamentary seat. He told the Institute for Government:
“There was one very early decision that we took about state pension ages, which we would have done differently if we’d been properly briefed, and we weren’t … we’d put an announcement out … and we just hadn’t thought through what we were doing … we had to make a difficult decision … and the implications of what we were doing suddenly, about two or three months later, it became clear that they were very different from what we thought … so that’s a decision that we got wrong”.
Those are the Minister’s own words. Incidentally, Steve Webb also spoke of the fine support he usually had from his civil servants—“very good people”, he called them—but not on this occasion.
The film will show Steve Webb going, cap in hand, to David Cameron, leader of the coalition Government in which he served, and asking for some money back from the savings that his department had made. He needed this money to soften the blow but came up against George Osborne and the steely men of the Treasury—male judgments being passed on women’s lives. He got only a third of the £3 billion he asked for and thus was the crisis launched.
Like any good film, this one will fill in the background: the genuine poverty that WASPI women are suffering because they were not given time to plan. We will see piles of brown envelopes stacked up, not delivered or left unopened at the wrong addresses. I have had arguments made to me that the news of the changes was in fact dispatched to the women concerned. Perhaps the film will show us the many ways the post can go astray and publicity campaigns be overlooked. We will see women who were facing retirement at 60 suddenly trying to extend their employment and being refused, trying at the jobcentre and suffering the humiliation which at their age is deeply distressing for them.
I can imagine the story being told of one such character—let us say she will be played by Julie Walters. She left school at 15, has worked all her life since, paying the contributions expected of her from her meagre wages, and now she is bewildered that the world is denying her the support she had always been led to believe was hers by right. We can imagine the brutal cross-examination at the jobcentre—Simon Russell Beale in a cameo role, I think—and the requirement to seek out employment before she becomes eligible for any benefit to ease her poverty.
We now live in a time that is finely tuned to the lives of women and how, simply because of their gender, their experiences of life are different from those of men in so many ways—equal pay, sexual harassment. We are increasingly conscious that simply because you are a woman you should not be singled out for particular treatment—of whatever kind. There is a groundswell of popular feeling that this should not be so. The WASPI women were born long before the equal pay legislation and well before the Equality Act. They have lived their lives under the disadvantages that were once the lot of all women. The pensions legislation perpetuates that disadvantage—no adequate notice, no time to prepare and no adequate transitional arrangements to ease any hardship. The various suggestions that have been made for transitional arrangements do not meet their needs. They now ask to meet the department to discuss and resolve this continuing and shameful situation.
Only last month there was a majority of 288 votes to none in the other place for the Motion calling on the Government,
“to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/17; col. 366.]
The film poster might well read: “They were old. They were women. They were condemned to be poor”. I appeal to the Minister to make sure that this does not happen.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully remind noble Lords that this is a timed debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is going to speak in the gap, so we need to take 30 seconds off the other speakers. If noble Lords could please stick to the time, that would be helpful.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for initiating this debate and for setting out so clearly why more than 3 million women have been treated so unfairly. Those of us who have been fighting for women’s equality for most of our lives support the equalisation of the state pension age and recognise that many women will benefit from the new flat-rate state pension. The subject of this debate is a group of women who have fallen into the gap between two safety nets: certainty about when they retire and relative certainty about their future income. I say “relative” because the old system counted a husband’s contributions as part of the woman’s pension and assumed no divorce.
I think John Cridland was right when he said in his Independent Review of the State Pension Age:
“People need at least ten years notice of change and change itself should be limited to once a decade”.
The women born in the 1950s did not receive this kind of notice. The decision taken in 1995 to set in train the equalisation was a fair decision but was not communicated in anything like an effective way. However, the real robbery took place in the 2011 legislation, which brought forward the year when the state pension age would increase to 66, from the planned date of 2026 to 2020. Even though after a huge outcry the Government slowed down their proposed timetable, it still meant that 2.6 million women were adversely affected.
It is not the equalisation of pensions that we are protesting about but the change in government policy which accelerated that change, combined with poor communication by successive Governments to the women affected. The acceleration meant that women did not have sufficient time to mitigate the potential losses, even if they were aware of the changes and in a position to do. One woman who estimated that she had lost £40,000 said that “no man has suffered this mismanagement of expectations”. Another asked: “Is it too much to ask that women like this are compensated for a contract that has been unilaterally broken with insufficient notice?”. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that,
“household incomes for women in this age group have fallen by around £32 per week”.
For poorer households, the decline represented 21% of income.
I am sure that the Government will talk up the benefits of a flat-rate pension for those women who were not able to collect sufficient national insurance eligibility because of caring responsibilities and that the Minister will refer to the triple lock, the need to recognise demographic changes and the equality between the sexes. If she is very brave, she will talk about a lost generation applying for an apprenticeship. But we are not talking about any of these changes, nor do we wish to turn back the clock. We are talking about a different generation of women who did not have the same rights of flexible working and occupational pensions. In many cases, they did not accumulate sufficient independent wealth to maintain a decent standard of living on retirement.
These women had a raw deal on occupational pensions as well. When I started work, I was excluded from the occupational pension scheme because of a two-year eligibility requirement—and I was one of the lucky ones, because at least I was able to join eventually. Others were excluded because they were part-time and could not join until the law was changed in 2000. Others again were barred because they did not earn enough. All of us ended up with an occupational pension which was lower than we had the right to expect, and even now part-time workers are not automatically enrolled if they are deemed to earn too little. This continuing discrimination against the low-paid could be the subject of another debate.
It is difficult to appreciate today that married women who stayed at home to raise their families and care for their elderly were entirely dependent on their husbands’ state pensions. Until April 1977, the married woman’s stamp was offered to working women, most of whom did not appreciate the impact it would have on their state pension. The lower rate was encouraged by most employers and seized upon by low-paid women. When the lower-rate option was no longer offered, what is not always remembered is that the women who were already paying the reduced stamp were allowed to continue to do so. The age cohort we are talking about in this debate would then have been about 25 to 30, so were probably already working. It was a different world and they are paying the price for seeing one system swept away without benefiting from the new system.
In 1998, when I was a member of the Low Pay Commission, we discovered that women who earned too little to pay national insurance did not even appear on any statistics and could not be counted as a group who might benefit from a statutory national minimum wage. That was later rectified, but it was par for the course that low-paid women were undervalued and not regarded as a significant part of the labour force. This was not in 1850 or 1950 but in 1998.
Finally, the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign is asking for a non-means-tested bridging pension to provide an income until state pension age and compensation for those women who have already reached state pension age. They are strongly supported by my former union, UNISON, which represents many of the women in this group. I urge the Minister to use her good offices to persuade the Government to change their policy on this.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for bringing this important debate before us tonight. The whole debate is not around whether there should be an increase in the state pension age but about how much notice people are given for such changes. There are many women who, throughout their working life, expected to receive their state pension at the age of 60 and were shocked, when they approached that age, to find out that the rules had changed.
It seems that the Department for Work and Pensions wrote to the women affected by this but did not contact them until 2005—10 years after the 1995 changes. Many women said that they did not receive such a letter. With such a big change to the state pension age, it is so important that people are given enough notice of any changes so that they can properly plan and save for their retirement. The Department for Work and Pensions needs to do much more to ensure that people affected are contacted about such changes to state pension age as early as possible.
I, too, will quote the former Pensions Minister Steve Webb. When he spoke about this, he said:
“The 2011 Act, which I was responsible for, did not add any more than 18 months to people’s pension age, typically 12 months. But when we did write to people—and we did write … to tell them what changes we have made—this was the first time they had heard about the first changes. So instead of me writing to them to tell them there was an extra year on the pension age, we were effectively telling them they had six extra years added to their pension age, which is of course why they were outraged”.
There is a dispute about how many women were born in the 1950s, but it is estimated that there were at least 2.5 million. These women have paid into the system in the expectation that they would retire with a full state pension at the age of 60. Many were—and still are— completely unaware of any changes to this, despite the various Acts of Parliament over the years, owing to the lack of correspondence by the Government of the day. Without time to prepare and make the necessary alternative arrangements, many women born in the 1950s have been left in financial despair. They need reasonable transitional arrangements in place as soon as possible, to allow them to enjoy the retirement they have earned.
My honourable friend Carolyn Harris, MP for Swansea East, spoke in another place on 29 November and gave a very good example. She said:
“Many women born in the 1950s have already celebrated their 60th birthday, whilst the remainder approach theirs over the next few years. But plans of retirement are on hold for these women as they face an uncertain future. The lucky ones are having to work for longer in jobs that they are still able to hold onto. But for others, the physical nature of their jobs is totally impractical for women of their age. I have heard first-hand accounts: of women suffering from trying to keep working in jobs they are no longer able to do; of women having to sign on as unemployed for their first time in their lives, because they are unable to find jobs or are no longer able to work in the jobs they had; of women going without essentials like food and heating as they just can’t afford them without the pension they had expected; of women selling their homes or borrowing from their elderly parents or children just to make ends meet and avoid spiralling into debt”.
That spells out clearly what is happening to the 1950s women. How are they going to continue to work in jobs which they are not physically fit to do? It is highly unlikely that employers will keep them there if they cannot do their job. These women accept that the pension age is increasing, but they have not been given appropriate time to prepare for that. The Government’s poor handling of the changes has left many in financial hardship.
These women had planned their future. They had worked hard and they naturally expected to be rewarded with a full pension, but now they face a different predicament. I ask the Minister to listen to the women who have been campaigning hard on this matter. Will she meet them in order to understand their concerns? I am not sure whether any Minister has met any of the campaigning groups. Will the Minister give a commitment tonight to meet them in order to understand their problems and, I hope, to find a resolution to this very serious matter?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to be allowed to speak in the gap as this is an issue close to my heart. The 2010 coalition agreement promised there would be no changes to women’s state pension age before 2020, but a few months later Ministers decided to start increases from 2018. I tried to persuade the coalition Government that increasing women’s state pension age a second time before the original 1995 changes were finished was wrong. I still believe that. The implementation has caused regrettable injustice, distress and anger, and I hope my noble friend will forgive me for highlighting these issues in case she is not fully aware of them.
First, no man faced an increase of more than one year while these women, who generally have much lower private pensions and who had been disadvantaged in state and private pensions throughout their lives, had increases of up to a year and a half on top of the previous three, four or five-year rises. Secondly, women were given only five to eight years’ notice while around the same time the Government announced that it would not be fair to make any changes to the pension arrangements of public sector workers within 10 years of pension age. Such double standards were difficult for many women to accept. Thirdly, and most importantly, many women did not know about the 1995 changes, so in 2011 while Parliament believed it was increasing their pension age by up to one and a half years, some women effectively faced a delay of up to six years.
I also did not realise in 2011 that the Labour Government from 1997 to 2009 did not make sure that women knew about the changes in 1995 so that they could plan for the delay. Even worse than this, many 1950s-born women were lulled into believing that their pension age would be 60. Around 2004, the department wrote to many of these women to tell them how much or how little state pension they were in line for, but those letters did not tell them that their pension age would not be 60. As a letter about their state pension did not mention their pension age, women would naturally assume that they would get it at 60, like every woman they had ever known. Even in 2015, some official websites still listed the women’s state pension age as 60.
I know this is a difficult issue, and I sympathise hugely with my noble friend. Believe me, I understand how uncomfortable her situation must be, but I hope that we can find a way to help the good women who are facing real hardship and show our understanding of the position in which they find themselves.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She has done so much in this area, a lot of it behind the scenes and a lot in public. She is a knowledgeable and experienced hand in these matters, and I am pleased to follow her speech.
I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this debate. I wish to add just one or two contributions. The first thing I want to say to the Government is that this is quite a modest request. The case is powerful, but we are talking about further consideration. In her film the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, would make the point that the Government are waiting for this to go away. I do not think this will go away. I will certainly come to see the film. She needs to add a villain from the Treasury, and I cannot think of anybody sufficiently obnoxious off the top of my head, but I will send her a note in the morning. I think this was a mistake that was made by the Treasury in 2011. I was around at the time—I had been chairman of the Select Committee on work and pensions—and I think Parliament did not understand the consequences of what it was doing when it passed the 2011 Act.
This is a serious act of omission. It has been done by successive Governments. It is right to say that Steve Webb was in place at the time, but I think his hand was forced away from the 1995 decision, which was sensible, to the 2011 decision, which is now causing severe problems. The DWP is very good at creating policy but absolutely hopeless at delivery and implementation. I do not say this against the professionals in the department. Some of us are old enough to remember the controversy when housing benefit was introduced, then there was the Child Support Agency and now we have universal credit. We really must learn some lessons about some of the terrible mistakes we make in the translation of policy into delivery.
I was clear in 1995 from the report of the Pensions Commission that 15 years’ notice was the minimum required and that these changes should be made only once every 10 years. I was certain that that was a safe policy, that the journey had started and that things would turn out well. Since then it has to be said that the context has completely changed for everybody, but particularly for these women who have lost these pension years. With the economic crisis of 2008, and if we go forward with the Government’s policy of withdrawing from the European Union, growth levels and the family income and wages available to some of these households in retirement will get worse. There has been increased age-related morbidity across the generations and we obviously have a bigger population. The future is not getting any easier in terms of the economic background.
The point I really want to make more than any other is that the totality of the savings over the middle term, over a number of years, is £30 billion. Steve Webb asked for a proper sum of money to deal with this problem but only got a third of what he needed. It seems to me inconceivable that over a longer period of time, with that total saving of £30 billion, this cannot be mitigated in transition. Whether the WASPI campaigners are right to not settle for anything less than the full compensation—if I was them I would do the same—there is a strong case for looking at a negotiation with the Government that would settle for somewhat less. However, they cannot do that because the Government are not talking to them. It seems to me that the combination of the fact that £30 billion is being saved over time with the fact that the Government will not even discuss or defend their position—they will do nothing of the kind—is contrary to natural justice. As has been said in some of the powerful speeches from colleagues, it is the handling of the issue that makes this all worse. People are getting really angry for understandable reasons.
I support the WASPI campaign. It is deliberately going through the ombudsman, which I hope will bear fruit and lead to the further consideration that this Question this evening is calling for. The Government need to accept responsibility. This was a serious act of omission. I do not think the House of Commons in 2011 fully understood what it was doing, and there is a very powerful case now for further consideration of the WASPI claim. If the Government are not prepared to see the representatives of those who have lost these significant sums of money, their campaign will be supported in Parliament. The Government should not expect this to go away. I do not believe it will unless they come up with something sensible to put in place to get the transitional protection that the WASPI women are looking for.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for providing a further opportunity to focus on this important matter. We have had some powerful women’s speeches this evening, as well as one from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. If I disagreed with anything in them, it was that I do not think we should allow Steve Webb to lay claim to auto-enrolment—although that is perhaps for another day.
Changes to the state pension age in recent times have involved both its equalisation for women and men, to age 65, and its increase for both men and women, currently to 66. The former was achieved by the Pensions Act 1995; the latter by the Pensions Act 2007 and the Pensions Act 2014, but primarily by the coalition’s Pensions Act 2011. The 2014 Act put the uprating of the state pension age on a statutory footing, linking the SPA to increasing life expectancy. John Cridland’s independent review recommended an increase to 68 in 2037 to 2039, which it is understood the Government have accepted. That is some 20 years away, which should enable ample time for effective communications and information activities.
The 2014 Act also adjusted the increase in the SPA to 67 to between 2026 and 2028, so the clock is ticking for awareness-raising for individuals due to be affected by this change. Leaving aside the process involved, we continue to support the principle of equalisation, which largely followed what was happening to occupational pensions and EU developments. Similarly, we support the principle of periodic increases to the SPA to reflect changes in longevity and the intergenerational fairness which this ensures, as well as to support sustainability.
The problem being confronted in this debate is the basis and manner in which the earlier changes to the SPA were introduced—the 1995 equalisation process and the 2011 acceleration of the state pension age to 66, with subsequent amelioration of the latter. The current position is that women’s SPA will reach 65 in November 2018, but increase more slowly to 66 by October 2020. The situation is therefore that women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1953 have an SPA under the 1995 Act of between 60 and 63, and women born between 6 April 1953 and 5 December 1953 have an SPA under the 2011 Act of between 63 years and 3 months and 65 years. All of those originally had an expectation of a state pension age of 60. So in total, on top of the 1995 Act changes, the 2011 Act led to 4.5 million people in Great Britain having their state pension age increased by less than a year, 500,000 women by more than a year, and 300,000 women by 18 months. Some 2.6 million women overall are waiting longer to reach state pension age.
The WASPI campaign, as we have heard, is not disputing equalisation but complains about how all the changes were implemented and communicated, and the hardship that ensued for many women. We agree with the House of Commons Work and Pension Select Committee about adequate notice being necessary to enable individuals to plan for retirement. We have doubtless all received examples of how individuals’ hoped-for retirement has been blighted by not being able to access a pension: people having to hang on to an arduous job which they struggle to undertake; individuals having given up a secure job, in the expectation of a pension, not being able to return when the pension disappears into the future; individuals taking up caring responsibilities, saving the social care system in the process; and people just being without resources, with some going abroad.
Of course, we should see this in the historic context of women who, for a variety of reasons, have done less well under the state pension, albeit that over time this will change when state pension outcomes for women should equalise with those of men more than a decade earlier, but not until—would you believe?—2040. Women are still more likely to work part time, have periods out of the labour market, take up caring responsibilities and have lower-paid jobs. With the passage of time, many will by now have reached state pension age—all doing so under the 2011 timetable—and will be in receipt of the new single-tier state pension.
A key matter in determining a fair way forward, as others have said, is to seek to understand whether communication of all these changes has been robust enough and has created a genuine awareness of the implications for those affected by the 1995 and 2011 changes. The WASPI campaign asserts that government communications have been inadequate. This issue has been the subject of review and comment by the Work and Pensions Select Committee. The committee’s conclusion is that the DWP’s direct communications with those affected by the increases in state pension age until 2009 were very limited—and just before the commencement of the changes in 2010. There were more robust personalised letters, as we heard, between 2009 and 2014, but they were seemingly sent on average just over a year before individuals reached the age of 60. The Select Committee concludes:
“We will never know how many women … could not reasonably be expected to know that their state pension age was increasing … while the last and current Governments have done more to communicate state pension age changes … this has been too little too late for many women”.
This argues in favour of some form of redress, and a variety of transitional arrangements have been proposed. These include: bridging pensions, limiting the maximum increase for waiting to one year and reducing the speed of the 2011 Act increases. Some of these carry not insignificant costs, which of course cannot be ignored.
The Labour Party proposes two transitional measures: first, return eligibility for pension credit to the SPA timetable of the 1995 pension arrangements, but with qualifying age continuing to increase to 66. It is understood that this would have a cost over 10 years of something like £800 million; secondly, an early draw-down so that individuals could draw their state pension at age 64 but with an early retirement reduction of 6% per year. So anyone otherwise entitled to a full state pension who retires at 64 would receive something like £137 per week. This option would be available to 2.6 million women with dates of birth between 6 August 1953 and 5 April 1960. It should be cost neutral over the longer term.
We are a long way past the stage where an ideal outcome to the necessary process of equalising and increasing the state pension age could be achieved. But we consider that these proposals could go some way towards improving the lives of millions of women, and we commend them to the Government. Others have expressed incredulity that there has not yet been a meeting arranged with the WASPI campaigning team, and I urge the Government to do that. In any event, I know that my colleagues, together with those in the Commons, would be happy to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for introducing and securing this debate, and thank all those who have contributed. I shall do my best to respond to the various issues raised.
Work and society have changed tremendously since the introduction of the contributory state pension in 1948, and this Government believe that state pension provision should reflect this. As the demographic balance in the UK shifts, and fewer people of working age are expected to support a growing number of pensioners, it has become clear that an increase in the state pension age is necessary for the welfare of all. Underpinning this belief is the basic fact that a welfare and pensions system is only as successful as it is sustainable. Those who are able to work should support those who are not, confident in the expectation of support when they reach their own retirement. Today’s workers provide for the support of today’s pensioners, fulfilling this essential tenet of the social security system, as it has existed ever since the creation of the welfare state over 70 years ago. For this to continue, however, we must take steps to ensure that our model is fit for the future. A policy that allows each generation to spend an increasing percentage of life over state pension age, financed by an increased level of public pension expenditure, would be unsustainable in the long run and unfair to subsequent generations of taxpayers.
Women retiring today can still expect to receive the state pension for 23.5 years on average, almost three years longer than men. Even after equalising women’s state pension age with men’s, women will spend on average around two years more in receipt of their state pension because of their longer life expectancy. In response to the concerns raised during debates in both Houses on the Pensions Act 2011, we introduced a significant concession worth £1.1 billion, which ensured that no one would wait more than 18 months for their pension, when compared to the previous timetable. Any further concession would cost significantly more, and ask people of working age—more specifically, today’s younger people—to pay even more for it. It is the firm opinion of this Government that such an outcome simply cannot be justified.
Policy changes to the state pension system have been implemented over the past 22 years and supported by all three major political parties. Indeed, the noble Baroness’s party was in government when the 2011 Act was introduced, so it is disappointing that it has now chosen to distance itself from these necessary reforms, and talk about mistakes. The former Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Thornbury and Yate, for instance, who was Minister for Pensions under the coalition, has suggested that not enough was done to ensure that women were aware of the changes being made. We do not accept that argument. Since 1995, successive Governments have gone to great lengths to communicate changes to the state pension age. As my honourable friend in another place, the Minister for Pensions, has been clear in debates in the House of Commons, the Department for Work and Pensions has diligently communicated the timetable of these changes since they were set in train 22 years ago. This included writing to those affected by the 2011 Act throughout 2012 and 2013 to inform them of changes to their state pension age
Over the past 17 years, the DWP has provided over 19 million personalised state pension estimates. I do not think it is fair, therefore, for noble Lords somehow to suggest that these changes have been brought in by stealth. Indeed, as the noble Baroness’s friend in another place, the honourable Member of Parliament for Eastbourne, said just two weeks ago, there seems to be an “element of amnesia” to this debate.
The current arrangements represent the culmination of several decades of policy-making, to which all the major parties in this House have contributed. The noble Baroness’s party has yet to offer a clear alternative to our position. The official Opposition have outlined their ideas for potential changes to the Government’s policy and, with your Lordships’ permission, I will now address these. Noble Lords on the Benches opposite have suggested that the Government should set the pension credit qualifying age so that it precedes the state pension age as a means of compensating women affected by the changes we have discussed. While we acknowledge the good intentions that lie behind this proposal, we are clear that the unintended consequences of such a shift would render it unworkable.
Introducing a measure designed to benefit a specific group in this way would risk creating a new inequality. Any movement of the pension credit qualifying age would presumably have to be extended to cover not only women who are not affected by the 2011 Act but also men, if the Government’s actions are not be considered discriminatory. As a general point, it would also need to include housing benefit and help with council tax. If not, the proposal would risk providing money through pension credit with one hand and taking it away through higher housing costs with the other. To move women away from the working-age benefits system and the support available to them through their local jobcentre, in any case, would cause them to lose their link with the labour market, with an inevitable, negative effect on their household income and eventual pension pot. These women need support in the labour market, not exclusion from it—support that pension credit does not provide, with only a very small earnings disregard of over £5 a week.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, or rather his party, has costed the option at over £800 million. However, we must also remember that the Labour Party manifesto committed to providing the 2.5 million women affected by the Pensions Act 2011 more generally with,
“some kind of compensation for their losses”.
It is not correct to say that these women have suffered losses of state pension. The position has always been that they will receive their state pension and other contributory benefits if they meet the entitlement conditions. The state pension they receive is determined under the rules in force on the date on which they meet these criteria. Making pension contributions in 1993, for instance, does not entitle someone to receive state pension according to the rules that were in force then. Paying state pension based on the pre-1995 rules, furthermore, would mean that pensioners would not receive all the additional benefits that have been introduced in the intervening years, or be protected under the triple lock.
The noble Lord opposite also suggested that we allow WASPI women early access to their state pension from the age of 64 at a reduced rate. Evidence submitted by the Government Actuary to the Work and Pensions Select Committee in April 2016, however, showed that it would be extremely complex to accurately predict the costs involved in this initiative. Within a matter of hours of suggesting it, I might add, two different versions of the policy were proposed. WASPI groups have rejected both. The introduction of a partial early payment in either form would involve bringing forward significant expenditure, even if the measure was assessed as cost-neutral in the long term. The wider impact on the economy cannot be ignored: adding even one year to people’s working lives would result in a sustained increase to GDP of over 1%—and 1% of GDP today is almost £20 billion.
The pension reforms we have undertaken have already greatly improved state pension provision for all, particularly women. Future pensioners stand to benefit not only from the introduction of the new state pension but also from the expansion of auto-enrolment and our Fuller Working Lives strategy. For many women, the new state pension is much more generous than the old system. By 2030, over 3 million women stand to gain an average of £550 extra per year as a result.
With respect, we cannot avoid the reality of the UK’s ageing population. The number of people over state pension age in this country is expected to grow by 4 million over the next 25 years, a rise of almost one-third. That is why the Government’s position remains firm and why we will not make any further concessions on this issue. Accelerating the increase in state pension age for both women and men has proved necessary in the light of increasing life expectancy and the increasing pressure on public resources. By 2035, the number of people aged 100 or over will have more than doubled. Failing to act on this evidence would not only be irresponsible but place a wholly unsustainable burden on future generations.
Our focus is to deliver a modern welfare system fit for the needs of the 21st century, which rewards work and targets support towards those who most need it. As part of this, we must ensure that the costs of an ageing population are shared out fairly. In this context, and given the financial pressures we face as a nation, we cannot, with regret, unpick a policy that has been in place for 22 years. It is simply not affordable. The average woman reaching state pension age last year will get a higher state pension income over her lifetime than at any point before. Let us celebrate the fact that longer life, better health and continued activity in later decades are reshaping the profile and participation of older people in our society. However, let us also accept that part of preparing the welfare system, and society at large, for the changes brought about by these advances must be to encourage older workers to benefit from fuller and longer working lives.
Data Protection Bill [HL]
Wednesday 13th December 2017
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection Act 2018 View all Data Protection Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 74-II Manuscript amendment for Report (PDF, 72KB) - (13 Dec 2017)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 50 having been agreed, I cannot call Amendments 51 and 52 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 53
Baroness Hollins
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Blencathra, for supporting this group of amendments, which flow directly from three fundamental principles with which I believe the majority in your Lordships’ House will agree. First, we are entitled to the same rights over our personal private data as we are to our personal privacy and family life; secondly, a healthy democracy requires that journalists are free to expose corruption, incompetence or wrongdoing in high places; and thirdly, it is imperative that we protect citizens from those who might seek to abuse those protections and in doing so cause great personal distress.
Perhaps it would be helpful to offer some context here. Last week, several of the many foot soldiers who have assisted newspapers to obtain information illegally came into Parliament to describe the sheer scale of that abuse at a meeting for a group of parliamentarians. Two of them have written to noble Lords supporting these amendments. Their revelations were extraordinary, going far beyond what is in the public domain, and not just confined to tabloid newspapers. We heard how individuals of interest to the press were remorselessly targeted in the quest for stories—ordinary people, whose personal and private data was harvested and exploited, not to advance the democratic ideal of public interest journalism but to sell more newspapers. I do not know whether these practices have stopped, but new titles are still being implicated. Even if they have stopped, the competitive pressure on newspapers makes it possible that they will start again. We heard how hard it was for these whistleblowers to speak up and how others employed to engage in similar illegal practices have been silenced with money. I publicly applaud their courage and note the extraordinary stress and fear that they live under because of their positions. They were being employed to do illegal acts at the behest of newspaper proprietors and editors. It was not about freedom of speech—it was an abuse of power. The main perpetrators were not the foot soldiers, yet they are the most likely to be held to account. That is why we need adequate protection for the public, and for journalists, who may be prevented by the editors from speaking up.
The Bill quite properly imposes constraints on how businesses, institutions and even charities can use our private data, but it will allow the rules to be broken under certain circumstances. It is our responsibility to scrutinise the Bill to ensure that those who are permitted to break those laws—to breach the data privacy rights by which everyone else is bound—are in fact acting in the best interests of democracy and not simply on a journalistic whim: to put it crudely, a fishing trip, or something purely for personal or corporate gain.
In that spirit, this group of amendments would achieve a number of things: to address the current imbalance in the Bill whereby the newspaper’s right to publish overrides a citizen’s right to a private life; to enhance the protections in the Bill for public interest investigative journalism; to implement recommendations in the Leveson report in respect of data protection law; to protect the public from data misuse; and, finally, to provide an incentive for newspapers to sign up to an independent regulator so that the public can have faith that their interests are being safeguarded.
This group of amendments, working together, follows the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s report in respect of data protection legislation, specifically the special purposes exemption and his recommendations to reform the Data Protection Act 1998 in line with public interest. When these recommendations were put to the Government in 2012, their response was to ask us to wait for the right legislation to be debated in Parliament. This is the right Bill.
Amendment 53 removes the existing clause in the Bill that gives the right to free expression precedence over the right to privacy. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, argued that removing the clause that elevates free expression above privacy would be incompatible with the GDPR. However, my advisers suggest that article 85 of the GDPR allows for exemptions only where they are necessary to reconcile the protection of personal data with the freedom of expression. There is no special importance for free expression; the rights must be balanced. Our default position must surely be compliance with the GDPR.
Amendments 54 and 56 are designed to ensure that when public interest is being considered for the purpose of the journalistic exemption, the codes assist journalists whether or not their publication is governed by one of the designated codes. The present wording would mean that, for example, a Guardian journalist—whose publication is not governed by any of the codes mentioned—would not have to consider any of them. Changing two of the words in the Bill—“must” to “may” and “relevant” to “appropriate”—provides more flexibility.
I move on to Amendments 59 and 64. Leveson said that, to protect investigative journalism and sources, all publishers should continue to enjoy several important exemptions. However, after hearing evidence from lawyers, newspapers and victims, Lord Justice Leveson concluded that a number of exemptions in the 1998 Act were superfluous to the purposes of investigative journalism and should be removed to protect the public from abuse, and could be done so at no risk whatever to genuine public interest journalism. These amendments offer a compromise.
Where Leveson recommended that certain exemptions be entirely removed—recommendation 49(a) to (f)—my amendments would retain them for newspapers that have demonstrated their commitment to accountability by joining an independent press self-regulator. Furthermore, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Black, in Committee, I have tried to reflect his wishes by including some new exemptions in Amendments 60, 62 and 63 for such newspapers. Belonging to a self-regulator that has been recognised under the Leveson system is the mark of a publication that understands the need for independent, effective and transparent accountability. Such publishers should be entitled to the full list of exemptions, because the public can have faith in their commitment to public interest journalism.
However, neither we nor the public can have faith in publishers that continue to insist on marking their own homework. These amendments would allow those publishers to keep the exemptions necessary for genuine investigative journalism in the public interest and to protect their sources. But they would lose access to those exemptions that Leveson deemed to be superfluous and open to abuse.
Publishers committed to genuine investigative journalism have nothing to fear from these amendments. If they wish to enjoy access to the longer list, they need only join a recognised independent self-regulator or bring their own self-regulator up to the minimum standards of effective, independent scrutiny and redress that the public have a right to demand. I will not go through each of the exemptions to which publishers would lose access should they reject independent regulation as it would detain your Lordships’ House for too long—they are listed in the amendment itself. Moreover, they are listed in the Leveson report, and cover such basic requirements as for data to be kept accurately.
Amendment 217 would ensure that these provisions would be passed into law on Royal Assent, so that the Government could not use the same tactics of executive non-commencement as they have done previously, going back on commitments on press reform.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 59 and 64 I remind the House of the declaration of interests that I made on the previous group of amendments.
It will not surprise noble Lords or the noble Baroness that I am wholly opposed to these amendments, which are pernicious in their effect. This is because they fly in the face of the GDPR, which under article 85, as I understand it, mandates us to ensure that there are exemptions for journalistic activities. The amendments set their face against a successful domestic legal regime established by the 1998 Act which, thanks to the work of Gareth Williams and his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench at the time, has worked so effectively for two decades to balance rights to privacy and free expression. They single out legitimate journalism for special punishment in breach of the Human Rights Act. Above all they are simply a crude form of bullying—that is the best word I can use—to force the press into a state-sponsored system of regulation.
It is not only the national press that would be affected by the noble Baroness’s amendments but the whole of the local press, from the Maidenhead Advertiser—a great newspaper—to the Barnsley Chronicle, and many thousands of magazines such as Reader’s Digest, Country Life and Angling Times. It would also stifle international media, including the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post. What these many thousands of publications have in common is not that they have been intruding on individual privacy, harassing people or anything of that kind, but simply that they do not want to be part of a system of regulation established by the state and changeable by politicians. They want to be part of a system of self-regulation which has existed in this country for 300 years.
That judgment has not been entered into lightly; it is a matter of deep-seated belief. Even Sir Brian Leveson, whose name has been bandied around a great deal in these debates, expressly acknowledged it as principled. It is also a choice which is entirely lawful. If these amendments were passed they would wholly undermine a fundamental tenet of public law—that it is unlawful to punish someone who has done nothing wrong. Given that the choice of publishers to be part of the Independent Press Standards Organisation and not of Max Mosley’s regulator is both principled and lawful, it is impossible to see how singling them out for special treatment could ever be compatible with the ECHR and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. I do not believe this House would want to put itself in such a position.
Nor should this House—the defender of our democratic values—want to introduce a legal regime which would undermine legitimate investigative journalism, and that is what these amendments would do. As we heard with the last group of amendments, journalistic exemptions are absolutely vital to enable investigation to take place and to develop. The Telegraph’s exposure of MPs’ expenses, for example, would have been impossible without these protections because it relied on handling of data. Is the noble Baroness really saying that she wants to put on the statute book laws that would make it impossible to subject this House to such scrutiny? I do not expect so.
These are contentious issues which arouse great passion, as we saw with the last group of amendments, which is one reason among many why they should not be played out in a highly technical Bill about data protection and one which is rightly constrained both by the terms of the GDPR and the Human Rights Act. The Bill as amended in Committee—building on the successful operation of the 1998 Act and making it fit for purpose in a digital age—is carefully crafted and balances rights to privacy with the equally fundamental right of free expression. It protects both individuals and free speech. The House will interfere with that balance, which is the foundation stone of our democracy, at its peril.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interest as a barrister acting in privacy cases including, I should mention in relation to this group, acting for the NMA in its unsuccessful attempt to challenge the recognition of Impress, a case which continues.
I shall speak first to Amendment 53. It seeks to remove paragraph 24(3) of the schedule which recognises,
“the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression and information”.
I am surprised that the noble Baroness is seeking to remove that provision because it has been the law of this country for centuries. Because it has been the law of this country for centuries, a provision to almost identical effect appears in the Human Rights Act 1998 at Section 12(4). It is also the approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to Article 10. The idea that our law should no longer recognise the special public interest in freedom of expression is therefore a surprising one and would lead this country’s law into conflict with our international obligations under Article 10.
I shall speak also to Amendments 59 and 64 and express my agreement with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Black. If enacted, these amendments would deprive journalists throughout the national and local media of all the exemptions under the Bill unless their employers choose to register with a regulator approved under the royal charter. The question for noble Lords is: why should a journalist on the Financial Times, or indeed on the Borehamwood Times, lose exemptions under this legislation and be hindered from doing his or her job effectively because the newspaper by which they are employed decides that it sincerely does not wish to be regulated by a royal charter regulator?
The fact of the matter, which is quite clear, is that Amendments 59 and 64 seek to use this Bill for what is a wholly extraneous purpose, seeking to compel newspaper groups into submitting to regulation under the royal charter or, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, put it, bullying newspapers in that respect. This Bill is simply not an appropriate vehicle for such an exercise.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to the debate for several hours and I am growing increasingly worried about one or two things. In a sense I am going to act as a devil’s advocate. I believe passionately in a free and inquisitive press. For many years, I was one of its number both in the written and the spoken word. I believe that the press is absolutely vital to holding us all to account. But I have begun to feel that, in castrating Leveson’s work to such an extent, the public are going to lose confidence in public inquiries. Let us hope that that does not happen with Grenfell, although the residents of that tower, who live two roads away from me, are already beginning to think so.
Last year I attended a meeting in a committee room where Gerry McCann, PC Jacqui Hames and Hugh Grant spoke of their quite awful experiences. It is important that we remember the victims and recite these woes. I have not heard any expression of acceptance on this side of the House, or concern about some of these matters. I would go with noble Lords much more about not loosening things if I heard some kind of admittance that there are problems.
Lord Pannick
The answer to the noble Lord was given by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, in the previous debate. The fact is that many of these individuals have justifiably brought civil claims against the newspaper groups concerned. They have recovered and are continuing to recover very large sums in damages, and no doubt rightly so. The News of the World closed down because of its conduct and individuals went to prison in circumstances where they broke the criminal law. That is the answer. No one is suggesting that terrible things were not done, but there are existing legal remedies and they have been applied.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who obviously knows a great deal about the matter—more than I do. I still think that we should question the ability for this to happen in the future. Surely the whole point of the Leveson inquiry was to tighten things up so that this would not happen so much. When I listen to people talking about what happened to them and how they felt that they had very little recourse—although they took civil action and some of them won—I accept that newspapers shut down, but my goodness, perhaps they should have done. These things are right.
In listening to the debate, I was very impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It is not that I do not believe in the press—believe me, I think that the press does a wonderful job, by and large—but even those of us who are involved in doing wonderful jobs do so because we can look at ourselves and say, “We got this wrong”. That is what I have not heard enough of. My noble friend Lady Hollins is having a rather tricky time; she is up against some big guns.
What do the future victims have if they do not have recourse to law—if they believe that Leveson was the answer and we gradually remove most of his recommendations, which is what we seem to be doing? Perhaps noble Lords are right; perhaps in law we should be getting rid of them, but I am worried that the public will begin to think, “What are these inquiries? Why does the status quo always remain exactly the same?”. That is why I wanted to speak up for my noble friend Lady Hollins. We must think a bit more about people whose lives are sometimes ruined just by innuendo. As we have heard, they might get a tiny apology at the bottom of the page, but the damage is done—and it can be terrible.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on withdrawing her amendment, which I thought was extremely wise and thoughtful. She does us a great favour by constantly bringing us back to these issues.
I try to take the long view. I declare an interest: I am the extremely proud son of a journalist. My father was not any old journalist; he was one of only two people who were evacuated from Dunkirk twice, because he was sent back to report it twice. I am very proud of my father; he was a remarkable journalist and a very fine man. That is why I am passionate about this subject. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, if I intervened inappropriately at the end of the last debate. I was trying to make it clear that this House does not contain people who oppose freedom of the press; if we could just agree on that, it would be something of a triumph.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for whom I have enormous regard, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, both used an interesting word: “bully”. The idea of using the word “bully” in the context of a debate such as this, as if it excludes the notion of press bullies, is obviously farcical. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: when a headline appears that accuses three High Court judges of being traitors, is that fair comment? Is that damaging? Does that provide for the type of democracy he would like to see this country moving towards, or does it irrevocably drive it backwards? As a remainer, I am sick to death of being accused of being somehow undemocratic and apparently opposing the will of the people. That is as much rubbish as is the notion that I might be opposed to freedom of the press.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is exactly right. We must be more sensible about this. There is fault on both sides. We are not where we would wish to be. The 1998 Act—I was here when it was passed—was a very good act, but it is not sufficient for our present circumstances. It has been ignored by some highly unscrupulous editors. The present regime of apology is ludicrous; the other day, I put that to the noble Lord, Lord Black. I am not sure if he agrees, but it is a joke. We must be more sensible about moving forward on this issue, so I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for taking a long view. We must do the same, but we must also adopt a very determined, clear and moral view to get this right.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, as I made clear in Committee, I wish to see the recommendations of the Leveson report, which strikes the right balance between the interests of the public and free expression rights of the press, be enacted in law. I say to my noble friend Lord Black that there is certainly no intention to punish anyone.
We already have the architecture in place: the royal charter and the Press Recognition Panel, which applies tests suggested by Leveson and made under the royal charter. There is already one approved regulator in place. The only role left for the state and the Government is for Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act to be commenced and to deal with some of the detailed data protection issues. We do not need to do much more and we certainly do not need to start again.
These Leveson changes are the only way to achieve a thriving, free and independent press that is immunised against a very rich target for investigation, as well as to provide appropriate protection for the public from abuse. I therefore have no hesitation in strongly supporting the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I remind the House that I have never been mistreated by the media and I do not know any celebrities, except those who are or have been parliamentarians.
In Committee I also made it clear that one of the factors that stung me into action was the copious misinformation and wrongful propaganda published about press regulation and Leveson’s recommendations by elements of the press. This tactic of publicising falsities about the recommendation in the Leveson report also motivated the DCMS committee in another place to criticise press misreporting about Section 40 and other matters in its submission to the government consultation on press regulation earlier this year.
Probably one of the most palpably false media claims is that the implementation of Leveson is unnecessary. Many noble Lords have already touched on that. The media says that the regulator it has established and controls, IPSO—which fails the Leveson and royal charter tests for independence and effectiveness—is already sufficiently robust. Many noble Lords clearly do not believe that. IPSO helpfully mailed a fact sheet last week to some noble Lords. I was pleased to see that it has already been subject to a rebuttal by a further mailing from Professor Brian Cathcart.
I was alarmed to see some particularly erroneous details in IPSO’s mailing. They cannot be left unchallenged. For instance, IPSO claims that it had ordered 17 front- page references. The truth is that not once in three years of work has IPSO required a national newspaper to publish a recognisable correction on its front page, no matter how profound the original breach. I have to confess that I do not regularly read a certain broadsheet newspaper that many noble Lords would expect me to read. I do not find it to be a reliable source of information, very sadly. So I subscribe to the Economist, but even that august newspaper last week disappointed by publishing a correction about a forgivable error in the previous week’s report on transgender rights that was in small print and at the bottom of a completely unrelated article about Labour Party polling.
Moreover, IPSO argues that its complaints process puts great emphasis on complaints between publication and the complainant being resolved with, it says, more than 600 resolutions in its three years of operation. But what does “resolution” mean? The reality is that in many cases, as with the failed PCC, complainants become so worn down by the process that they give up or accept weak and inadequate remedy. Furthermore, when cases are supposedly “resolved” there is no recording of a code breach, which means that essentially nothing is kept on record by IPSO to show that the newspaper has failed to meet the appropriate standards.
As for IPSO’s claim to offer Leveson-style arbitration, Leveson said that it is critical that arbitration is compulsory for news publishers, yet IPSO’s scheme allows the publishers to choose whether to accept an arbitration claim. In other words, the whole system is optional. This means that those with the strongest cases but with limited means can be refused arbitration, forcing them to go to court—if they can afford it—whereas a multi-billionaire can threaten very expensive legal proceedings against the newspaper. That is exactly what Leveson feared and it renders IPSO’s whole scheme redundant. This is not access to justice for all; it just protects the ultra-rich and elites but leaves ordinary aggrieved citizens with no protection. It is no wonder that, after 18 months, IPSO’s trial arbitration scheme has had no takers.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the cross-party amendments in this group, spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to remedy imbalances in the Data Protection Bill and provide new incentives for the press to join a properly independent system of self-regulation, which is what Leveson recommended and both Houses of Parliament agreed.
Let us remember what led to the establishment of the Leveson inquiry: we had revelations of data breaches on a massive scale. I have never met Hugh Grant—I have not even seen any of his films—but I suppose that one can say that film stars and politicians, as we are public people, are perhaps considered fair game by the media. I do not believe that, but it is an understandable point of view. However, we saw ordinary members of the public and anyone vaguely of press interest being targeted. That meant victims of crime, the bereaved and other totally innocent, private people. Medical records were stolen, mobile phones were hacked and bins were sifted through. Often, there was no public interest or even a suspected story. It was speculative—or “fishing”, as it is known.
Before we get bogged down in legal arguments that this is not the right Bill for these amendments, let us go back to basics and remember the one glaring example that started all this off. A little girl called Milly Dowler disappeared and the media hacked into her voicemails even before her murdered body was found. Despicable as that was, the police did nothing about it, because it was accepted that it was par for the course and that journalists did that sort of thing. That was the view I had as a Member of Parliament in the other place; we took it for granted that that would happen. It was part of the police/media mutual back scratching. Police tipped off friends in the media about arresting the actress Gillian Taylforth performing what was called “a sex act” on her boyfriend in a Range Rover and the media returned the favour by giving some crime story greater coverage in order to help the police.
All parties at the time recognised the need for reform and the Leveson inquiry was established. The inquiry was established to make recommendations to protect freedom of expression and take the matter of press regulation out of the hands of government and give it to an independent body. That is the proper way to reform regulation of the press: a public inquiry the recommendations of which all sides sign up to. Governments of left and right are always vulnerable to pressure from the press, whether it is from Murdoch, Dacre or other individuals, to sway policy in their direction, often at the expense of the public. Let us be honest that no Government have been immune from those pressures. All Governments run scared of doing anything on press regulation when the press might criticise it and not back the party at the next election. That is no way to settle policy, least of all when it overrides the will of both Houses of the British Parliament.
These are not new points; they are a summary of Sir John Major’s evidence to Leveson. I am supporting these amendments today in order to bring those reforms into effect, as Leveson recommended and as Parliament intended and voted for. As noble and noble and learned Lords have said, it is vital that newspapers have access to the exemptions necessary for investigative journalism—Leveson recommended that. We are all defenders of free speech. Newspapers that wish to continue to enjoy the broadest range of exemptions need only sign up to an independent regulator, whereupon they will enjoy not only all of the exemptions already in the Bill, but three new exemptions added by these amendments.
Let us be clear that we mean an independent regulator, not the in-house, fey, bogus, patsy system that the media have created for their own benefit and which is no better than the discredited Press Complaints Commission. We have heard enough examples from noble Lords tonight to show that they have failed to do their duty. We have a cross-party, judge-recommended way forward on these matters. We should take it and take press regulation policy out of the hands of government and into Leveson’s independent system. It is probably just as well that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, is not here for this debate. In my 40 years in Parliament I have never agreed with anything he has said except every word tonight. I assure noble Lords that it would be as terrible a shock to the noble Lord to hear it as it is to me to say it, but he is absolutely right—we have implemented only a trivial amount of Leveson.
Noble and noble and learned Lords have said, “This is not the right Bill”. There never is a right Bill, unless the Government bring in a press regulation Bill, which I can understand that no Government would want to do. So we are forced to try to implement Leveson by tacking a bit on to this Bill, hoping that there will be another criminal justice Bill next year so we can tack another bit on and gradually, bit by bit, getting Leveson implemented. Of course, the Government could easily implement Section 40, which would give us 90% of what Leveson wanted. These amendments, or implementing Section 40, are the only ways to protect the public while ensuring freedom of the press. I hope that noble Lords from all sides of the House will support these amendments tonight—or, if not tonight if we do not have a vote, in the new year.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I shall make very few remarks and confine them to Amendment 53—which I oppose, I should say at once. In my arguments addressed to an earlier group, I referred to Section 12(4) of the Human Rights Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred again this evening. He is plainly right: if you look at the text of that, the amendment and paragraph 24(3) of the schedule—which the amendment would excise—you see that the amendment makes no sense. It would leave out precisely what is already there, which mirrors what is already in Section 12 of the Human Rights Act. If ever there were such a thing as a constitutional Act, that is. It has a considerable place in our overall constitution.
I have been searching the Leveson inquiry report, not least the paragraphs devoted specifically to the press and data protection. I certainly hope to be corrected if I am wrong, but I cannot find any suggestion by Lord Justice Leveson—Sir Brian Leveson, not Lord Leveson—that Section 12 of the Human Rights Act should be repealed. In effect, however, Amendment 53 is, if not repealing it, at least producing a position that would be inconsistent with it.
I do not seek to address Section 40. Manifestly, this is not the right Bill, but my objection is deeper still. It would be wrong and unwise, all these years on from the enactment of the 2013 Act, to bring into force Section 40. I set out all the reasons why I take that view in the full debate that we had in this Chamber on 20 December—just before Christmas—a year ago. I do not want to weary your Lordships by repeating it all, although, if I did so, I fear that what I would say would be in plain conflict with a good deal of what was just said by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. Surely the right course now on Section 40 is to wait to see the Government’s final response to their admittedly prolonged consultation process. We will not get there tonight, so I leave it at that. I oppose the amendments.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, it is late, so I will be brief, but I cannot avoid speaking against Amendment 53. I declare my interest as someone who spent most of her career in journalism and now chairs the Financial Times complaints commission, which is, I assure your Lordships, a very serious commission. The FT aims to put things right.
I absolutely accept that the public were justifiably incensed by the hacking scandal. It was atrocious and, as has been pointed out, illegal. The fact that it was not dealt with as it should have been at first instance through the criminal process was absolutely wrong. In the end, as we heard from noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, people were punished and newspapers folded. That was right, because hacking was illegal and should never have happened, and the public were right to be angry about it. But I do not believe that the British public wish to see all media tarred with that scandal. Neither do I believe that the British public, who are an inherently fair group of people, wish to see all media straitjacketed into joining an inappropriate regulator. I cannot resist echoing my noble friend Lord Black in his use of the word “bullying”; that is exactly how it feels. On the whole, I do not think that the British public would go along with bullying on that scale.
I declare another interest as somebody who, as a supporter of remain, has found myself very much on the sharp end of what newspapers can do. The Brexit media have been quite unpleasant, putting aside the fact that at some stages I have worked for the newspapers in question. That did not stop them. Nevertheless, do I want to see them subject to punitive damages in the circumstances that Leveson imagined? No, I do not, because, as everybody in this House has expressed, I too am a believer in free speech. If we believe in free speech, we need to think very carefully about there being punitive damages for not joining an inappropriate regulator. I do not believe the public want that and I do not believe we should support the amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak on these amendments, although we support them from these Benches, but I have to take issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said—I think, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Black, from the previous debate—about how we do not need any of this stuff because people can sue the newspapers and achieve redress through those means.
When I was a commander in the Metropolitan Police Service, I was subjected to a kiss and tell story on the front page and eight inside pages of a tabloid newspaper. The story was a mixture of lies and intimate details of my private life and my relationship with somebody I loved and lived with for three and a half years. We broke up in acrimonious circumstances and subsequently he was paid £100,000 by the tabloid newspaper to tell these lies and intimate details of my private life. Thankfully, a group of solicitors and barristers agreed to a conditional fee agreement to pursue the newspaper. However, half way through the preliminaries leading up to the court case, it became apparent that I was unable to secure insurance against losing. Therefore, I was faced with a situation where if I pulled out of the action I would have to pay both sides’ costs—the newspaper’s costs and my own side’s costs because the conditional fee agreement would happen only if the case went to court and I lost—and could have lost my home.
The point is that there are many ordinary people, less high-profile than even I was at that time, who cannot get conditional fee agreements. They do not have the means to sue newspapers. Certainly, I would not recommend anybody going through the stress that I was put through by that newspaper and its lawyers, who tried every trick in the book to try to get us to fold before the court case happened. As it happens, two weeks before the case was due to be heard, they agreed to settle, although they claimed that it was not on the grounds of a breach of privacy but because everything that had been printed in the newspaper was untrue.
For noble Lords to say that there are sufficient safeguards at the moment for ordinary people to take the newspapers to court is, in my respectful submission, completely untrue.
Lord Pannick
I am very sorry to hear about the noble Lord’s personal experience and of course I accept everything he says. But will he accept that hundreds of people have brought legal proceedings against national newspaper groups for their wrongful, unlawful action in accessing personal data—for example, by listening to their mobile telephone calls—and publishing articles in consequence of that, and they have recovered very substantial damages, and rightly so, against those newspapers?
Lord Paddick
I completely accept what the noble Lord says but there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of other ordinary people who have not been able to claim redress for the wrongs that have been meted out to them by the press.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
This is not simply about money; it is what it does to your reputation. That is much more important than money.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. Obviously, despite the fact that we won the court case in the end and that there was a small apology in the said newspaper—I think it was on page 6—I was not able to recover the serious damage done to my reputation. I am grateful to be standing here in the House today to address noble Lords on this issue, but there are many people whose reputations have not recovered.
Lord Blencathra
Perhaps I may give the noble Lord some information which he may not have been aware of, as he may have left the Met by then. The reason that maybe up to 100 people were able to sue on the hacking was because their names appeared in the Mulcaire diaries, and the Met team kindly went and told every single person who had possibly been hacked, “They’re after you. You’re in Mulcaire’s diaries and you may care to contact some lawyers. Here are some lawyers who are doing a group action. If you join that, there is no great risk to yourself—you will be in there with a lot of others. The lawyers will be there on a no-win no-fee basis and you’re perfectly safe to do it”. That is why most of those people were able to go together in a joint action, but the thousands of individuals do not have a hope.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I have been trying to search for words to explain what is going on at the moment. It seems to me that we are living in two parallel universes. My first thought was that we were back in World War I territory—the noble Lord, Lord Black, will get the reference—and that we were engaging in sniping over long pieces of dead ground over issues that nobody could understand, fought by people who did not want to be there and led by people even more stupid than that. But I have decided that this is the rerun of an acrimonious family dinner that we had before the break. We are now reflecting on that and trying to nerve ourselves up to talk again to each other and restore relationships, because relationships must go on.
Again, we have had these passionate stories, anecdotes and recollections of times when things have gone disastrously wrong. No amount of legal redress can undo that suffering. From others, we have heard a perfectly robust and understandable account of why things are perfectly all right at the moment and, given time, will be sorted out. I begin to think that Leveson, for all the great work he did and the excellence of his report—and the longevity of its recommendations—is a bit of a McGuffin here. This is about us and society; it is about Parliament. I tried to address some of that at the end of the last debate. We have to get serious about this and work out how to make progress. We have to restore the rightful balance between Parliament, which must be sovereign, and those who work within an environment in which Parliament seems at the moment to have been discounted.
If we do not get this sorted, we will continue to be like this for the rest of time. It is insufficient and ineffective. It will not be the way we want to live our lives and we will all be much the losers as a result. We must give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and her proposals. Yes, they come from Leveson—but underneath that there is the greater truth that things are not working as they could be. They should be working better.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, while we have already debated amendments that are challenging to a free press, I fear that this group of amendments would be potentially hostile to the concept of a free press. Where there are abuses the answer is to enforce the law, not to shut down the media. I adopt the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft in that regard.
Amendment 53 would remove the requirement to give special weighting to the public interest in freedom of expression and information. This is something that we consider an essential way of ensuring that information that is in the public interest is not buried due to the data protection regime that is put in place. In this context, giving special weight to the public interest in freedom of expression and information is an important way of ensuring that we provide constitutional protection of freedom of speech, as required pursuant to Article 10 of the European Convention and the Human Rights Act.
Amendments 54 and 56 relate to the codes of practice to guide journalists in conducting the essential public interest balancing test that has to be carried out. We have already debated this in the previous group, before the dinner break. Amendment 54 intends to take away the absolute requirement to have regard to the listed codes of practice when determining whether publication would pass the public interest test. This requirement is a way of strengthening the obligations on journalists. In line with the enhanced protection of the GDPR, we are making sure that those journalists who are covered by one of the listed codes must have regard to their relevant code.
In a related amendment, Amendment 56, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has suggested that we alter the language of the condition on the special purposes exemption at paragraph 24 of Schedule 2 to the Bill by changing “relevant” to “appropriate”. This amendment makes it unclear which code should be consulted in a given case. We want to ensure that the code which pertains to a particular set of journalists is the code to which they have regard when carrying out the public interest test.
We are not being unreasonable in resisting Amendments 54 and 56. They may look innocuous, just slightly changing the language of the Bill, but if we are to be true to the GDPR, we must ensure that in our law we have resolved the article 85 requirement to set where the public interest lies in managing the balance between privacy and freedom of expression. If we make the use of these codes discretionary and their application vague, we will simply undermine that balance.
Finally, I turn to the amendments from the noble Baroness that aim to create a special group of exemptions only for those journalists who are members of an approved regulator. As drafted, the Bill is designed to protect journalists who should be able legitimately to rely on these exemptions when undertaking journalism in the public interest, regardless of which regulator they belong to or whether they belong to any at all. The reality of the press landscape today is that the vast majority of publishers are not members of an approved regulator. As such, limiting certain exemptions to only those who are members of an approved regulator would limit the ability of most journalists in this country to undertake investigative journalism in the public interest. Whatever the motive or the intention behind these amendments, they are, I am afraid, either wrecking amendments or amendments designed to force publishers to sign up to a regulator to which they object—and that is not acceptable.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was mentioned. As we have previously discussed, the Government are currently considering Section 40 with regard to part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. We do not believe that using data protection legislation is an appropriate means of trying to incentivise compliance with, for example, Section 40.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, observed just three weeks ago, and earlier this evening, that this is not perhaps the place for this debate. He commented:
“I do not think the Bill is the right place to rerun some of the long-standing arguments about Leveson”.—[Official Report, 22/11/17; col. 195.]
I concur with that observation, which he just reinforced with his observations about the need for us perhaps to look more clearly at what the real issue is rather than being distracted by trying to act as tail-end Charlies to a particular piece of legislation on data protection.
There will be a response to the consultation on Section 40 and Leveson 2, but I shall make one comment with regard to the suggestion about delay in that consultation process. Noble Lords may recollect that the Secretary of State was the subject of a judicial review application which made it impossible for her to proceed with the consultation because the terms of the consultation were the subject of legal challenge. Thereafter, when the consultation proceeded, there were more than 174,000 responses. They had to be analysed and considered, but the fact that there was that number of responses perhaps gives weight to the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about there being an issue that needs to be addressed, and therefore we must look forward to the response to the consultation. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollins
Before the Minister sits down, will he confirm that he will reflect on this debate, which has been very important, and in the light of the promised consultation report allow the debate to continue in the new year?
Lord Keen of Elie
I cannot guarantee the continuation of this debate, although the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, appears determined to see it continue in the new year, under reference to his Amendment 165, and I look to engaging with him in a further interesting discussion on the topic at that stage. Beyond that, I say to the noble Baroness that the Government and Ministers are listening and considering these issues.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, does the fact that the Government have not responded to the consultation indicate that there must be some uncertainty about the issue?
Lord Keen of Elie
The position with regard to the consultation and the response to the consultation is as I indicated before the break. Sir Brian Leveson has, very properly, asked to see material pertaining to the consultation and the responses to it because he is a necessary party in this context. Until he has had a reasonable opportunity to do that, it would not be appropriate for us to respond.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I would like just to make one or two corrections for the record. The noble and learned Lord suggested that the amendment, which would reserve some exemptions for newspapers signed up to a recognised regulator, would actually prevent the majority of journalists from engaging in investigative journalism. That is not the case. The exemptions required for investigative journalism remain intact for all journalists, regardless of their regulator.
There are one or two other corrections. The noble Lord, Lord Black, continues to misrepresent the establishment of the Press Recognition Panel, for example by saying that it is subject to interference by the Secretary of State. That is just not the case. It is so patently untrue that I can only assume that the noble Lord has not researched the facts, because it is a point that he has made before.
With respect to my noble friend Lord Pannick’s faith in the legal profession being able to sort out any illegal acts by newspapers, I will just say that affording the money to pay a lawyer and the time to mount a legal claim is not usually possible or a priority for victims of press abuse, particularly when they are in the midst of personal trauma. It is just not a priority. I personally would prefer that newspapers behaved themselves and did not fill lawyers’ pockets with money.
I take exception to being described as a bully. I have heard no compassion or concern for the victims of press abuse. Do noble Lords have any idea what it is like to be bullied by newspapers day after day after day? Any idea at all? To call my amendments bullying is unforgivable. Imagine the effect on the lady I spoke about before, who had lost weight and was described as a “grubby gran”. Imagine what that did to her mental state. I wonder whether she has been able to retain her weight loss.
This is the right Bill for these amendments. They are amendments to data protection legislation, and the victims of press abuse have waited a considerable length of time for an opportunity to take them forward. They are not hastily drawn-up, but the result of an extensive and impartial inquiry, and are as relevant today as they were in 2012. Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations relate to the processing of data, not to the medium of publication, so it is irrelevant that the media landscape is changing.
I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords who have spoken, in part because they demonstrate just how much there appears to be two parallel worlds. I assure your Lordships that I will return to this matter, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) in Chapter IV of the GDPR (controller and processor), Article 36 (requirement for controller to consult Commissioner prior to high risk processing);( ) in Chapter V of the GDPR (transfers of data to third countries etc), Article 44 (general principles for transfers);”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
(a) amend Schedules 2 to 4 —(i) by adding or varying provisions, and(ii) by omitting provisions added by regulations under this section, and(b) consequentially amend section 14.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(3) Regulations under this section—(a) are subject to the made affirmative resolution procedure where the Secretary of State has made an urgency statement in respect of them;(b) are otherwise subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(4) For the purposes of this section, an urgency statement is a reasoned statement that the Secretary of State considers it desirable for the regulations to come into force without delay.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(3) Such processing does not satisfy that requirement if the processing is carried out for the purposes of measures or decisions with respect to a particular data subject, unless the purposes for which the processing is necessary include the purposes of approved medical research.(4) In this section—“approved medical research” means medical research carried out by a person who has approval to carry out that research from—(a) a research ethics committee recognised or established by the Health Research Authority under Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Care Act 2014, or(b) a body appointed by any of the following for the purpose of assessing the ethics of research involving individuals—(i) the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, or a Northern Ireland department;(ii) a relevant NHS body;(iii) United Kingdom Research and Innovation or a body that is a Research Council for the purposes of the Science and Technology Act 1965;(iv) an institution that is a research institution for the purposes of Chapter 4A of Part 7 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (see section 457 of that Act);“relevant NHS body” means—(a) an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust in England,(b) an NHS trust or Local Health Board in Wales, (c) a Health Board or Special Health Board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,(d) the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service, or(e) any of the health and social care bodies in Northern Ireland falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 1(5) of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 (c. 1 (N.I.)).(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations change the meaning of “approved medical research” for the purposes of this section, including by amending subsection (4).(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Minor definitionMeaning of “court”
Section 4(1) (terms used in this Chapter to have the same meaning as in the GDPR) does not apply to references in this Chapter to a court and, accordingly, such references do not include a tribunal.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Duty to notify of data protection breaches due to ransomware attacks
(1) In addition to notifying the Commissioner of a personal data breach under Article 33 of the GDPR, a data controller must also notify the relevant police force if the data breach was the result of a ransomware attack.(2) In this section,“ransomware attack” means an attack of a form of malware which holds the information on a user's computer hostage until a ransom fee is paid; and“police force” has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the amendment in my name, and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, would insert a new clause in the Bill that requires a data controller to notify both the Information Commissioner and the police if they are subject to a ransomware attack. Ransomware attacks involve hackers taking control of your information held on a computer and agreeing to release the information back to you only on the payment of a large sum of money. It is kidnapping not of a person but of information.
Apparently thousands of UK businesses have paid these ransom demands and do not bring these issues to the attention of the authorities for fear of damaging their reputation. This is a really serious issue, and one that we cannot allow not to be addressed. I find it shocking that companies are paying these ransom demands, effectively on the quiet. The amendment would make it a legal requirement to notify. It is only by being able to understand the scale of these attacks and understand what has happened—whether or not it is successful is irrelevant—that the authorities can undertake the important work of analysis needed to prevent these attacks happening in the future.
I would go further, and say that it is irresponsible of data controllers or their businesses and organisations not to come forward to notify the proper authorities. They are vulnerable and making the problem worse by hindering the efforts to tackle the problem. Not only are they at risk of whoever is behind the attack coming back for more money later—having paid the hacker, the person will be seen as an easy touch—they are exposing other people, businesses and organisations to this form of attack in the future. My amendment would require notification, and I look forward to a detailed response to the issues I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment on data protection breaches and ransomware attacks. The repercussions of such attacks are felt by everyone, whether or not they are a direct victim of the crime. It is estimated that in 2016 the cost of fraud and cybercrime in the UK was £193 billion, with the full social cost likely to be much higher. It is therefore essential that stringent measures are in place in legislation to ensure that cyberattacks and fraud are prevented, and any perpetrators found and stopped.
We, nevertheless, believe that Amendment 78A is unnecessary. Article 33 of the GDPR, referenced in the noble Lord’s amendment, requires the data controller to inform the Information Commissioner within 72 hours of all data breaches, including as a result of ransomware attacks. The controller is required to provide information of the likely consequences of the personal data breach, and to describe the measures taken or proposed by the controller to address the breach. There is one exception, given in Article 33, for breaches unlikely to result in a risk to data subjects, but that hardly seems relevant in cases where hackers have proven access to the data in question.
The GDPR does not require data controllers to report cyberattacks to the relevant police forces, for good reason. It is well understood that the Information Commissioner has the expertise and resources to take the appropriate and necessary action in the first instance, including, if she deems it appropriate, referrals to the police or to investigate and bring prosecutions herself under data protection law. I am also puzzled by the amendment’s intention to single out ransomware as the only form of cyberattack worth reporting to the police. A huge range of cyberattacks cause substantial distress and harm to individuals, such as insider attacks, attacks from third countries and other cybercrimes, such as malware and phishing. In addition, organisations can report cyberattacks or fraud to Action Fraud, which in turn ensures that the correct crime reporting procedures are followed. This organisation is overseen by the City of London Police, the national lead for economic crime, and we believe that it represents an effective and scalable structure. For the reasons I have stated, therefore, I would be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment this evening.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am happy to withdraw my amendment this evening. I wanted to raise the issue here. The Minister cited the figure of £193 billion lost through these and other forms of attacks—he went through a number of them—and this is a very serious matter. I hope that he is correct that companies are required to notify the Information Commissioner on the back of this legislation. This is very serious. I hope that he is correct that it is not necessary to go to the police—the sums of money that he mentioned are absolutely shocking. At one point, he said that the Information Commissioner can start prosecutions. That is fine, if we can find the people behind the crime and if they are in this country. If they are somewhere in lands far away, I wish him all the best, but I suspect that we will have some trouble in catching the perpetrators or bringing them to justice. My worry is that, because of reputational damage, companies will be reluctant to notify anyone about this stuff. It is very serious.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Can I just echo what the noble Lord says? We agree that it is serious, which is why we have set up the National Cyber Security Centre to help to protect public services online and why the Chancellor allocated nearly £2 billion for cybersecurity when he launched that centre.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
It is very pleasing to hear that. I welcome that, but these are matters that we will have to keep under review. Unfortunately in this world, the people involved in this stuff are usually quite skilful and bright and can keep one step ahead of the law or the people trying to catch them. We should keep these matters under review but, unfortunately, they are not going to go away. My worry is that these crimes are committed many miles from these shores and catching the perpetrators is the problem. However, I am very happy at this stage to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennedy for supporting me and to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding his name to this amendment, which is one in search of an easy resolution—and I hope it can be done very quickly. The Minister and his colleagues have from time to time had to animadvert the recitals of the GDPR as evidence and support for claims that they make. I have no concerns with them doing that because I am quite happy with the recitals—I like them, understand them and think they are rather useful things to have around. What I do not understand is how that will happen when we go to the applied GDPR, when the only issue that will be able to be tested in court, as I understand it, is the GDPR itself. Therefore, I went to the Public Bill Office. Normally, its staff are difficult friends for an Opposition seeking to amend a Bill. They throw unforeseen, difficult and complicated legal issues in our way and make it very difficult for us to get to where we want. However, on this occasion, they said, “Leave it with us. We know exactly what you want. We will put an amendment together that will satisfy every concern you have”. It is there in front of us as Amendment 81, which I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am very keen to support this extremely useful amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. If I had £5 for every mention of a recital in Committee and on Report, I would have the price of an extremely good Christmas dinner for me and quite a few of my friends. Only today, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, prayed in aid a recital in an earlier rather useful debate on Clause 13. We really need to know what the status of these recitals is both pre and post Brexit. Is it that of an immediate aid to interpretation or an integral part of the law, or is it more like that of a Pepper v Hart statement, to be used only when the meaning is not clear in the Bill or the GDPR, or where there is ambiguity? Or do these recitals impose certain obligations, as I think has been implied on a number of occasions by Ministers?
At this time of night I cannot remember whether it was in Alice in Wonderland or Through the Looking Glass that a phrase was used along the lines of, “Words mean what I say they mean”. I rather feel that recitals are prayed in aid at every possible opportunity when it is convenient to do so without specifying exactly what their status is. We will need to establish that very clearly by the time we come to the end of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
At the risk of making myself unpopular for one more minute, all I can say to my noble friend is: Humpty Dumpty.
At an earlier stage of the Bill I asked how we would interpret a particular provision when we were no longer tethered to the European Court of Justice. The response I received was that it would be interpreted in accordance with UK law at the time. If this amendment is agreed, it will be an extremely helpful contribution to UK law applying while taking into account the impact of the recitals.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I cannot think of a better way to end our debate than with a discussion on recitals, which we have talked about a lot during the course of this Bill. I point out to both noble Lords that it was not only me who referred to recitals; they have both done so ad nauseam.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Sorry, I should have said “ad infinitum”—that is perfectly correct.
The Government do not dispute that recitals form an important part of the GDPR. As I said, we have all referred to one recital or another many times. There is nothing embarrassing or awkward about that. It is a fact of EU law that courts often require assistance in properly interpreting the articles of a directly applicable regulation—and we, as parliamentarians, need to follow that logic, too.
I would remind noble Lords that the Government have been clear that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will be used to deliver two things which are very important in this context. First, under Clause 3 of the withdrawal Bill, recitals of directly applicable regulations will be transferred into UK law at the same time as the articles are transferred. There is no risk of them somehow being cast adrift. Where legislation is converted under this clause, it is the text of the legislation itself which will form part of domestic legislation. This will include the full text of any EU instrument, including its recitals.
Secondly, Clause 6 of the withdrawal Bill ensures that recitals will continue to be interpreted as they were prior to the UK’s exit from the EU. They will, as before, be capable of casting light on the interpretation to be given to a legal rule, but they will not themselves have the status of a substantive legal rule. Clause 20(5) of this Bill ensures that whatever is true for the interpretation of the GDPR proper is also true for the applied GDPR.
More than 10,000 regulations are currently in force in the European Union. Some are more important than others but, however you look at it, there must be more than 100,000 recitals across the piece. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill provides a consistent solution for every single one of them. It seems odd that we would want to use this Bill to highlight the status of 0.1% of them. Nor, as I say, is there a need to: Clause 20 already ensures that the applied GDPR will be interpreted consistently with the GDPR, which means that it will be interpreted in accordance with the GDPR’s recitals wherever relevant, both before and after exit.
There is one further risk that I must draw to the House’s attention. Recitals are not the only interpretive aid available to the courts. Other sources, such as case law or definitions of terms in other EU legislation, may also be valid depending on the circumstances. Clause 20(5) as drafted provides for all interpretive aids to the GDPR to apply to the applied GDPR. By singling out recitals the amendment could uniquely elevate their status in the context of the applied GDPR above any other similar aids. This, in turn, may cause the GDPR and applied GDPR to diverge.
The drafting of the noble Lord’s amendment is also rather perplexing. It seeks to affect only the interpretation of the applied GDPR. The applied GDPR is an important part of the Bill but it is relatively narrow in its application. I am not sure it has the importance that the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to attach to it. It is, at most, a template for what will follow post exit.
I will not stand here and say that the noble Lord’s amendment would be the end of the world. That would be disingenuous. However, it is unnecessary, it risks unintended consequences and it does not achieve what the noble Lord is, I think, attempting. For those reasons, I am afraid I am unable to support his amendment this evening and I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
That is a very disappointing end to a rather splendid day. If you read Amendment 81 closely, it simply says “having regard to”, which is probably the weakest form of expression you can find in any legal circumstance. I am a bit surprised that the Minister could not come to a better conclusion than he did. In fact, we got a sort of Pepper v Hart-ish approach to it; we can rely on it but it is not as good as it would have been if we had agreed Amendment 81. I can say nothing more on this except that I am sure that we will return to this at some stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.