House of Commons
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 3 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, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
On 11 January, the Government published our 25-year environment plan, which states our ambition to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste. We have already banned microbeads in personal care products, we are removing single-use plastics from Government estate offices, we are exploring a reward and return scheme, and we welcome the introduction by retailers of plastic-free aisles. We are also investigating how we can develop our producer responsibility scheme to give producers more incentives to design more resource-efficient products.
Alan Mak
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Hayling Island beach has been recognised for its clean coastline by being awarded a blue flag for the past 26 years, partly because it is plastic-free. Will the Secretary of State congratulate Havant Borough Council and local residents, and continue to support coastal communities to keep coastlines plastic-free?
Michael Gove
I absolutely will. The leadership shown by Havant Borough Council is equalled, of course, by the leadership shown by my hon. Friend. When I had the opportunity to visit his constituency and its coastline last year, I saw his commitment to our marine environment. It is vital that colleagues such as my hon. Friend are applauded for their determined environmental work.
Vicky Ford
People in Chelmsford really care about their recycling. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what actions we can take to ensure that the end product can be put to meaningful use after we put things in our recycling?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. She has made determined efforts in not just this Parliament but the European Parliament to make recycling easier for all. We are exploring how we can better co-ordinate efforts at a local level to ensure that more material is recycled and, indeed, that more recyclable material is used.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
On a visit to Bywaters recycling centre in Bow yesterday, I saw the amazing work that the waste industry is doing to tackle our waste and heard about some of the challenges it faces. I was told that the Chinese ban on imports of UK waste has caused the price of recycled paper to fall from £100 a tonne to £20 a tonne, and I presume that the same can be said for plastic. That will have an impact on the viability of councils’ recycling contracts and will feed through to council tax bills. Does the Secretary of State agree that we can tackle the problem by setting long-term targets for the waste industry, such as the 65% target by 2035 that has been suggested by the EU?
Michael Gove
Setting appropriate targets is absolutely part of this. One of the challenges of the EU’s target is that, because weight is such an important component in how the EU measures recycling, it does not always incentivise quite the right behaviour. Even though the EU has made important strides, I am glad that our own Government have gone further by ensuring that we tackle the scourge of single-use plastics.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The UK is in a unique position to tackle plastic waste in the world’s oceans due to the number of our overseas territories. Will the Secretary of State be speaking to those overseas territories to develop a comprehensive strategy in this area?
Michael Gove
Well—[Interruption.] It was a very good question. The hon. Gentleman always asks very good questions, whether in this House or elsewhere, and he also writes very good books. He makes an important point, and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), will be meeting representatives of the overseas territories next month. He is right that there is more work to do on the network of marine protected areas around many of our overseas territories, and he is right to encourage us.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) will feel that his status not just in this House, but in the country—perhaps even in the world as a whole—will have been greatly enhanced by the generous tribute that has just been bestowed upon him by the Secretary of State.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Michael Gove
I absolutely commend the pupils’ initiative. The next generation often puts some of us to shame in its commitment to ensure that we have a more sustainable approach towards the environment. There is another youngster who has been leading the charge against plastic straws: the relatively newly installed editor of London’s Evening Standard, whose “The Last Straw” campaign has been instrumental in ensuring that commercial organisations ban plastic straws. He is a relatively new entrant to my profession of journalism and I commend him on his promising start.
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State thinks that the young man is not doing too badly, and I am sure that the young man concerned will feel fortified by that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I commend the Secretary of State for the publication of the environmental strategy, which is an important and significant step, but there are still opportunities to do more. Will he tell the House why he allowed 25 years in the strategy for the elimination of non-essential plastics? If they are non-essential, surely we can do better than that.
Michael Gove
I have enormous respect for the right hon. Gentleman. The nature of the 25-year plan was a recommendation of the Natural Capital Committee and, as he knows, it covers a wide range of issues. The Government are bringing forward more demanding and more ambitious targets to reduce single-use plastics, but he is right to encourage the Government, and all of us, to do more.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I wish you, Mr Speaker, and the Minister a happy Burns day. In Scotland, there is discussion about a plastic bottle return scheme. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with his counterparts in the Scottish Government to ensure that a system can effectively work while preventing English bottles from being paid for by the Scottish Government, and vice versa?
Michael Gove
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. On the subject of Burns day, I recently had discussions with the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs at the US Department of Agriculture to see whether he could lift the ban on haggis. Although the American President has many faults, he has one virtue: he has a Scots mum. On that basis, I hope he may listen sympathetically.
On the equally important issue of the deposit return scheme, we will be working with devolved Administrations to ensure that we have a UK-wide approach wherever possible.
Mr Speaker
The House will certainly want to be kept informed about the haggis situation, and I am sure the Secretary of State will not disappoint us in that regard.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I am sure that you would agree that plastic pollution is one of today’s great environmental challenges. The Secretary of State has mentioned the importance of recycling a number of times, so I am concerned by reports that the Government have been opposing the new EU targets. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are opposing the new recycling targets?
Michael Gove
We are anxious to make sure that, across the EU, we have the right targets. One of the flaws with the EU system, as I acknowledged earlier, is that because of its reliance on measuring through weight, it sometimes incentivises the wrong approaches. I am confident that our own country has gone further than the European Union has requested or suggested on everything from banning microplastics to looking at taxes on single-use plastics and, indeed, introducing the charge on plastic bags. In all those areas we have shown that we have gone further and faster than the EU, and of course that is the Government’s ambition for a truly green Brexit.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
With my leave, the supplementary to Question 2 will be put by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). I wish the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) well, and we hope he is in full voice again very soon.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I also hope that the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) recovers his voice soon.
The Government have made no assessment of the effect of trail hunting. However, anyone who believes that an offence has taken place during a hunt, including during a trail hunt, should report the matter to the police, as the police deal with complaints of illegal hunting. Decisions on the arrest and prosecution of those taking part in illegal hunting activities are matters for the police and prosecuting authorities.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that concerns are growing that trail hunting is being used as a cover for illegal hunting. This was recently brought into focus by the invasion of a cat sanctuary—run by the well-known Celia Hammond Animal Trust—in East Sussex by a pack of hounds from the Romney Marsh hunt. What action will the Government take against those who continue to hunt illegally?
George Eustice
The law in this area is clear. Between 2005 and 2015, 682 individuals were prosecuted and 423 were found guilty, so the law is clear and is being enforced. Even groups such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have accepted that this is a law that is being enforced.
Christian Matheson
In the four weeks since Boxing day, at least four foxes in Cheshire have been illegally killed by trail hunts. As the Government have withdrawn their plans to scrap anti-hunting laws, is it the case that someone in government has given a secret nod and a wink to trail hunts that they can continue to hunt and kill foxes with impunity?
George Eustice
No, that is not the case. The Prime Minister has made it clear that she has listened to the mood of the country and that there therefore will not be the free vote on foxhunting in this Parliament that we pledged in our manifesto. As I said earlier, foxhunting is a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities. Anybody who believes the law has been broken should report it to the police.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
In addition to the measures that I set out in my previous answers, our 25-year environment plan explores how we can better incentivise producers to design better products, including packaging. We are working with the Waste and Resources Action Programme charity and the industry to increase the amount of recyclable packaging on the market.
Catherine West
More than 200 Members signed my letter on what the supermarkets could do to improve their recycling so that they meet the targets that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) mentioned. Which supermarkets has the Secretary of State personally spoken to in order to bring them in line with Iceland, which is apparently the leader in this area?
Michael Gove
That letter was excellent, if I may say so. I have talked to not only Iceland, but Marks and Spencer, Waitrose, Tesco and Sainsbury’s. We had a roundtable before Christmas at which those retailers and others made a shared commitment to ensure that we reduce the demand for plastic, that fewer plastics are used, and that those plastics that we have more of are recycled or recyclable. A commitment was also made to work with local government to make it easier for all to recycle.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to improve and increase the capacity of recycling facilities and infrastructure across the country?
Michael Gove
We are looking at how we might reform the packaging recovery note—PRN—system to ensure that the market works better to encourage more recycling and more capacity in the waste industry.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
When I was doing my family shopping at Asda in Wrexham last weekend, I noticed the appalling amount of plastic packaging on meat products, which seems to be in place for the ease of the supermarkets rather than that of their customers. Will the Secretary of State please raise the issue of packaging with the supermarkets?
Michael Gove
I absolutely will, but while I have no wish to undermine Asda, which is an admirable retailer, I find that when buying meat, the best thing to do is to go to one’s local butcher, buy locally and invest in the local economy.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Water UK on its initiative to encourage more places on our high streets to allow people to refill their water bottles, rather than buying water in disposable plastic containers?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Water UK’s initiative is wholly welcome. The idea of a nationwide network of refill stations is absolutely right. The decline of public water fountains marked a deeply regrettable trend, so I am glad that they are making a comeback.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Some 480 billion plastic bottles were sold globally in 2016. If we want to address one of the key issues, it has to be plastic bottles. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the companies to reduce the number of bottles or to have them reused—whatever the case may be?
Michael Gove
We have discussed with industry bodies representing a variety of manufacturers and with retailers everything that we can do to reduce such use. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The world’s conscience has been awoken to the scourge of plastic in our oceans by the crusading work of documentary makers such as David Attenborough, and also by an increasing awareness of how important it is that we tread more lightly on our planet. The leadership that the hon. Gentleman has been showing in Northern Ireland is exemplary.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government’s consultation closed on 29 December. We had more than 70,000 responses, so we are considering them carefully. We want to act at pace—that is why officials are preparing legislation—but we need to be careful that we give due consideration to all the responses so that we introduce appropriate legislation that will end the scourge of elephant poaching in Africa and other parts of the world.
Rachel Maclean
Wildlife crime is a threat to conservation and animal welfare at home and abroad. Wildlife and Countryside Link’s report has revealed that enforcement officers are hindered by a lack of proper recording and reporting processes. As we prepare to host the IWT summit, and considering the progress that my hon. Friend has referred to regarding the trade of ivory products, what assurances can she give me and the all-party group on endangered species, of which I am the chair, about the measures being taken by the Department to address the matter?
Dr Coffey
The UK Government have been active in taking practical action to reduce demand and strengthen enforcement. We are investing in schemes around the world to reduce this pernicious trade. DEFRA and the Home Office continue to fund the national wildlife crime unit to tackle wildlife crime here in the UK. Actionable intelligence is key, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to make this a priority.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I support the noble aim of both the Secretary of State and the Minister in this regard, but the hon. Lady will be aware of concerns among antique dealers about the ramifications for products that contain historical ivory. Can she offer any assurance to assuage their concerns that the sale of ivory that has been in antiques for generations will be allowed to continue?
Dr Coffey
We are considering the matter carefully, but we need to have a comprehensive ban. In the consultation, we put forward a suggestion on several exemptions, and we are looking through the responses to that particularly carefully. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that having ivory as a valuable object just because it is ivory is something that we simply do not want in this country or around the world, which is why we are taking strong action.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am pleased to say that the Government will continue to improve air quality, supported by the new comprehensive clean air strategy that we are developing and will publish later this year. We have already put in place a £3.5 billion plan to improve air quality, with a particular focus on transport, and we have significant targets to reduce emissions of the five damaging air pollutants. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a devolved matter, and the Welsh Government are actively considering how to improve air quality in Wales.
Nick Smith
By when does the Minister think that Volkswagen will face criminal charges in the UK for its emissions scandal?
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I represent a car-manufacturing constituency. Will the Minister acknowledge that the UK car industry has made significant contributions through its investment in low emission cars, which is a key part of the strategy to improve air quality?
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have been investing in improving and cleaning up transport infrastructure. We have introduced legislation to require the deployment of far more electric charging points. I am pleased that the money we are investing is helping to clean up buses, which is key to improving air quality, particularly in urban centres.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister will recognise that there is an air quality crisis now, particularly in respect of the impact on children. Some of the problem is down to the most polluting vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles and buses. What will this joined-up Government do to make sure that we get those vehicles off our roads?
Dr Coffey
This is why the Government are investing—we have been for several years—to clean up things like the bus vehicle fleet. We have the clean transport fund. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be keen to work with his council and Greater Manchester to work on an air quality plan, because it is important that we have local solutions that tackle the local issues.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
The Government’s air quality plans are simply inadequate, and they have been taken back to court yet again. With an estimated 40,000 premature deaths attributed to illegal air pollution every year, just how critical does the situation have to get before the Government finally act to comply with the High Court ruling? Will the Secretary of State and the Minister support Labour calls to introduce a new clean air Act to deal urgently with this matter?
Dr Coffey
We need clean air action and that is what the Government are delivering. We are working with local councils, and I wish the hon. Lady would encourage Labour councils to get on with it. I have had to issue ministerial directions to get councils to bring forward plans, and that is a real problem. I wish that we could work collegiately on this, because what matters is improving the health of the people we represent. I am keen to do that, and I would welcome the hon. Lady’s support in working with Labour-led councils to achieve that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Before the introduction of Flood Re in 2016, only 9% of householders who had previously claimed for a flood could subsequently get insurance quotes from two or more insurers. By October 2017, availability had improved such that 100% of householders could get quotes from two or more insurers. Costs are down, and four out of five householders who have previously made a flood claim have seen price reductions of more than 50%.
Rachael Maskell
It is two years since Storm Eva and, with flood alerts along the River Ouse in York this week, residents living in leasehold accommodation or accommodation built since 2009, along with businesses, have been failed by the Government’s not putting in place appropriate insurance. What recent discussions has the Minister had about this issue?
Dr Coffey
I direct the hon. Lady’s attention to the record £2.5 billion that we are investing in flood defences between 2015 and 2021, from which people and businesses in York will benefit, as she knows. The rules for leaseholders are quite specific. After careful parliamentary scrutiny, a certain approach was taken so that commercially required insurance was not included in Flood Re. I continue to meet the British Insurance Brokers Association. Members have raised around five cases with me, and those are the ones that I am pursuing.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Flood Re has really helped to cover residential properties, but what about a guest house? Is that a business or a residence? Can it actually get affordable insurance? Businesses, and small businesses in particular, are finding it difficult to get affordable insurance.
Dr Coffey
As I have said, I have taken up the issue of leasehold properties, and I have had the issue of commercial properties raised with me. Flood Re was a big and quite fundamental change in this country. In fact, every householder supports other householders for a limited period of time to help with flood resilience. It would be a massive change for businesses in one part of the country to subsidise other businesses because of their location choices. I recognise that this is not a straightforward issue, which is why we continue to work with the insurance industry to improve cover.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Many in Cumbria who suffered flooding were affected by surface water flooding. Although the Environment Agency’s flood defences must meet a once in 100-year standard, the water companies are obliged to meet only a once in 50-year standard. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that the water companies are held to the higher standard so that homes and businesses are not put at risk of the devastation and misery caused by flooding?
Dr Coffey
We are talking about water companies and the protection of assets. Surface water is the responsibility of local councils. We are working on a strategy, led by the Environment Agency, which has overall strategic oversight on this, and we will be doing more on surface water flooding this year.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
As we have already heard, parts of the country, including my constituency, were affected by both flood warnings and flooding again this week. The 25-year environment plan gave the Government the opportunity to think long-term about responding to flood risk. Although I appreciate that the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy will be updated in 2019, can the Minister explain why the plan itself fails to include any proposals or funding relating to reducing flood risk beyond just the next three years?
Dr Coffey
When the Government made the decision to have a six-year plan for funding, they dramatically changed the situation for householders and businesses. The decision allowed the Environment Agency to have long-term plans instead of having a year-to-year hand-to-mouth existence. The hon. Lady should welcome the fact that we have that in place, and we will be working on future budgets at the appropriate time.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
The Government are proud of the high food safety and animal welfare standards that underpin our high-quality Great British produce. We have no intention of undercutting our own reputation for quality by lowering our food and animal welfare standards in pursuit of a trade deal.
Alex Cunningham
On that basis, then, does the Minister know whether his boss, a former Education Secretary, would be content to serve our schoolchildren American chlorinated chicken?
George Eustice
The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that, when we leave the European Union, the withdrawal Bill will bring across all existing EU regulations, including those on chlorinated chicken. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said many times, animal welfare is the issue here, and the issue of chlorinated chicken can sometimes mask animal welfare concerns.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
British farmers will be completely undermined if we have a flood of imports from countries with lower animal welfare standards. Will the Minister now tell the House that that is to be one of the Government’s red lines in negotiating free trade agreements?
George Eustice
If the hon. Lady had listened to my earlier answer, she would have heard me say that we have no intention of undercutting our own reputation for quality by lowering our food and animal welfare standards in pursuit of a trade deal.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
We are taking a series of measures to reduce the amount of plastic entering the sea. Our plastic bag charge has led to 9 billion fewer single use bags being used in England. Our microbead ban, which comes into force this month, is one of the toughest in the world, but of course we need to work internationally through forums such as the UN, the G7 and the G20.
Steve Double
As the Secretary of State is aware, on 6 February I will be hosting an event in Parliament, together with Sky TV, as part of its ocean rescue campaign, inviting Members of Parliament to pledge to reduce the amount of plastic that they use in this place. Does he agree that it is important that Members take a lead and set an example on this issue, and will he join me in encouraging them to come to that event and to commit to cut the amount of plastic used here?
Michael Gove
It is an excellent campaign that Sky has been running, and it is lucky to have my hon. Friend playing such a prominent role, as he has been an outstanding environmental campaigner on this issue for many years. Yes, there is a commitment that we can all make. I also know that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), the Chair of the Administration Committee, to see what the House can do to ensure that we reduce the amount of single use plastic on the parliamentary estate.
Mr Speaker
We are indeed considering these matters, and I know that the Secretary of State will feel that there is a song in his heart at the revelation of that development.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Welsh Labour Government are the third best in the world for recycling, far exceeding their targets this year alone. I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating them on that. Can he clarify his position on recycling? He talks a good talk but does little to demonstrate action and is in danger of missing vital EU targets.
Michael Gove
I am happy to praise the Welsh Labour Government on this occasion—there are all sorts of things that Labour in Wales gets wrong, but on recycling I think it is only fair that we say well done. More broadly, it is really important that we all do more, and I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the commitment that you have shown with regard to the parliamentary estate. Of course we can do more; I can do more. The critical point is that when people are doing the right thing, as they are in Wales, we should applaud them.
Mr Speaker
I will now go about my business with an additional glint in my eye and spring in my step, confident in the knowledge that I have at least some approval from a person as illustrious and distinguished as the right hon. Gentleman.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
The House will have heard the very sad news earlier this month that the Nancy Glen, a fishing vessel, was lost off the west coast of Scotland while fishing in Loch Fyne. Two fishermen lost their lives. The Clyde Fishermen’s Association is running an appeal to raise money to recover their bodies and support their families. We all know the inherent risk in fishing. The DEFRA Ministers, on behalf of the whole House, would like to thank all those who risk their lives every day to ensure that we can eat fresh fish. Our hearts go out to the families so sadly affected by this tragedy.
Luke Graham
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. Can he assure constituents right across the United Kingdom that the new UK-wide frameworks that will be brought in as a result of our leaving the European Union will work for all farmers, whether arable, livestock, dairy or hill, and wherever they live in the UK, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. He does an outstanding job working for his constituents in Ochil and South Perthshire, and I am looking forward to visiting his beautiful constituency next week. We must absolutely continue to work across the United Kingdom to ensure that the interests of all farmers—Scottish, Welsh or English, and arable or livestock—are respected by a new UK-wide framework.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
The 2016 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds bird crime report stated that there were 81 confirmed cases of raptor persecution, yet not one prosecution followed. Can the Minister explain why, and what is she going to do about it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
We take this issue very seriously, which is why it is one of National Wildlife Crime Unit’s six crime priorities. It is important that we continue to get evidence so that we can have appropriate prosecutions. The Government cannot direct the police or the Crown Prosecution Service to launch those prosecutions, but we encourage everybody who cares for wildlife to bring evidence to the police.
Mr Speaker
I call Rehman Chishti. Where is the fellow? He is not here—oh dear, oh dear. Never mind. All is well with the world; the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) is here.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
We remember the crew of the Nancy Glen, and the Secretary of State’s words are appreciated.
Farming expects the Secretary of State to continue his support and to maintain standards, of course, but the question for fishing, given all the tonnes he will take from the European Union, is this: where is it going, and when?
Michael Gove
On to the plates of people from the Western Isles to the south-west of England, who can enjoy the fantastic produce that our fishermen catch every day.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
I am delighted that Doddington has been granted permission for 600,000 trees to be planted as part of our future environment plan. This is the largest planting scheme in England for a generation. Doddington is a great example of modern mixed forestry, but we need to ensure that this is not the end but the beginning. It is vital that the Forestry Commission supports those who want to plant more trees for reasons such as supporting sustainable river basins. I hope that the Secretary of State will undertake to make sure that this happens. I would be delighted if he would come and visit.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, the Doddington North Moor development will be hugely welcome, not just in ensuring that we have more woodland cover but in providing a valuable habitat for the red squirrel—a native species that I think we all want to see better protected. We will be working with landowners, the Forestry Commission and others to ensure that there is more forest cover in the years ahead.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Michael Gove
Access to banking and other services is vital for the future of rural communities. I commend the Press and Journal newspaper for the campaign that it has been running, which has been enthusiastically backed by my hon. Friends the Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson). All those fine Scottish Conservative colleagues have been leading this campaign. The Scottish Government have a responsibility to do more with regard to safeguarding the interests of Scottish farmers, and it has fallen to Scottish Conservative colleagues to be in the lead in the campaign. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is a most eccentric denizen of the House. There is a lot of arm-waving and gesticulation of a very rarefied character. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he now holds an illustrious position in the House, because he chairs a Select Committee. He is trying to become a senior statesperson. A little less finger-pointing would enhance his statesmanlike credentials no end.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the vision for the new 50 million tree northern forest and share my delight that the first tree planting will be at the Woodland Trust’s Smithills site in Bolton West?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
Indeed. This ribbon of woodland and forest along the M62 will be welcome, and the Government are kick-starting the project with a £5.7 million grant. We will continue to work with the Woodland Trust and other community forests in making this a reality. I am particularly pleased for my hon. Friend, and I look forward to heading to Bolton to see where the first tree is planted.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Michael Gove
I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s support—of course, she has a distinguished record as a Home Office Minister. We will look at any proposals that come from any part of the House to try to make sure that we can expedite this legislation.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I understand the Secretary of State’s concerns about what happens to plastic waste once it has been used, but does he agree that its use by retailers in particular gives consumers the widest possible choice and prevents food waste? It is important that any measures that we introduce do not reduce consumer choice and do not cause more of our food to be wasted.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Although we need to reduce demand for plastic and increase recycling, plastic does have a role to play in the preservation of fresh produce and in helping us to tackle food waste, which is in itself an environmental and economic mistake.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady is angry on behalf of her constituents, and I share her concern. That is why the chairman of Ofwat, Jonson Cox, has been doing such a good job in holding Thames and other water companies to account. Change is coming, but of course I want it to come faster.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As the Secretary of State said, it is vital that we educate our young people about the dangers of plastics in the seas in particular. Will he join me in congratulating Alfie from New Waltham Academy in my constituency, who has done so much to promote this issue? When he visits the area in the not too distant future to meet the fishing and seafood community, as I know he intends to, will he perhaps visit the academy?
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I think the huge amount of investment in improving transport infrastructure and helping local councils has certainly done that. When it comes to PM2.5, this issue affects everybody, and that is why it is a key part of what we will be addressing in our clean air strategy. I encourage people to do the right things under the strategy—do not burn wet wood, and think about switching to smokeless coal. These are the kinds of things on which we can take immediate action now, as well as acting on the long-term issue of improving infrastructure.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
One reason why our countryside is so admired and so respected by urban dwellers is the way it is looked after and managed by our farmers. When will the Secretary of State be able to build on his Oxford speech this month, and say more about long-term support for agriculture?
Michael Gove
When we think of admiration and respect, it is the admiration and respect due to my right hon. Friend. He has been an outstanding Minister and a fantastic constituency Member for the Derbyshire Dales, which is one of the most beautiful parts of England. He is absolutely right that, building on the speech I gave to the Oxford farming conference, more needs to be said and done to outline the framework for farming in the future. I hope to do so at the National Farmers Union conference, when I can celebrate our farmers, who are the best in the world.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Haggis production depends on a strong Scottish sheep farming sector. Hill farming and crofting are vital for the local economy of my constituency. The Secretary of State may say that this is a devolved matter, but come Brexit will he work as closely as possible with the Scottish Government in sharing best practice and knowledge to make sure that my constituents’ livelihood is safeguarded as far as is humanly possible?
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
We are already working incredibly closely, obviously, with all the devolved Administrations, and indeed we have been doing so to discuss these very matters ever since the referendum decision.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), will the Secretary of State ask those involved in building on and encouraging the work on the northern forest to look at the national forest in the midlands as an exemplar? Some 8.5 million trees have been planted there since its inception.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) makes an admirable point. I hope to visit her constituency and others to see the wonderful work that has been done. A comment was made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and I am very happy to acknowledge that leadership has been shown by Labour politicians as well. [Interruption.] Forgive me, it was the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). Labour speaks with one voice on this matter—though not on any others. Coalfield communities have been helped on their journey towards revival by the investment in woodland cover, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough has been a hugely effective champion of that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I know it will be hard, but will the Secretary of State sign a pledge to give up on any gimmickry or tokenism in tackling things such as plastic pollution? He will need a lot of allies and a lot of expertise for the radical revolution that he needs. Will he be serious about this and get on with the job?
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all the excellent work he has done on the environment, but will he reassure the farmers of the UK that it is not a case of either the environment or food production, but a partnership of them both?
Michael Gove
I could not have put it better myself. Our farmers are the original friends of the earth, and we will not have a healthy environment unless we also support those who are our primary food producers and the stewards of our beautiful landscapes.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
How can we be confident of the Government’s intention to be robust on air quality if we leave the EU, when they refuse to introduce a decent scrappage scheme for vehicles and persist in promoting runway 3 at Heathrow?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
Air quality is actually improving. We have made good progress and we want to do more, particularly on roadside NO2 concentrations. The hon. Lady should welcome the initiatives we have taken. Just this week, the House has approved extra powers to make sure that we get rid of or reduce the capacity of diesel generators, which will do a lot to improve air quality right across the country.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
The Electoral Commission reported on political finance regulation at the June 2017 general election in November 2017. It highlighted important areas for the Government and Parliament to improve election law and transparency in political finance. The commission’s recommendations include increasing the maximum penalty that it can impose for a breach of the rules, extending the imprint requirement for campaign materials to include online campaigning, and changing the law to allow for transparency of political donations in Northern Ireland.
Alan Brown
After the 2015 general election, the Tory party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats were all fined for misreporting election expenses, and the Liberal Democrats continue to play fast and loose with how they allocate expenses between local and national campaigns. Does the hon. Lady agree with the Electoral Commission that the fines are no longer suitable, and that urgent action must be taken to ensure that the penalty matches the crime?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the commission’s recommendation to increase the maximum penalty that it can impose on political parties and other campaigners for a breach of the political finance rules. There is a risk that a maximum fine of £20,000 per offence could be seen as the cost of doing business, and the commission’s view is that monetary policy should be more proportionate to the income and expenditure of larger and well-funded campaigners.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
I must declare an interest because I am promoting the Bill that would enable a mother’s details to be recorded in the registration of marriages, and I will introduce it for the second time on 23 February. More importantly, the Bishop of St Albans will introduce an identical Bill in the House of Lords tomorrow. The House could not have a stronger demonstration of how much the Church of England would welcome this change.
Diana Johnson
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on promoting the Bill. One way that women have been written out of history is by not having what work they have done in the past recorded on official documents such as a marriage certificates. I very much support what she is doing, but can anything else be done to promote the Bill and get Government support?
Dame Caroline Spelman
We are doing our very best. On 31 December, I was encouraged to read in The Sunday Times that a Home Office spokesman had told that newspaper that the Bill had been “signed off”. I hope that might mean that the Government will give the Bill time when it comes here from the Lords, as I am sure it will. We all want this to happen. It would put an end to an anachronism, and we would all cheer that. Many mothers who have weddings in the offing would like this change to happen in time for their children’s marriages.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In a society where marriage break-ups and relationship breakdowns happen daily, we welcome the right hon. Lady’s assertion that it is now time to include the mother’s details on the marriage certificate. Will she outline a legal timescale for that, and say when it might be completed?
Dame Caroline Spelman
As things stand, an identical private Member’s Bill is being introduced in both Houses—that is a pincer movement to try to make this happen. This is only the fifth time that the House has attempted to get this important change to a law that dates back to 1853. If the Government were to give the Bill time in the House, that would speed up that change to the law. I hope that the statement from the Home Office on new year’s eve has some substance behind it, and that the Bill will soon be given time in the House.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
The Commission has given no formal consideration to a move to electronic voting in the House. Its responsibility in that matter is limited to the financial or staffing implications of any change to the present system, were a change to be agreed by the House.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The voting system here is a bit crazy, Mr Speaker: last week, we spent two hours on eight votes. Most other Parliaments in the world would laugh at that—indeed, they do. Given that MPs do value meeting each other in the Lobbies, can we consider a hybrid system so that we move to something electronic when there is more than one vote? That would save those two hours.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
We do have a sort of electronic voting now because the Clerks are using iPads—but using the iPads takes longer than using the pieces of paper of the past because it takes more time to spot the individual names.
I still support our going through the Lobbies—it is a good opportunity to meet Ministers and other colleagues—but it would be good if every vote did not take 16 minutes. Would it not be a good idea to consider some swifter form of technology for the Division Lobbies? We could use a fingerprint or thumbprint to vote.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
I know that my right hon. Friend has a great interest in this subject because he asked me about the training of ordinands in April last year. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that an additional 44 candidates have presented for training as ordained ministers, making a total of 544 in training. That means that we are well on our way to our target of 750 a year by 2020.
Sir Desmond Swayne
As so many clerks retire, what will be the future age profile of my right hon. Friend’s holy orders?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Like a lot of institutions, we face the prospect of large numbers of older clergy retiring at the same time as a result of previous pushes to increase the number of people being ordained and entering ministry. I am delighted to say, however, that the number of younger ordinands in the under-32 age group rose by nearly two fifths and now accounts for almost a third of the total.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I was disappointed to hear recently from the head of Uber that only 5% of Uber drivers are women. What is the gender balance among the ordinands the right hon. Lady mentioned in the statement she just made?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The hon. Gentleman has always been assiduous in asking about gender balance. I am delighted to be able to say that the intake of female ordinands has seen an increase of 19% compared with last year. Although women make up only a third of the fully ordained clergy in place at the moment, we are moving, like other professions, towards 50:50.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
In the diocese of Gloucester it would seem that as soon as we fill one vacancy, another arises. Bishop Rachel is working very hard, but the situation can be sorted only if we bring more people forward for training. What is the Church of England doing to enable that to happen?
Dame Caroline Spelman
We celebrated the introduction of Bishop Rachel as the first female bishop following the change in the law. We now have a female bishop for Newcastle sitting in the Lords, and very recently a female bishop for London was appointed. There is clear evidence of progress, and there is a method of positive discrimination whereby dioceses eligible to be represented in the Lords are encouraged to appoint a woman so that the Lords moves towards better representation of female bishops.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
Following all meetings of the General Synod, it is standard practice for the clerk to the General Synod to inform the appropriate Department. That was done on 21 July following the vote at the Synod to ban conversion therapy. A response was received from the relevant Minister on 24 August.
Mr Bradshaw
It would be helpful if we knew a little more about what that response actually said. As the right hon. Lady will know, this so-called therapy does dreadful damage to young people emotionally and psychologically; its ban is long overdue. The sponsor of the excellent motion in the General Synod has asked for a meeting with the relevant Minister, but that has been refused. I hope that the right hon. Lady will intervene on her behalf.
Dame Caroline Spelman
I am obviously not responsible for the Government’s decision, but the General Synod voted clearly and unequivocally to ban gay conversion therapy. I can share some of the contents of the letter that the Minister wrote to me. The Government are strongly against the practice of so-called reparative or conversion therapy. They have no current plans to ban or restrict it through legislation, because existing voluntary registers already provide safeguards for the public, but I will certainly assist in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests by writing to the Minister.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
More widely, in some parishes anti-gay prejudice masquerades as theology. What further action can be taken to tackle that?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The leadership of the Church of England could not be clearer on this point. Archbishop Justin managed to secure a commitment to stamp out homophobia throughout the Anglican communion, when all the bishops were convened here in London. It has been established unequivocally, from the top of the Church all the way down, that homophobia has no place in the Anglian communion.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Church of England is in regular contact with the diocese of Jerusalem and the diocese of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa. I am pleased to report that the news from the region was comparatively positive over Christmas, especially when compared with that of only a few months ago.
Dr Offord
Yesterday, I had a not only interesting but humbling experience when I visited the Holocaust Survivors Centre in my constituency. Many of the people there were actually survivors of the holocaust—the Shoah. Does my right hon. Friend accept that those people are not only concerned about attacks in other countries on the basis of religion, but feel that we need to do more to help the Egyptian Government to prevent such attacks, which are, effectively, a form of genocide?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The proximity of Holocaust Memorial Day reminds all of us that, sadly, such atrocities are ongoing in our world, and that people are persecuted for their faith. Egypt was relatively quiet over Christmas—quieter than in recent months—but it is the ancient Coptic Church in that country for which we, as fellow Christians, fear. It is a fact that Egypt has moved from 21st to 17th on the world watch list of countries about which we should be concerned, not least because of the rise of Daesh there.
Daniel Kawczynski
There is growing concern about the level and extent of the persecution of Christians throughout the middle east and north Africa. What representations is the Church of England making to the Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about the disproportionately low number of Christians who are identified for resettlement to western countries?
Dame Caroline Spelman
We are in regular contact with both the Government and the UNHCR about the plight of persecuted Christians. We wanted to get to the bottom of why the percentage of Christians in refugee camps in a number of these countries is so low. In fact, the Christian diaspora is extensive, and Christians living in other countries where they can help to provide safe havens often enable their relatives to travel over. It is significant that, for example, 30% of Syrian refugees in America are Christian. Christians frequently choose to save themselves in such ways.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am in no doubt about the spiritual and pastoral support that the Church of England offers fellow Christians throughout the world, but will the right hon. Lady outline some of the financial or monetary contributions that are made to programmes for those most directly affected?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Because the Anglican communion has a network of churches throughout the world, it can often provide food and resources, clothing and shelter for persecuted communities who are otherwise very hard to reach. Only yesterday, I met the Bishop of Goma, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who bravely puts his own life on the line to provide essential humanitarian assistance, at his own expense, for the Christians who suffer in his country. That is one of the strengths that the Anglican Church has to offer.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
Six cathedrals have received money from the programme launched in July 2016 as the places of worship security funding scheme, which became, in 2017, the vulnerable faith institutions scheme. To get funding, a place of worship has to show evidence that it is vulnerable, and cathedrals have been given up to £45,000 to assist with measures that they need to undertake.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the right hon. Lady for the interest she has shown in the counter-terrorism measures that York Minster is trying to put in place. However, the funding for its specific work and the planning regulations are inadequate. Will she work with me to try to ensure that worshippers at York Minster are safe?
Dame Caroline Spelman
Unfortunately, I do not think it is possible retrospectively to reimburse the Minster for the measures it has taken, which I believe are in any event temporary at the moment, but may I share the good practice of the House of Commons, the parliamentary estate, Westminster Abbey and Westminster City Council, which work together to try to make these public spaces safer after the terrible events of last year? I will do everything I can to assist the hon. Lady in getting that kind of good partnership working around York.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Given that the Church of England is responsible for some iconic sites, the attention given to this work is welcome, but will my right hon. Friend reassure me that those wishing to meet the living God will not find a palisade fence separating them from His house?
Dame Caroline Spelman
My hon. Friend is right: as Parliament does not wish to turn itself into a fortress because that would cut against what democracy stands for, no more does the Church want so to provide security measures that it becomes a less accessible place to meet with God. That balance has to be struck.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
The House service’s contract requirements and terms and conditions make provisions for contractors to provide adequate working conditions for employees. The provisions include health and safety, security, training, remuneration and payment of at least the London living wage to employees if working on the parliamentary estate. The working conditions provided by the contractors must be compliant with relevant legislation and ensure appropriate welfare and maintenance of stable and skilled workforces to ensure successful delivery of our contracts.
Christian Matheson
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer.
Companies such as McAlpine, which is up to its neck in blacklisting, have contracts on the parliamentary site. Since the best form of protection for workers is membership of a strong trade union, will the Commission consider giving named officials of the relevant trade unions security access so they can come in and check to make sure blacklisting is not taking place on these premises?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for advance notice of the supplementary question. I am afraid that the current position is that passes can be issued, for instance by Members, only for a specific purpose in supporting that Member. However, the hon. Gentleman has made a specific request and I undertake to secure a written response to it for him.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk)
I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission. The NAO work programme, determined by the Comptroller and Auditor General, is regularly revised to ensure it reflects current issues. Brexit is a major task for Departments, and some Departments are more affected than others. The NAO is keeping in close touch with Departments as they take forward the implementation task.
Mr Hollobone
After we leave the EU, we are likely to be still engaged in a number of EU-wide programmes. Will the Public Accounts Commission satisfy itself that the NAO has the requisite powers to continue to investigate Government involvement in those schemes?
Business of the House
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House update the House on the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for the week commencing 29 January 2018 will include:
Monday 29 January—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Automated and Electrical Vehicles Bill.
Tuesday 30 January—Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, followed by motions relating to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill.
Wednesday 31 January—Opposition day (un-allotted half day). Subject to be announced, followed by debate on motions relating to the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
Thursday 1 February—Debate on a motion on baby leave for Members of Parliament, followed by debate on a motion on hospital car parking charges. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 2 February—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 5 February will include:
Monday 29 January—Motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2018 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2018, followed by remaining stages of the Smart Meters Bill.
We all remember those who suffered such terrible atrocities during the holocaust as we mark Holocaust Memorial Day this weekend, and I think we are all united in our desire to eradicate such evil acts from our world.
Next week, the House will have the opportunity to discuss the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. This must be a decision made by Parliament itself; it is not one for the Government. I urge all colleagues to take a basement tour, if they have not done so already, and to speak to the engineers ahead of the debate and see the challenges that lie ahead. Members may also wish to read the reports from the Joint Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury Select Committee, and the financial memorandums to the motions, to acquaint themselves with the issues raised in them. They are all available online on the Parliament website, and of course my door is always open to any Member who wants to discuss this in advance of the debate.
Finally, I would like to wish everyone a very happy Burns night celebration tonight, particularly our Scottish colleagues on both sides of the House.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business. I also thank her for her letter about the new list of ministerial responsibilities, which states that this is scheduled for March and that the new list might be available soon. I do not know whether the Government are waiting for changes—perhaps the Foreign Secretary is now going to become the Health Secretary, although he was reminded by the Chancellor that he is the Foreign Secretary. Ministers must know their responsibilities by now—otherwise, the Government would be in a shambles—so may we have the update sooner rather than later?
May we also have the date on which Parliament will rise in July? We only have the date when we return on 4 June, and I have been summoned for jury service and would like to know the date when I will be available.
I thank the Leader of the House for tabling the motions on restoration and renewal and for the debate on the subject. Having two motions will rather complicate the three-hour debate, however. At last week’s business questions, she said:
“Because of the seriousness of the decision before the House, the two motions will not be amendable; it will be a case of either the first motion or, if that falls, the second motion.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 1062.]
I hope that she is not trying to bind Parliament. I checked “Erskine May”, and it states that
“if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice and the Speaker decides that it is proper for the motion to be moved in the altered form”,
it can be tabled. I say hoorah for democracy and hoorah for you, Mr Speaker, because we know that an amendment has now been tabled. This is an important matter— I concur with the Leader of the House on this—and I have been down to the basement. It is important for Members to know that costs are being incurred every day that a decision is not being made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) made a point of order yesterday on the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, a matter that I have raised many times in business questions. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Prime Minister responds to the letter that the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, sent seven weeks ago offering financial help for the project? This Government should be working with the Welsh Government on a project that would be a world first. The First Minister is not Owain Glyndŵr; he is a very clever, democratically elected First Minister.
We know that the Government are committed to the environment, because they said so in their 151-page document “A Green Future”, but amazingly, that document made no mention of fracking. I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a new study, “Sustainability of UK shale gas in comparison with other electricity options”, which examines the environmental, economic and social sustainability of fracking. May we have a statement on why exploratory drilling is going ahead in Lancashire when the study ranked shale gas seventh out of nine different energy sources?
May we have a statement on the UCAS data showing that the number of people applying to become teachers has fallen by a third in the past year, with 6,510 fewer applicants for teacher training in this academic year compared with 2015-16? Sadly, we need a statement from the Secretary of State for Education on why the number of teachers asking for financial support from the charity Education Support Partnership is up 40% on last year.
We want our teachers to teach our children personal, social and health and economic education. The Leader of the House will have heard about the events at the Presidents Club in yesterday’s urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), in which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) called for the expedition of PSHE. Will the Leader of the House please tell us when that will happen? We need that sooner, rather than later, in our schools. Will she also tell us whether the visit by a Minister to the Presidents Club was an official visit or a private one? Whether it is the Presidents Club or “All the President’s Men”, it is an abuse of power either way.
It is important to have Opposition days. In yesterday’s debate on Carillion, I and others asked a number of questions. The Minister—not the Secretary of State—came to the House to answer the questions, and he is following up on the taskforce that the TUC has asked for. The Opposition look forward to the delivery of the documents to the Public Accounts Committee. Will the Leader of the House say when they will be delivered?
Yesterday, we also had a debate on human rights, in this, the week of Holocaust Memorial Day, which is on Saturday. The Leader of the Opposition reminded us all to sign the book of commitment, which is still available to be signed between 2 pm and 4 pm outside the Members’ Cloakroom. That is a reminder that every one of the rights in the European convention on human rights, which was enacted in UK law under the Human Rights Act 1998, was systematically violated in the second world war. As the Opposition Day debate reminded us, human rights and dignity should be at the core of our society.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. As she mentions, I have written to her on the subject of the ministerial list to say that it will be available as soon as possible.
On the rise of the House in July, now that I am apprised of the fact that the hon. Lady needs time for her jury service—I would not dream of delaying that unduly—I will absolutely seek to ensure that we give the matter consideration and inform the House as soon as we possibly can.
The hon. Lady asks about the motions concerning the restoration and renewal of the Palace. As I said last week—I think she agrees—we want the House to be able to take a decision. I wanted to see what sort of amendments were tabled. I think that I made it clear last week that we needed some sensible alternatives for the House to discuss, and some very sensible amendments have been tabled. I commit to undertaking to ensure that they are included in the options available to the House. Nevertheless, the important point is that the House can make an informed decision next week.
The hon. Lady asks about the Swansea Bay lagoon. As we have discussed several times in the Chamber, the project is extremely expensive compared with other forms of renewable energy. It requires a careful decision, and I know that it is still under consideration. On the subject of fracking, it is clear that natural gas provided by fracking, with some of the world’s strongest and most careful regulation, is a way forward for the United Kingdom as we move towards zero-carbon targets for our electricity generation. From where we are today, we cannot simply get rid of coal from the system—we hope to do that by 2025—and move straight to lower carbon forms of energy generation. Gas will continue to be an important part of our transition towards a low-carbon future, and natural gas from fracking is one option that is open to the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady raises the issue of teacher applications. There are 15,500 more teachers in our classrooms than there were in 2010. The number of teachers returning to the classroom has increased by 8% since 2010, which is good news. Experienced teachers who have taken career breaks are coming back into the classroom, and, vitally, there are more teachers with first-class degrees—highly qualified teachers who can impart information to our young people.
I share the hon. Lady’s disgust at what happened at the Presidents Club. There is absolutely no place for that type of activity. A men-only club effectively abusing young women, as reported in this story, is absolutely unacceptable. As she will be aware from the urgent question rightly asked yesterday, the question when we will introduce sex and relationship education in schools is still subject to consultation with young people themselves. It is vital that we do not guess what they want to learn about but ask them themselves, which is why we need to take the time to consult.
On Carillion, I can assure the House that its request will absolutely be upheld and the documents made available, but as the hon. Lady will know, the Public Accounts Commission already has the means to ask to be provided with such documents.
Finally, I completely share the hon. Lady’s desire to reflect the importance of human rights in everything we do—in remembering not just the appalling actions during the holocaust but the appalling civil wars and problems in our own lifetimes. Human rights must be upheld.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. As per usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye in these exchanges. I simply remind the House that there is a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence to follow, in which I imagine there will be substantial interest and that that will be followed by two well-subscribed debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. There is, therefore, a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benches alike.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
May we have a statement on the excellent employment figures released this week?
Andrea Leadsom
That was a perfect example of brevity, was it not, Mr Speaker?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this news, which should be a great pleasure for the entire House. There are 32.21 million people in work—415,000 more than a year ago—while the number of people in employment has increased by over 3.1 million since 2010, which is more than the entire population of Wales. Over 70% of this rise in employment has been in higher-skilled jobs, and unemployment has not been lower since 1971. It is great news for our economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am reminded also that there is a Select Committee statement, which will not absorb a great deal of time but which is important. All that adds to the pressure on time.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On this Burns day, may I thank the great Chieftain o’ the Hoose for announcing the business for next week? I join her and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) in acknowledging the huge significance and importance of Holocaust Memorial Day on Saturday.
Today we celebrate the birth of Robert Burns, Scotland’s greatest poet. Just maybe we should have listened to him when he warned
“the best laid schemes o’ mice and men, aft go agley”
before we started with this chaotic Brexit scheme a few months ago.
Now is not the time for “timorous beasties”. We need the Leader of the House to be braver on restoration and renewal. We cannot have a curtailment of debate and the closing down of options on these critical issues. With the huge costs involved, our constituents expect us to have sufficient time to debate them. We must make sure we have that. We must ensure that all options are fully considered. We must also hear today that there will be no attempt to curtail debate by the rejection of the amendments.
Any motion about renewal must also consider modernisation. I hope that the whole House will join my and the SNP’s campaign to reclaim our time and end the ridiculous farce of wasting days of the parliamentary year standing in packed Lobbies simply to vote.
The fallout from the Presidents Club dinner continues to develop and appal. Can we have a debate about these clubs to see what more can be done to challenge the laws that sustain them and the culture that still thinks them acceptable? We are in a new era of zero tolerance for this pathetic behaviour, and now is the time to make real and substantial progress in tackling it.
Lastly, as our devolution settlement is passed to the great and the good in the House of Lords, let us remember what Burns said about the petty pomposity and sense of entitlement of those who consider themselves our betters:
“Ye see yon birkie ca’d a lord,
Wha struts, an’ stares, an’ a’ that;
The man o’ independent mind
He looks an’ laughs at a’ that.”
Andrea Leadsom
I cannot possibly hope to emulate that brilliant portrayal of Robbie Burns, and we heard some of his finest words. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman, in the context of his urging me to be brave, is that, when I was growing up, my wonderful step-dad, who is himself a Scot, would always say, if we were sitting around, “This’ll no get the bairn a jeely piece.” I hope that is adequate as a slight rejoinder. I will not be sitting around, because we obviously want the jeely pieces.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of restoration and renewal. We do need to make a decision, and I sincerely look forward, as I know he does, to the debate next week.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise again the issue of the Presidents Club. It is utterly unacceptable that this kind of thing still goes on—it is actually beyond belief. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, who answered the urgent question, said yesterday that she was astonished to hear that this kind of thing is still happening. How ridiculous is it that anyone thinks that this is appropriate? I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent efforts on the working group that I chair on behalf of the Prime Minister, which is looking into bullying and harassment in this place. He really has been a stalwart champion of getting this work done, as have other members of the SNP, and I am very grateful to them for that.
Finally, we will just have to agree to disagree about the other place. In my view, as you know, Mr Speaker, its Members play a very important revising role, for which we are grateful, and they have expertise that we in this House benefit from.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
What more can the Leader of the House do to help millions of consumers who are being ripped off through rip-off energy prices?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a point that is incredibly important to so many people. The issue of energy prices, for some people, comes down to whether they can afford to heat or eat. The Prime Minister has expressed the fundamental desire to sort out the rip-off prices that some energy companies charge their most loyal customers—in other words, “If you stick with us, you’ll get ripped off.” The Bill that we will be bringing forward will therefore seek to put a cap on standard variable tariffs to ensure that rip-off energy prices are a thing of the past.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. The Backbench Business Committee is open for business, and I would just ask Members to think ahead in terms of memorial and celebration days. I am anticipating applications from Members about International Women’s Day and St David’s Day—a Welsh debate—so if Members can think ahead to those important dates in the diary and bring forward their applications in a timely way, we will be able to plan well ahead.
I am glad to say that the haggis is not yet an endangered species. Even the clockwise ones, with longer legs on one side, still run round the hills very happily in all of the highlands. On Burns day, we should all be thinking about the sage words of Robert Burns, who said:
“Oh wad some Power the giftie gie us. To see oursels as ithers see us!”
Andrea Leadsom
As ever, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do take into account the needs of the Backbench Business Committee. I know it is holding some very important and popular debates, and we will continue to provide dates as early as we can.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the endangered nature of the haggis, although according to today’s press, it could be possible to clone haggis in the future. However, he is right to raise the importance of getting timely notification of available days, and we will make sure that that happens.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Government have made great strides in recent months in bearing down on unnecessary plastic waste. At airports such as Gatwick, in my constituency, as people go through security, a lot of plastic bottles are discarded. Could we have a statement from my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary on ensuring that there are water refilling points in many places, such as airports, so that we can reduce plastic waste, which is so unnecessary?
Andrea Leadsom
All Members on both sides of the House will be delighted to see initiatives to ensure that water fountains and drinking water taps are made available at all key points across the United Kingdom. We have seen some progress towards that, and I think that that will be very welcome, not least because it will save consumers money, as well as reducing the enormous amount of plastic that finds its way into our marine areas.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Government figures released today show that levels of rough sleeping are now the highest on record, so can we expect a statement next week about this serious issue that affects all parts of our country?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is right to raise the appalling issue of homelessness, which no one in this Parliament finds acceptable as a way forward. The Government have signed up to the important Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) to ensure that we do everything possible to eradicate homelessness by 2027 and to halve it by 2022, and several homelessness reduction taskforces are going ahead to consider what more can be done. The reasons for homelessness can be complicated. It is not necessarily just about housing as it can relate to mental health, addiction and other issues.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
May we have a statement on the boundary review recommendations for constituencies, so that they can come before the House for us to ratify? Some of us are very much in favour of the proposals in order to reduce the cost of running this Parliament.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a contentious point, but he may well want to seek a debate, perhaps through the Backbench Business Committee, so that colleagues can discuss the matter.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
With £3 billion set aside for Brexit contingency planning, £200 million lost to the UK economy each week as a result of slower growth, according to Mark Carney, and £300 million being spent on new civil servants, will the Leader of the House make time available for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to explain from where he is going to get the £350 million a week for the NHS?
Andrea Leadsom
I do not accept any of the numbers that the right hon. Gentleman is bandying about. The fact is that he should be as delighted as we are on the Government Benches at the employment numbers that belie all the claims of those who sought to keep the UK in the EU, who said that our economy would be in disastrous straits, that unemployment would rise and that we would be in recession. None of those things has happened. The economy is growing and, importantly, more people than ever before have the security of a pay packet and the ability to feed themselves and their families.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
May we have a debate about the provision of top-class sporting facilities? In my constituency, football supporters are concerned that Coventry City are just nine games away from homelessness—its agreement to play at the Ricoh Arena is coming to an end—and speedway fans can no longer watch their sport at Brandon because the stadium has been allowed to get into a state of disrepair.
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear that, and I understand the frustration of Coventry City supporters. Football clubs are valuable community assets, and every care should be taken to protect their long-term financial future. As my hon. Friend will know, it is not the place of Government to intervene in the fortunes of any particular club. It is for the footballing authorities to administer their sport, and this case is a matter for the English Football League.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I am sure that you will be as appalled as I was to learn that half of all the tableware bought by the House last year was not made in England—never mind that it was not made in Stoke-on-Trent. May we have a debate in Government time on public procurement and purchasing post-Brexit so that we can ensure that we actually buy British?
Andrea Leadsom
I share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for buying British wherever possible. When we leave the European Union, we will be able to look at our procurement rules. Wherever possible, where British goods are equal—in many cases, they are the best—we will be able to purchase them for ourselves.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
On the day that we rightly celebrate the life and works of Rabbie Burns, the Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum, one of Scotland’s iconic cultural centres, is threatened with closure by the SNP council in Stirling. May we have a statement from a Treasury Minister to confirm that the Scottish Government’s budget for the coming year is protected in real terms and that it is therefore a political choice, not a necessity, for the Scottish Government to impose spending cuts on local authorities, which threatens institutions such as the Stirling Smith?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is working with the friends of the museum to save this valuable community asset, and I understand that the world’s oldest football is one of its exhibits. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that the Budget allocated a further £2 billion to the settlement for Scotland and that the Scottish Government can take the decision to save this asset should they choose.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
With no proper consultation, North Lincolnshire Council is reducing the number of unpaid councillors on Kirton in Lindsey Town Council and Bottesford Town Council, meaning those councils will have fewer voluntary councillors than smaller neighbouring parish councils. Can we have a debate on the relationship between district councils and town councils?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about local democracy. We would all like to see much greater decision making at local level, with good people coming forward to take up those posts. An Adjournment debate would be a good candidate to raise these specific issues with a Minister.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you may or may not be aware that today is rural vulnerability day. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming this important new date in the parliamentary calendar that helps to shine a light on the challenges facing rural areas such as Taunton Deane? Will she find time for a debate on that issue? I would welcome her, and indeed Mr Speaker, to the event in the Palace today.
Andrea Leadsom
I am happy to share in my hon. Friend’s pleasure at this new focus on rural vulnerability. Access to transport and other services can be difficult for many people living in rural areas, and of course the issue of loneliness can be more acute. It is right that we look specifically at these issues, and I am happy to support her in her campaign.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
We need an urgent debate on homelessness and rough sleeping because the issue has exploded over the past few years not just in major cities but even in towns such as Dudley, and it has been made much worse by benefit cuts and by reductions to social care, help and support services. That is why we need an urgent debate on this issue.
Andrea Leadsom
Homelessness is an appalling situation for anyone to find themselves in, and the Government are dedicating more than £1 billion up to 2020 to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. As well as supporting the Homelessness Reduction Act, we are looking at what more councils can do to avoid people becoming homeless in the first place. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government are now investing more than £9 billion in our affordable homes programme to ensure that we provide homes for people who are vulnerable.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Carole Shields of the Poverty Truth Commission in Glasgow has highlighted to me the difficulties in the transition between young people’s benefits and adult benefits in the social security system. Can we have a debate on that important issue? People should not have to wait 12 weeks to transition on to employment and support allowance, as her son did.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important constituency issue. If she wants to write to me about it, I will happily take up that specific case with the relevant Minister on her behalf. This is the sort of issue she should raise at the next Question Time opportunity.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am still waiting for an answer to my question on what caused the Grenfell Tower fire, which I was told was imminent last autumn. Not for the first time, the question has outlasted the Minister of whom it was asked. Can we hear from Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about fire safety, especially that of domestic appliances? Last Sunday they announced a new Office for Product Safety and Standards, which appears to be just a new name for business as usual.
Andrea Leadsom
I say again that we continue to be appalled by what happened at Grenfell. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have been working since then to make sure that people living in high-rise buildings are safe by carrying out a series of checking and testing, which includes identifying ACM—aluminium composite material—cladding and larger-scale tests to establish how different combinations of cladding and insulation materials behave in a fire. The rules on fire safety are being reviewed, and he is right to raise the importance of this issue.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
As the roll-out of universal credit accelerates, Ministers will soon be confronted with the task of transitioning people on tax credits to universal credit. They must tell us soon how people will be informed of the changes and when the draft statutory instruments will be laid. May we have a debate on how the Government will ensure that no one loses out as a result of the transition?
Andrea Leadsom
In statements and in response to urgent questions, Ministers have come to the House to explain the changes to universal credit. We need to learn all lessons so that we improve the system. Universal credit is designed to ensure that work always pays, and there is evidence that it is working. People on universal credit spend more time seeking work and are more successful in finding work.
We have also ensured that people who make the transition to universal credit can receive a transitional payment for housing, that their housing benefit can be paid directly to the landlord when necessary, and that people can receive their payments on day one of their claim, should they need that, so we have listened and made changes to the system. The transition to universal credit is now significantly improved.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When can we take advantage of the pragmatic and progressive views of the new prisons Minister, who has acknowledged that the crises of overcrowding and self-harm in our prisons are the result of 50 years of error by all parties? May we compare the crisis here with the situation in the Netherlands, where there is a shortage of prisoners and 19 prisons have had to be closed? Is that not the kind of problem we would like to have here?
Andrea Leadsom
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the kind of problem that we want to have. He is right to mention the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry for Justice, to clean and safe prisons that are places of discipline and rehabilitation, not harm and violence. This Government gave greater powers last year to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons through the urgent notification system, by which specific issues in prisons can be raised immediately. We have also invested £100 million in recruiting 2,500 new prison officers, and we should be at full complement by the end of 2018. There is more to do, but progress has been made.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I still have not had a reply to my question about the anti-corruption tsar. Between 2015 and 2017, the then Member for Brentwood and Ongar, Eric Pickles, was the anti-corruption tsar. Who is the current tsar, or has one not yet been appointed?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Unlike your good self, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House has never had the advantage of visiting the Textile Centre of Excellence in Huddersfield. It is the centre of training for the whole textile industry. Will she consider an early debate on the crisis in skills and productivity in our country?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to note that the productivity rise was greater in the last quarter than it has been since the financial crisis. There is a long way to go. Productivity has lagged since that financial crisis, and it is essential that the Government focus—we are doing so—on everything that we can do to invest in greater productivity. We have the national productivity plan, which is worth £31 billion, to ensure that we improve productivity right across the UK.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I am sure that everyone agrees that police dogs are an incredibly useful element of effective policing, especially in relation to firearms and drugs operations, yet following years of cuts to policing budgets across England and Wales, forces have reduced the number of police dogs by between 50% and 80% in the past six years. Will the Leader of the House outline her support for the “Don’t Ditch the Dogs” campaign, and may we have time in the Chamber in which parliamentarians can outline their support for the amazing work of police dogs and their handlers?
Andrea Leadsom
Police dogs do a fantastic job—there is no doubt about that—and I share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for them. She may well wish to seek a debate to enable colleagues to give their experiences and to discuss what more can be done to improve the resources available to the police, such as police dogs, that help us to tackle crime.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am sure that the Leader of the House knows that this week the Institute for Public Policy Research North published a full analysis of transport investment in the next four years. It shows that London will receive five times per head more than Yorkshire and Humber will receive. With Crossrail 2 already so far advanced, there is nothing that can be done by Transport for the North, in its advisory capacity, to change that underfunding over the next few years. May we have a statement from the Transport Secretary about exactly what he has got against the north? Rather than denying the underfunding, he should address it.
Andrea Leadsom
The Government are absolutely committed to the northern powerhouse and to giving the great towns and cities of the north of England much more say over transport investment through Transport for the North. We are spending more than £13 billion to transform transport across the north, which is the biggest transport investment in the region for a generation.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will the Leader of the House confirm whether there will be an opportunity for votes on the amendments to the R and R motions? I am thinking particularly of the one I have tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on finally introducing electronic voting to this House and any temporary Chamber. Surely, in the words of Burns:
“Now’s the day, and now’s the hour”.
Andrea Leadsom
I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for a certain decision to be taken by the House. As I think I have made clear, we are determined to ensure that there are some clear decisions to be taken. The selection of amendments is a matter for the Chair, not for me, but we are looking at this carefully to make sure that proper proposals are put forward on which the House can make a decision.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
This month, Nottingham City Councillor David Mellen is reading to 2,018 Nottingham children to raise funds for Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library scheme in Nottingham. Given the Leader of the House’s enthusiasm for early intervention programmes, will she join me in congratulating Councillor Mellen?
Andrea Leadsom
I am of course very happy to congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s local councillor who is working on that important programme. It is vital that we do anything we can to prepare young people for adulthood, and for a successful and emotionally secure life. For my own part, I strongly favour even earlier intervention—in the perinatal period; I just have to make that clear.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am absolutely delighted that the Leader of the House thinks that a “very sensible”—her words—amendment has been tabled to the restoration and renewal motion. I take that to mean the one that I have signed, along with the Chairs of 11 Select Committees, including several Conservatives. I hope that that means that she will be able to vote for it, because we will have a completely free vote and therefore Ministers will be free to do exactly what they want so that we make the right decision for the future of this country. Will she tell us at what time the votes will be next Wednesday?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting thoughts into my mind about how I might vote. I will look at what amendments are tabled and make my decision, as will all Members, so that we reach the best solution that suits the desires of most Members. We cannot say categorically what the timing next week will be—we can never do that—but this will be the second debate on Wednesday 31 January.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May we have a statement on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks, which can be harmful to under-16s?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the fact that those drinks can be harmful to young people. I urge him to seek an Adjournment debate, which would be appropriate for that sort of subject, or to question Ministers in the next Health questions.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
This week, Cardiff airport announced its 2017 results, which show nearly 50% growth since it was taken into public ownership by our Welsh Labour Government. May we have a debate in Government time on the reform of air passenger duty, which would enable our publicly owned airport to continue to thrive?
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate Cardiff airport on its increasing passenger numbers—that is great news. The Treasury is always looking at ways to improve economic growth in the four nations of this great country of ours. I encourage the hon. Lady to ask about air passenger duty in the next Treasury questions.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Official figures released this week reveal that there are now nearly 22,000 fewer police officers in England and Wales than there were in 2010. My Dewsbury constituency is currently suffering a plague of car crime and antisocial behaviour that the police simply do not have the resources to manage. May we have an urgent debate on police numbers?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will be aware that overall police funding has remained steady in real terms and that there are opportunities for police funding to increase next year, if police and crime commissioners use the precept levy that will enable them to do that. The way in which policing is managed needs to reflect new threats from cyber-crime and other types of criminal activity, yet frontline policing throughout the country as a whole has not changed—it has, in fact, slightly increased since 2010.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
May we have a statement on today’s Office for National Statistics figures showing a 21% increase in knife crime last year. Does the Leader of the House support my call for an immediate cross-party, cross-departmental inquiry into the root causes of youth violence, not just the symptoms?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady often raises issues around youth violence, and she is absolutely right to do so. Tackling knife crime is absolutely a priority of this Government. It has devastating consequences on victims’ families and, of course, our communities. Under Operation Sceptre, the Government continue to encourage police forces to undertake a series of co-ordinated national weeks of action to tackle knife crime. We hosted an all-force briefing event on Operation Sceptre on 23 January, and a record 38 police forces have signed up to take part in the next week of action, which is planned for February. The operation includes targeting habitual knife carriers, weapons sweeps, test purchases of knives from identified retailers and the use of surrender bins. The Government launched a consultation on 14 October 2017, which has now closed, and we are looking at what more can be done to get rid of this appalling crime.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Two years ago today—on 25 January 2016—University of Cambridge PhD researcher Giulio Regeni went missing in Cairo. His brutally battered body was recovered a week later; he had been tortured and murdered. The crime sparked international outrage and has called into question very basic academic freedoms. May we have a statement from a Minister on what the Government are doing to mark the event, and on what pressure is being exerted on the Egyptian Government to find the truth about what happened to Giulio?
Andrea Leadsom
I think that that appalling case horrified everybody who read about it in the press, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise it. May I suggest that he takes it up at Foreign Office questions, when he can get a proper answer to his question?
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Mostyn House in Parkgate is a fine example of how an old building has been brought back to life. Even though some of my constituents have been living there for more than four years now, planning permission has not been granted. Despite the best efforts of the local authorities, the builder, PJ Livesey, will not do the work that is required. May we please have a debate on what more can be done to take irresponsible developers to task?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is clearly raising something that is very important in his constituency. I urge him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can get a reply from a Minister.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Non-governmental organisations working with Iraqi refugees from religious minorities report that those refugees have not had the same access to humanitarian assistance and resettlement support in the middle east as the majority of religious groups and people of other nationalities. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey need to do more to ensure that Iraqi and religious minority refugees have equal access to humanitarian assistance and resettlement opportunities. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement, or indeed a debate, on this matter?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. The UK Government’s approach is to look at need rather than religious faith, but this is an important issue, and he might want to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can get a clear answer from a Minister.
Modernising Defence Programme
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I undertook to return to the House at the earliest possible opportunity to update hon. and right hon. Members on the programme to modernise defence, which the Ministry of Defence will be conducting in the months ahead.
Following agreement of the high-level findings of the national security capability review by the National Security Council, I have agreed with the Prime Minister and Chancellor that we should take forward its recommendation for a programme of further work to modernise defence to deliver better military capability and value for money in a sustainable and affordable way. This is essential if defence is to make its full contribution to national security.
The 2015 national security strategy and strategic defence and security review set out a clear ambition to ensure that the armed forces can tackle the threats that we face. It also proposed important new policy initiatives, including a stronger international approach, pursuit of innovation, modernised personnel policies and defence making a bigger contribution to our national prosperity, and we are making real strides to unlock greater efficiency and productivity.
Protecting the United Kingdom and our people remains our first priority and responsibility. As the threats we face become more complex and intertwined, we will need to work ever more closely with our NATO allies. We can also expect to remain actively involved with our partners in the Gulf in tackling shared threats to our security, and the Asia-Pacific region will become more important to us in the years ahead. The Ministry of Defence is making a major contribution to our prosperity as we procure the equipment our armed forces deserve and support defence exports, in which there have been recent successes, most notably the £6 billion Typhoon contract agreed with Qatar.
Significant events last year—the callous terrorist attacks in London and Manchester, and the major storms that ravaged British dependencies in the Caribbean—are reminders of our wider responsibilities. We need to contain threats that have their origin overseas and be prepared to react swiftly and effectively when crises arise. As we identified in 2015, this will require the joint force we are building to be versatile and agile. It will need to be capable of operating in all five domains: land, sea, air, space and cyber. It will need to be international by design, routinely exercising and operating with allies and partners. It will need to be credible and capable of operating against state and non-state threats—normally not alone but with NATO allies and other partners, but we must also be able to act on our own if and when required. It must be able to contribute to our national security at home, working with the police and other national security organisations.
While the major elements of our plans for Joint Force 2025 remain the right ones, in order to secure competitive advantage over our potential adversaries we need to ensure that we can move quickly to strengthen further our capabilities in priority areas and reduce the resources we devote elsewhere.
The Government commissioned the national security capability review to ensure that we have the policy and plans to implement our national security strategy, so that our investment in national security capabilities is as joined-up, effective and efficient as possible to address current national security challenges. A report will be published later in the spring.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her recent Lord Mayor’s banquet speech, the threats, risks and challenges have become more complex and intertwined and have developed in areas and ways that we broadly expected, but at a much greater pace than was foreseen. The defence budget is £36 billion this year—the fifth largest defence budget in the world—and it will increase by £1 billion each year so that it will be almost £40 billion by 2021. The UK remains one of the few countries to exceed NATO’s 2% spending target, and this Government have committed to continue to increase the defence budget by at least 0.5% above inflation every year. However, we must do more to ensure that we use our resources effectively and deliver the efficiencies that the Department has committed to, so that they can be reinvested in the capabilities we require for our armed forces.
It is for these reasons that I have agreed with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to launch the modernising defence programme so that we can strengthen and modernise the armed forces to meet the threats that the NSCR identified. Modernising defence will allow us to deliver better military capability and value for money in a sustainable and affordable way, and it will allow us to ensure that defence capabilities complement other national security capabilities in the most effective way. I am determined to realise this goal through a modernised, more productive and more effective joint force that can deter threats more effectively and ensure that we can deliver what is required of defence today and succeed in any future conflicts. Turning this approach into reality will be my key goal for the modernising defence programme.
This programme will involve four strands of work. The first three will optimise how the MOD is organised and is operating, identify further efficiencies and ways to be more productive, including through an aggressive programme of business modernisation, and improve our performance on the commercial and industrial issues. The fourth strand will look at the capabilities that defence requires to contribute to our three national security objectives today and in the future, but also, most importantly, to understand the ever-changing threats that this country faces. I am determined to use the modernising defence programme to ensure that defence can make its full contribution to our national security on a sustainable basis.
I will speak to right hon. and hon. Members about this programme of work on a very regular basis, and I will keep the House updated as decisions are made. In the meantime, I would warmly welcome any contributions that right hon. and hon. Members would like to make. My Department and I will be consulting beyond the House as this programme of work gets under way in the weeks ahead.
Protecting our national security and the safety of the British people both at home and abroad remains the Government’s first priority. Let us make no mistake—the world is becoming a more dangerous place. We cannot afford to shy away from this reality, nor can we take our security for granted. But even more than that, in a post-Brexit world Britain must continue to champion the global good. It must continue to reach out to seize global opportunities and deal with global threats. Our history teaches us that we cannot have prosperity without security. To protect that prosperity we must have armed forces primed and ready to tackle the challenges to come.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I am sure that I speak for Members across the House in paying tribute to the dedication of our armed forces.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. However, I respectfully say, Mr Speaker, that the way in which this statement has been arranged by the Government has been shambolic from start to finish, and utterly discourteous to right hon. and hon. Members, some of whom may be elsewhere today because of explicit and repeated assurances by the Government that the statement would come on Monday. I am sure you have noted, Mr Speaker, that Members first heard news of this announcement when it was briefed to journalists on Tuesday afternoon, without so much as a written statement in this place. Then we had the complete farce of yesterday when the Government indicated that they would make a statement, then it was off, then it was on, and finally it was off again, with a full update promised on Monday. Clearly, the new facility to combat fake news is badly needed. [Hon. Members: “It was yesterday.”] I am talking about 7 o’clock yesterday. I does not fill me with much confidence about the conduct of this review that its origins have been so mired in chaos.
We do welcome the decision to separate out the modernising defence programme from the national security capability review, but the decision to hold a separate defence review must not simply be an excuse to kick the difficult decisions facing the defence budget into the long grass. This week we heard grave warnings from the Chief of the General Staff about the threats that this country faces. There has been growing concern that the Government’s savage cuts to our nation’s defences have left us ill equipped to respond to those threats.
The measure of this review will be in the detail. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give us some specific answers today. Turning to the most important question, will the review be fiscally neutral? We know that much of the concern about the NSCR was that it was being carried out within the same funding envelope as the spending review. But if this review identifies that additional spending is necessary for the security of our nation, will the Government step up to the plate? Surely the Secretary of State must agree that it would be pointless to have a review that finds we need additional equipment or increased personnel only for the Government to ignore that recommendation. We cannot do security on the cheap, and it is high time that the Government recognised that. Yet the statement makes reference to “further efficiencies” being carried out as part of this review, raising the spectre of yet further cuts.
Crucially, how does this review fit into the work being done by the National Security Adviser? Are any recommendations he may have made on defence as part of the NSCR to be carried over into this review, or is it a case of starting from scratch? When it comes to threat assessments, will the modernising defence programme and the NSCR have a common view of the most significant threats?
Will the planned numbers or targets for our armed forces change, and if they do, will there be changes to planned structures and ongoing restructuring? Similarly, does the Defence Secretary foresee this review having an impact on the better defence estate strategy and future basing arrangements? Might it include the cancellation or downscaling of procurement plans, and if so, how will industry be involved in the process? Finally, what is the planned timetable for this review, and when will it be published? It is vital that our serving personnel are not kept in limbo about their future, but can be assured about when they will get answers.
This review represents an important opportunity for a step change in the Government’s approach to defence policy. We all hope that the Defence Secretary will use this chance to deliver real investment in our nation’s defences and the resources that our armed forces so badly need.
Gavin Williamson
I take on board the hon. Lady’s comments about the organisation of future statements, and I commit to improve on that.
I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the review that we have brought about. She mentioned the Chief of the General Staff’s comments. I think it is very important that the people who lead our armed forces can have a voice and speak about the threats this country faces. We spent 20 years feeling that the threats this country faced may have disappeared, and we got used to not facing peer enemies. That is not the world we live in today, and it would be irresponsible not to talk about such threats. The British people must understand the challenges that our nation is facing and what the armed forces are dealing with every day.
The hon. Lady asked whether the review aims to be fiscally neutral. No, it does not. It will look at how we can get the armed forces we need to deal with the threats that we face. The Government are absolutely committed to delivering the very best armed forces, and many Government Members and Opposition Members are equally committed to that. I very much hope that they will continue to support the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces in the work we are doing to get the very best armed forces for future generations.
The hon. Lady asked when the review will be published. My aim is to publish it in the summer, and my hope is to do so before the House rises for the summer recess. I very much emphasise that we want to hear people’s views. The armed forces will always need to change and evolve. She asked a question about what I said about efficiencies. I think every organisation in the Government should be looking at how it can do things better and more efficiently, so I do not apologise for saying that the Ministry of Defence can do things better. I want it to do better and to drive efficiencies so that the money can be put into the frontline for our armed forces.
Let us not be hesitant about coming forward with ideas. If the hon. Lady has some ideas about how she thinks this could be done better, she will always find me very keen and willing to listen to them. I once again thank her for welcoming the review, and I look forward to working with her and with all Members of the House in trying to make sure that this review very much works for our armed forces.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place? I have sat in this place for 25 years—as you know only too well, Mr Speaker—and, sadly, I know that every Government bring forward another statement about modernising the armed forces, but invariably end up spending less money on the armed forces, while leaving them under the same pressures.
May I urge my right hon. Friend, in the conduct of his office, to please learn from previous mistakes? For example, when we went into the Bosnia area we had a “just-in-time” equipment policy based on supermarkets. That was very modern, but it ended up with tanks up on the side of the road with no equipment because we could not get it to them “just in time”. War is an expensive and wasteful business. Will he please ensure that we do not repeat the nonsense of people saying, “You can modernise,” when actually they mean, “You cut”?
Gavin Williamson
History teaches us many lessons, and we will try to learn as many of them as possible. My right hon. Friend has a lot of personal experience of the armed forces, and I welcome his contribution and thoughts on the review. We want the best armed forces possible. This is not an operation to take money off the armed forces; it is about ensuring that we get the armed forces and the support that we need, and recognising that they do the most amazing job for our country. That is what we hope to achieve as part of this review.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement, but the public must understand the farce that we went through yesterday to get to this point. This statement was on, it was off; it was maybe on, then it was definitely off. It was to happen next week, then we learned that it was happening today—better late than never, I suppose. We must also stop reading about these reviews in The Times, and he must endeavour to come to the House more often, rather than allowing leaks to newspapers. [Interruption.] I realise he is here now, but hon. Members know exactly what I am referring to.
Let me ask a couple of questions about the statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on this week’s announcement about the new disinformation unit. Again, we had to read about that in the newspapers and he did not mention it today. If this review is not to be fiscally neutral, will he confirm that that is a departure from what Sir Mark Sedwill told the Defence Committee in a letter in which he said that it would be fiscally neutral? If it is not fiscally neutral, can members of the armed forces expect a pay rise when the review concludes? How will the review deal with Russian activity in and over the north Atlantic? Given what the right hon. Gentleman said about wishing to engage with Members, will he agree to meet me to discuss that issue? When he comes to report on this review in the summer, will he commit to handling it a lot better than he handled things yesterday?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the British public are really interested in the tabling of statements. I think they are interested in the fact that the Government are acting to ensure that our armed forces have the resources and everything they need. The review does not aim to be fiscally neutral—that is why we brought it out of the national security and capability review, which is a separate review mechanism. Sir Mark is doing an amazing job on the NSCR, which he outlined would be fiscally neutral, and this review has led on from that. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his wider issues and concerns about the north Atlantic.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the support of the whole House if he manages to secure additional funding for the pressures this year and next, and then puts the defence budget on a more sustainable footing that allows our armed forces to tackle the increased threats that they face, without demoralising rumours of “deep cuts”? The words used here are interesting and important, but what really matters in the end is money—more money.
Gavin Williamson
I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he has done for our armed forces. Without his work and campaigning, we would not today have a rising budget, with £4 billion of extra resources committed to our armed forces by the Government. I will take on board his comments. His article in The Daily Telegraph today sets absolutely the right tone and approach for how to take things forward. I hope I have the opportunity to sit down with him to discuss how we get the balance right and ensure that we achieve everything that he has set out and built on for our armed forces over the past four years. We must look at getting additional resources for our armed forces so that they have the capability to protect and truly defend Britain’s global interests, both near and far.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
My reaction to this much heralded, hokey-cokey statement is, is that it? Although the voice was Williamson’s, the hands were clearly Hammond’s. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the programme is still fiscally neutral? Why does it not say that increases in security expenditure will not be at the expense of defence? Why does it rehash the same old tired call for so-called and unspecified “efficiencies”? Why will he not just confirm that the winner is in fact the Treasury and its view that there are no votes in defence? In spite of his warm words, will not the real losers be our superb troops, our excellent defence industry, and the defence and security of our nation?
Gavin Williamson
I apologise if the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me. There is not the constraint of the programme being fiscally neutral; we are looking at what we can do and how we can deliver it to the best of our ability. I am very grateful to both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for all they have done to work towards the position where we can put forward this programme and have the opportunity to look at the needs of our defence industry and establishment.
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
I have every sympathy with the Secretary of State: over the last two days when this was going to be announced, it was the old Army motto “knickers on, knickers off”, which many of us are familiar with.
A number of colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), have pointed to the crucial matter of money. Twenty years ago, the Labour Government carried out an enormous strategic defence review, which on the whole was well received, but it was never funded. Has the Secretary of State any confidence at all that his recommendations will actually be funded by the Treasury?
Gavin Williamson
Yes; I very much hope that the recommendations of the programme will be listened to closely by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Its whole aim is to give the armed forces the opportunity clearly to set out our case for the resources that we need going forward.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The last 48 hours may have been somewhat chaotic, but I am more concerned about the last two months. There has been rumour after rumour and speculation undermining not only our global reputation, but the confidence of our serving personnel about their future.
There have been rumours about the Parachute Regiment merging with the Royal Marines and the end of amphibiosity—all this has been nonsense. Will the Secretary of State give us assurances that we will stop seeing such rumours on the front pages of the newspapers and be informed about what is happening? More importantly, what is happening with the review and where is the threat assessment coming from? What will the terms of reference be and when will we see them?
Gavin Williamson
There has been an awful lot of speculation over the past few months and virtually all of it has been proved to be completely untrue. I will continue to keep the House updated on progress, as I promised to in my statement. I will do everything I can to make sure that the armed forces, as well as the House, are listened to as we develop the programme going forward.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
There is real logic in separating out the security and defence reviews that the Secretary of State has referred to, but going forward, things such as cyber, intel, asymmetric warfare and drones will touch on both security and defence. How will he distinguish Sir Mark Sedwill’s review from the one that he has announced and will lead?
Gavin Williamson
We will be continuously working very closely with Sir Mark—given that a great deal of work has already been done on the NSCR, it would be crazy for us not to do that. What the review identified was that more work needed to be done on the Ministry of Defence budget. If the exercise were fiscally neutral, it would not have been possible to deliver in such a way. We will be working closely with the Cabinet Office to ensure that everything that we have done sits within the priorities of the National Security Council. As for cyber-attack, the Ministry of Defence itself leads on aspects of that. All the work across all those realms is done in conjunction with all the parts of our national security infrastructure—GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. It is essential that that continues going forward.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Given the Secretary of State’s desire to consult, I think that there would be merit in his coming along to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy so that we could dig into the detail of his announcement more thoroughly. Does he agree, however, that quantity has a quality all of its own, and that, given the threats that we know we face, any further reduction in armed forces personnel would be extremely unwise?
Gavin Williamson
We have made a commitment in relation to the size of our armed forces. I think there is a strong argument that we need forces with not just the very best equipment but mass, if we are to be able to deploy.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
On Monday, General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the General Staff, stated that the Russians could go to war far more quickly than we had previously thought. Will my right hon. Friend allow consideration, and some support, to leaving, say, a brigade in Germany, so that we would be closer to where the battles may well be?
Gavin Williamson
We are very much looking at that option. We need to ensure that forces that are even further east can be properly resupplied and supported.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I think the whole House will congratulate the Secretary of State on taking the review out of the straitjacket, but is there a risk that the submarine programme—in particular, funding for Astute boat 7, which has not yet been priced—could be diverted by the review?
Gavin Williamson
It is too early in the process for me to be able to comment on that, but I will look into the issue and come back to the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, the whole point of the programme is to look at things afresh. However, we have commented fairly regularly on the increasing threat that we face in the north Atlantic, which has been raised by Members. We must ensure that we have submarines that are able to operate in and defend the north Atlantic.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for delivering good news to the House, and congratulate him on leveraging the somewhat unexpected and sudden nature of his appointment to the advantage of Her Majesty’s armed forces and the Ministry of Defence. Leveraging control over the defence review back to the Department for the first time since 2010 represents a return of sanity, because the current defence review is proving undeliverable, which shows what happens if policy is divorced from the Department that has to deliver it.
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend makes an important point about this programme being led by the Ministry of Defence. Our armed forces should be leading the programme, because they have the greatest understanding of what is needed, and what support they will require to be most effective going forward.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
We all welcome the impending completion of our splendid new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, but there is some indication that we have insufficient Royal Navy surface warships—frigates and destroyers—to provide a protective screen for those magnificent ships in conflict. How will what the Secretary of State has announced sort that one out?
Gavin Williamson
My predecessor made it clear that we would invest in Type 26 and Type 31 frigates to ensure that that protective screen would surround those magnificent aircraft carriers, of which everyone in the United Kingdom is so proud.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and its upbeat tone. We have had a lot of discussion about threats from the north Atlantic and Russia; will he confirm that we will also look at the threats east of Suez, as, with Brexit, more of our trade will depend on that part of the world?
Gavin Williamson
One of the key elements of this programme is looking at how we can use defence to increase the prosperity of the nation. We talk about global Britain and about international diplomacy, and our armed forces are virtually always the best diplomats, because when others see British forces—whether the British Army, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy—they perceive them as a real symbol of Britain’s reach and what we can achieve in the world, and we will certainly be looking far beyond Suez.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Defence Secretary knows that nobody in the House today believes our defence forces are anything other than underfunded, but against that background and if he is to have the meaningful conversation with the nation indicated in his statement, will he give early consideration to publishing the terms of reference and the perception of the changing strategic threats that this nation of ours faces?
Gavin Williamson
The NSCR will be looking at producing a document explaining how it sees the changed threats and how we should respond to them, and that will be in the public domain. We need to have a more active debate—we all encourage that—because the threats we are facing are developing very quickly. Just five years ago, Russia was not seen as a real threat to our national security. We have to start talking about it. If we do not talk about it, people do not understand those threats. I will certainly be encouraging that debate going forward.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Given the nature of the increasing tensions with Russia, which my right hon. Friend has alluded to, will he give me an assurance that the size and frequency of British rotational deployments to Poland will increase under this review?
Gavin Williamson
Just before Christmas, I had the opportunity to visit our troops stationed in Poland. We are not currently looking at increasing the number of troops in Poland, but we are always talking very closely with our NATO partners; they are on a six-month rotation, which seems to suit matters currently, but we will keep that under review.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Is not the wild and petulant infantilism of the statements by our world leaders a great threat to the security of the world, and does not history tell us that the greatest accelerant to war is an expectation of war, which we are fuelling at the moment? Would it not be far better for us to look to the great work we could do now in peacekeeping on the border in Bangladesh, rather than be thinking of war making?
Gavin Williamson
We are one of the most active nations in making sure we bring peace right across the globe. We have a great history and we should take great pride in everything we have achieved in the past, and I have no doubt we will achieve in the future. But we have to understand that people who are threatening Britain do not respect weakness; if we were to disarm, or get rid of our nuclear deterrent, or diminish or get rid of our conventional forces, that would make them no less likely to attack us. We have to have an effective deterrent, and that is not just a nuclear deterrent; it is a conventional deterrent as well.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Innovative defence technology firms, particularly in the small and medium-sized enterprises sector, can play an important role in making sure our armed forces have access to the best possible equipment. As my right hon. Friend’s review proceeds, will he ensure that SMEs’ role in procurement is seriously considered?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend has done a lot of work on the fourth industrial revolution, and we must ask how we can harness those new technologies to give our military the constant advantage going forward. The battlefield is changing incredibly rapidly, and if we can work with SMEs, we need to do more of that because some of the greatest and most innovative ideas come from those businesses. I appreciated the time my hon. Friend took to speak with me about some of the work being done in his constituency of Havant and look forward to working with him further to make some of those ideas a reality.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the review, which postpones possible defence cuts, but the longer the uncertainty goes on, the harder morale will be hit. Will the Secretary of State now reassure Plymouth serving personnel and their families that the Devonport base, HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark and the Royal Marines will not be cut in the further efficiencies that he has just announced?
Gavin Williamson
We have outlined in the programme the fact that we need to do this quickly. We are conscious of the concerns that many people in the armed forces have expressed, which is why we are committed to ensuring that we report back before the summer recess.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State might not realise that, although Derby is as far from the sea as anyone can get, we have a very strong relationship with the submariner associations. The submariners are our unsung heroes: they are under the sea for months at a time. Will he ensure that they form an essential part of this review and that they are looked after? And do not forget that our submarines are powered by Rolls-Royce engines from Derby.
Gavin Williamson
And very fine engines they are! We have had a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent for almost 50 years. The work of our submariner force inevitably goes unnoticed—that is the aim—but what they do to protect our country is truly magnificent. Without their commitment and dedication, the country would be a lot less safe.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
This is the first chance I have had to welcome my former opposite number from the Whips Office to the Dispatch Box. May I ask him at what point Trident would become a burden on the defence budget, or indeed on the budget of the whole country? Surely, if it takes up a greater proportion of our defence spending, it will put pressure on conventional forces and put us in harm’s way, rather than keeping us safe.
Gavin Williamson
I dearly miss my former honourable counterpart and the work that we did together as Chief Whips. The continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is a vital part of our defence and we should never see it in isolation. People often talk about it without recognising that it is part of the whole spectrum of deterrence, involving the infantry, Royal Navy frigates and destroyers, Royal Air Force helicopters and fast jets and the British Army itself. The continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent is an integral part of all that, and if we got rid of it, we would make Britain less safe. We have to have it. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed it, because it brings an awful lot of wealth, prosperity and jobs to Scotland. On this side of the House, we are very proud of that.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Does he agree that it is vital to have the flexibility to support our allies when required? I particularly want to highlight the flexibility of the Royal Marines—40 Commando is based in my constituency—not just to provide security but to help the community, for example, in times of floods and hurricanes.
Gavin Williamson
I note my hon. Friend’s comments about the flexibility of the Royal Marines. She is right, but this applies not only to the Royal Marines but to the Parachute Regiment and to every part of the British Army, the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. We saw how they stepped up at a moment’s notice in the Caribbean to deliver relief to tens of thousands of people, and we see them stepping up to the plate every year when tragedy hits different parts of the United Kingdom. We are very proud of that, and it is an essential part of what they do and will continue to do.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
My constituents have raised with me the importance of sovereign capability—that is, retaining the ability to produce in this country the equipment that we need for our armed forces. What importance does the new Secretary of State put on that?
Gavin Williamson
I put a great deal of importance on it. I want us, wherever we can, to purchase products that are manufactured here in Britain. We also have to look at manufacturing products that we can sell not just to the Ministry of Defence but right across the globe. The larger the product portfolio that we can sell to the Gulf, Europe and the United States, the better it will be for British industry.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
As part of his review, will the Secretary of State make certain that, thanks to the innovation of British enterprises, we have the most modern weapons for our ships, tanks and planes?
Gavin Williamson
Absolutely. This is where we have the opportunity to embrace new technology to make our armed forces more effective in what they do. If we stand still, our enemies will overtake us. In this country, we have some of the most innovative companies, some of which have never before sold to defence, and we have to make use of that innovation.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I had hoped to ask the Secretary of State for reassurance for the service personnel and the many thousands of people across Lancashire who work in the defence industry, but I am aware that many colleagues were expecting this statement to be made on Monday and they are not in the Chamber today. Will the Secretary of State’s door be open to colleagues who are not here today because of the hokey-cokey nature of this statement, and will he meet them?
Gavin Williamson
I will always meet them. Jobs in Lancashire are close to my heart, and I was very proud to sign a deal with the Qataris for the largest Typhoon order in more than a decade. We need to be doing more of that. How can we sell more Typhoons, more Hawks and more equipment around the globe? I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the House to make sure that the British defence industry continues to thrive and prosper.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. What does he believe will be the outcome of the review on the vital issues of recruitment and retention?
Gavin Williamson
I do not want to prejudge the programme just yet, but we need to give people the real confidence and belief that the armed forces are treasured and valued by everyone in this country. We need people to realise that if they join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, they will have not just a great career but the best possible career that anyone could ever have. I hope that the programme will give them the confidence that a career in our armed forces is the best career that they can pursue.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is great to see you back in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I believe that the Secretary of State is seized of the danger of continually augmenting our threat assessments and losing capacity, only to find that old threats are renewed. As he looks to modernise this country’s defence capability, may I urge him to look closely at Northern Ireland? Not only does my constituency have the UK’s largest dry dock, which is suitable for Queen Elizabeth class carriers, but the city is home to the latest ECIT and CSIT cyber-security centres. Northern Ireland has never been found wanting when it comes to personnel or procurement opportunities, and I urge him to look to us.
Gavin Williamson
We owe a great debt to Northern Ireland. It contributes 7% of our armed forces—a percentage that is far greater than its population as a proportion of the UK’s—in the Regular Army and the reserves. I will have Northern Ireland at the forefront of my mind. I am not sure whether the Democratic Unionist party is suggesting that a third aircraft carrier should be built at Harland and Wolff. It is absolutely vital that we work together to make sure that a part of the United Kingdom that has continuously played such an important role in our national defence carries on doing so.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I welcome this statement. The cyber-threat that we face is novel and unprecedented, and I welcome its presence in the statement. It is not simply about state and non-state actors hacking our infrastructure and our businesses; it is about the spread of disinformation. Can my right hon. Friend say a little about what consideration the review will give to that new way of directly reaching our citizens?
Gavin Williamson
The National Security Adviser is leading on much of this, and I do not want to pinch other aspects of the national security capability review. I would struggle to get away with outlining some of the things that we want to do without breaching national security. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for evading his question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and promise of a review. Recruitment to the services has fallen to such an extent that more personnel now leave than are recruited. Those who know, in the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force, tell me that reopening Army recruitment offices on the high street would increase recruitment. Will he as a matter of urgency consider the reintroduction of high street recruitment centres to increase the numbers and then deliver the defence modernisation around the soldiers recruited?
Gavin Williamson
We are looking at that option. We have seen an upturn in the number of people applying to join the British Army—up 15% this year—but we are happy to look at all ideas to make sure the right number of people are applying to join our armed services, so that they can operate effectively.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Secretary of State a very happy Burns day. Tomorrow evening, I will be addressing a Burns supper in the wardroom of HMS Nelson. When I stand up, will I be able to confirm that the review will remain in the sole command of the Secretary of State and that, in conducting it, he and his staff will be fully aware of the critical importance of our senior service’s capabilities, especially its amphibious capabilities, about which there has been some concern of late?
Gavin Williamson
I can give clear confirmation that the review will remain in the hands of the MOD. We are driving this review and programme of modernisation. The Prime Minister and everyone else think it right that the MOD do this. It is the first time we have done it this way since 2010, and I hope that as a part of it we will get the right answers.
Points of Order
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, may I say what a delight it is to see you back in the Chair? Have either you or Mr Speaker been given notice by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in view of the important call by the former Secretary of State for Defence that we spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, he will be coming to the Chamber to announce an increase in the defence budget, so that the present Secretary of State can put it to good use?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have had no such indication, and Mr Speaker has not passed one on to me either. The good thing, however, is that his comments are on the record, and I am sure that someone will be letting him know the outcome shortly.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is very good to see you back in your place. It was July 2017 when the Prime Minister announced a public inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal, the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. It is now nearly the end of January 2018 and we still do not have a chair, terms of reference or any indication of when it will be established. Have you been given any indication by the Government of a statement or announcement of what will happen next with this long-awaited public inquiry?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have been given no such indication, but I know that the hon. Lady will be taking up other avenues to pursue the matter. Her comments on this important matter are on the record, and I am sure the Government will be looking at it.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Again, it is a pleasure to see you back in your place. We have just had the statement. Many Members—those who are here and those who are not here—feel deeply aggrieved at the way it has been handled. You will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, about the shenanigans yesterday: the statement was on and off several times. Worse, in a debate yesterday morning, the Minister for the Armed Forces assured Members that the statement would be happening next week, not this week. I was also given an assurance by the Leader of the House that it would happen next week. I welcome the fact that it has come early, but the Government’s jiggery-pokery has been deeply unedifying and discourteous to Members. Can you give us an assurance that the Ministry of Defence will not do this again, and can you advise Members on how to ensure that, when Ministers report on the review in July, as they hope to do, the same thing will not happen and they will not trick Members into thinking that a statement is not forthcoming when it actually is?
Mr Deputy Speaker
What I can say is that it is not for the Chair to decide when the statement will come; it is up to the Secretary of State when they decide to do it. I recognise that there has been a lot of frustration. I am sure that will have been taken on board. I am sure that the usual channels can begin to have a conversation to try and ensure that all parties do not feel aggrieved. I am sure this is something that has been taken on board, but I can assure you that it is not for the Chair to decide when the statement will come. Recognising that the House is frustrated, and that this is an important matter, I am sure that this was not done deliberately.
Dr Julian Lewis
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to come back again, but I happen to know that there was a strong wish on the part of the Secretary of State for Defence and his team to make the statement yesterday. The only reason it was not made was so as not to cut into Opposition day time. I do think that should be borne in mind.
Mr Deputy Speaker
What I would say is that I do not want to pursue the debate. I know there were various discussions yesterday. In the end, the statement came today. I do not want to get into how it was arrived at. I think that is something that was done, quite rightly, with Mr Speaker. It is where we are at now, and I am not going to pursue this in any other way, other than to say that the statement has been heard. Let us move on from that.
Ministers’ and Officials’ Conflicts of Interest
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Mr Bernard Jenkin will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Mr Bernard Jenkin to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions, and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is the role of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to oversee the UK’s changing constitution and the efficacy of the civil service and the machinery of government. Within that, PACAC covers matters of ethics and propriety in Whitehall, overseeing the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the ministerial code, the special advisers code, the civil service code and the work of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which oversees the rules governing departing Ministers and Crown servants when they take up outside appointments.
PACAC has defined its overriding purpose as being
“to conduct robust and effective scrutiny in order to help create conditions where the public can have justified confidence in public services/government.”
In that context, just before the election, in April 2017, PACAC published a new report on ACOBA, entitled “Managing Ministers’ and officials’ conflicts of interest: time for clearer values, principles and action”. That followed a report published in 2012 by our predecessor Committee, which recommended replacing the existing business appointment rules with a statutory system. The main recommendations of that report, and of our more recent 2017 report, have been flatly rejected by the Government. I am afraid that many people believe that to be hopelessly complacent. PACAC is therefore announcing in its supplementary report, published today, that we intend to hold a further inquiry into these matters.
The way we manage conflicts of interest arising where former Ministers and Crown servants leave the Government to take up jobs elsewhere really matters. There is a constant stream of embarrassing stories in the media about the so-called revolving door between employment in the public and private sectors, suggesting that people misuse the advantage of a job in Government to get lucrative jobs outside. Although many of these stories may be unfair, the situation is deeply corrosive of public trust in our system of democracy and Government because the present system of oversight fails to provide adequate assurance.
For example—I will name only one Department as an example, but this includes every Department—a constant flow of Ministry of Defence civil servants, and of senior officers from the armed forces, finish up working in the defence industry. A similar situation occurs in other Departments. No one should assume that there is automatically anything wrong with that, but there needs to be an adequate system of assurance that there is, indeed, nothing wrong, and that we are not fostering an over-permissive attitude. The expectation of many people—even of some Ministers—is that this is the new normal and that everybody does it.
We acknowledge, and I pay tribute to, the hard work of the ACOBA board—the chair and the secretariat—but PACAC’s 2012 and 2017 reports can be described only as excoriating. In 2017, PACAC concluded:
“ACoBA, in its current form is a toothless regulator which has failed to change the environment around business appointments.”
That is because ACOBA lacks power and resources, and its remit is much too limited. It is not a regulator—it is merely advisory, with no sanctions for non-compliance—and there are regular instances of the business appointment rules being ignored.
Furthermore, serious gaps exist in ACOBA’s monitoring process, so while we know about some high-profile cases, we have little idea about the scale of non-compliance. That has got worse since the Government removed ACOBA’s responsibility to monitor and report applications from Crown servants below SCS3 in 2010. Departments are meant to post half-yearly data on their websites to show when advice has been given to applicants at SCS2 and 3 levels, but this data has become patchy. We just do not know how many civil servants below SCS3 level who have performed important roles in respect of policy formation and commercial relationships end up in a position to draw on inside information or their Government contacts after they leave the civil service.
In the period between PACAC’s two reports, the challenge has escalated, with increased numbers of public servants and Ministers moving between the public and private sectors. There have also been a number of high-profile cases, leading to declining public trust in a system that was designed to promote public confidence. A personal observation is that the magazine Private Eye, from which we took evidence, frequently appears to do a better job of policing the business appointment rules than does the advisory committee itself.
It is essential that steps are taken to ensure that the ACOBA system is swiftly improved. In PACAC’s more recent report, we set out a number of new recommendations in relation to how that could be done without resort to statute, although we recommend that a cost-benefit analysis of statutory regulation should be conducted. The Government have rejected statutory regulation on the basis that it would be too costly, but they refuse to do the cost-benefit analysis.
PACAC recommended that the Government provide ACOBA with the powers and resources necessary to actively monitor and enforce compliance with the rules. There should also be a substantial increase in transparency regarding ACOBA’s decisions, and that should be done by Department. Applications should be published on receipt and not just when they are approved. That might reduce a lot of ACOBA’s unnecessary workload.
Most importantly, the business appointment rules should be fundamentally changed. A system to manage conflicts of interest needs to be more than just a code of rules and declarations. A principles-based system, if it is effectively taught by leaders and learned by everyone so that it is intrinsic to public service, would create a new and different expectation that individuals will act with integrity, encouraging people to regulate their own behaviour and attitudes according to those principles.
Our report recommends a substantial change of emphasis in the ministerial code and the civil service code to highlight the values and principles that should guide attitude and behaviour. We need to instil an expectation of integrity in individuals’ decisions. That, combined with independent checks, could effectively foster a substantial improvement in attitudes and behaviours. Evasively, the Government responded that the essence of those principles and values is already embedded in the code, but they are not explicit enough. We need a change of heart, and we need a stronger system—otherwise public confidence will continue to be eroded.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their powerful report and for the statement he has just made. The Opposition are committed to bringing this issue to the top of the political agenda and to seeking reform, as not a week seems to go by without the exposure of some conflict of interest in the heart of Government. Bearing in mind his statement and his report, does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the report raises serious questions of governance and confirms that this is a Government of the few, by the few and for the few?
Mr Jenkin
I will leave aside the soundbite that came at the end of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but the substance of his remarks is correct. The system is inadequate and needs to be strengthened and reformed, and I am delighted that Her Majesty’s official Opposition are taking an interest in the matter.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is very good to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for his statement. The SNP agrees that the business appointments rules should be strengthened, and we are disappointed with the Government’s response to the report. As Burns might have said, “I wad na gie a button for it.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the public and the press, specifically Private Eye, recognise that the Government’s response to the evident revolving-door problem smacks of complacency and self-interest? Does he agree that the actions of the former Chancellor demonstrate how little respect there is for ACOBA? Does he also agree that, if the Government and this House do nothing to strengthen the business appointments rules, we risk further undermining trust and integrity in politics?
Mr Jenkin
Our report mentions George Osborne in two respects. First, we state that it was striking and startling that ACOBA appeared to give the former Chancellor a blank cheque in allowing him to join BlackRock on an inflated salary so shortly after he left his office. Secondly, George Osborne also completely bypassed the appointment rules prior to accepting his appointment as editor of the Evening Standard. We regard that as a glaring example not necessarily of any particular dishonour by any particular individual, but of how the system absolutely fails to command public confidence.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I join others in welcoming you back to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for his work in bringing these affairs to the House’s attention today. If Members present have not already taken a look at the Government response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report, I encourage them to do so. We clearly state that the Government are committed to maintaining the highest standards of conduct for Ministers and civil servants, including special advisers, and we believe that the rules and procedures in place are proportionate and adequate. We look forward to working with the Committee to do more, however, and I put on the record my willingness to work with its Chair to do so.
Mr Jenkin
I welcome my hon. Friend back to the Front Bench in her new position at the Cabinet Office, to which she brings considerable experience, including of this issue. However, I have to express my disappointment at the Government’s response. Some minor amendments were accepted, but it regards the system as the highest example of regulation and openness when it simply does not deliver the public confidence that we want. I appreciate that this is a vexed issue and that we do not want to deter people from coming into the public service for fear of being treated unfairly on the way out, but the present arrangements are inadequate. The response even refused to put more explicitly into the ministerial code words such as
“You must… take decisions in the public interest alone”
and
“You must… never allow yourself to be influenced in contracting, procurement, regulation or the provision of policy advice, by your career expectations or prospects if you leave the public service”
and
“You must not… take up any post outside the public service in businesses or [commercial] organisations operating in areas where you have been directly responsible”.
I do not understand why those things cannot be put explicitly in the ministerial code so that they are talked about and understood, which would begin to change the attitudes that unfortunately pervade many of the Ministers, special advisers and civil servants in Whitehall.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Government’s conduct in responding to the report reinforces the public’s view that we here are acting in our own private interests, not in the public interest. Is it not significant that a Prime Minister who did not lift a finger during his period in office in answer to pleas for reforms to jam the revolving door has now taken advantage of that period of office to take a job in China, with which he worked when in Government? Will the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee explain to us why George Osborne did not come to the Committee to explain why he had five meetings with BlackRock, why he altered the law in its favour and why, after losing office, he took a job with them on £650,000 a year for one day’s work a week? If that is not an egregious example of the abuse of the revolving door, it is hard to see what is. We have a shameful record, and perhaps the Chair will agree that the public will rightly regard us with contempt and as unfit to police our own affairs.
Mr Jenkin
Sadly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a member of my Committee, he has been instrumental in drawing the Committee’s attention to these issues. I would almost describe him as the conscience of the Committee on the issue, and long may he continue to encourage us in this work. As he knows, it is not the practice of the Committee to prosecute individual cases, and we should resist that because it would divert attention from the substance of the work that we need to undertake. I am actually quite pleased about how obviously carefully drafted the Government’s response is to our report because the points we are making in our report are having a telling effect. We have a long way to go, however, and that is why the hon. Gentleman has been one of those encouraging the Committee to continue pursuing the subject with a further inquiry. I thank him for his work for the Committee.
Backbench Business
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Joint Enterprise
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Under the Standing Orders, the Member moving the motion should usually speak for around 15 minutes.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jogee and Ruddock of February 2016 that the law on joint enterprise and parasitic accessory liability had been wrongly interpreted for more than 30 years; further notes that since that judgment, the number of cases brought under joint enterprise has remained unchanged; further notes that there have yet to be any successful appeals of cases from before February 2016; and calls on the Government to review the use of joint enterprise and to bring forward legislative proposals to clarify the law on joint enterprise.
I welcome you back to your place in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing you and your family all the best; I know that it has been a very difficult few weeks for you.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for accepting the application for this important debate, and I thank the right hon. and hon. Members who supported that application, particularly the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), all of whom were co-sponsors of the application. I also thank the families and campaigners on joint enterprise, who are known as JENGbA—Joint Enterprise: Not Guilty by Association—and many of whom are in the Public Gallery today. They have never given up in their fight for justice for their loved ones.
Why are we having this debate now? It is nearly two years to the day since the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling that the law had taken a “wrong turn”. That followed years of campaigning and high-profile and seminal documentaries and films, such as “Common” by Jimmy McGovern. Since then, however, nothing of substance has actually changed. In the run-up to the ruling, the campaigners highlighted how, particularly in murder cases, secondary parties were too often receiving mandatory life sentences for having a lesser part or no significant part when compared with the principal party. They also showed that the evidential threshold was much lower than would normally apply to murder, particularly the notion that secondary parties “might” have foreseen the actions of others, rather than having knowingly foreseen them.
At the time of the ruling, campaigners, parliamentarians and others viewed it as a victory and had confidence that injustices would be put right and that the use of joint enterprise would be more limited going forward. However, two years on, the Supreme Court ruling feels increasingly like a pyrrhic victory, with no case from the 30 years in which the “wrong” law was applied being awarded an appeal, and many new cases with all the hallmarks of the old cases being successfully prosecuted.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on this difficult issue, which is not a small matter. Does she agree that 4,500 people are currently in prison having been caught by the wrongful application of joint enterprise law? Men, women and children are serving long sentences for crimes that they did not commit.
Lucy Powell
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. We know it is at least that sort of figure—we do not have accurate figures.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. This crucial issue is a priority for the newly formed all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice.
The particular case of Alex Henry is of great importance. I chair the Westminster Commission on Autism, and several people in this ghastly predicament are on the autism spectrum and have been taken totally out of care.
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that particular case, and I know the family are here today. The case has many of the hallmarks that we will come on to discuss.
We are now seeing a new generation of joint enterprise lifers in prison. The Supreme Court says it is
“the responsibility of the court to put the law right”.
But many of us have come to the conclusion that the criminal justice system will not right itself, and is not righting itself, in relation to joint enterprise, and that we need to act. That is why Members on both sides of the House have joined together to send a strong signal both to the Government and to prosecutors and others that the way in which we continue to apply the law and the incredibly high bar that has been set for previous unsafe convictions to be reheard need to be redressed.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important subject to the Floor of the House. I have had reason to represent one of my constituents, Jace Ryan Smith, who was convicted and sentenced to 31 years under joint enterprise. He was doubly punished recently because he was not allowed to go to his grandmother’s funeral, not because of anything he had done wrong but because Greater Manchester police thought he may become a victim of another gang. Is not the real problem with joint enterprise that people are punished and given long prison sentences of more than 30 years for actions they did not carry out themselves?
Chuka Umunna
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I reiterate that it is very good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have two questions. First, following on from the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), the statistics show that 37% of those serving long sentences for joint enterprise are black. That is 11 times the proportion of black people in the population. The figures for people of mixed race are similarly disproportionate, which underlines why it is essential that we have the review that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) calls for in the motion, which I fully support.
Secondly, given the uncertainty, surely we are seeing the courts acting, in effect, as legislators. That is wrong. Where there is uncertainty in the law, it is for this House to tidy it up, particularly where the law is visiting injustice upon people in the way we are seeing.
Lucy Powell
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments, and I will address some of that in my speech.
With hundreds of lifers in prison after being convicted under what the Supreme Court views as a wrong application of the law, this is potentially one of the biggest and most widespread miscarriages of justice ever to face our justice system. As such, I fear that the cosy club of the criminal justice establishment is closing in on itself to prevent this from ever being fully exposed.
What is joint enterprise? Joint enterprise has been applied in cases for more than 300 years, although it is a common law that has never been passed by Parliament. The doctrine allows for more than one person to be charged for the same offence, despite the fact that they may have played a different role, or no role, in the crime. Joint enterprise applies to all crimes, but in recent years it has been particularly used as a way to prosecute murder, especially, but not exclusively, in cases involving groups of young men.
This is obviously a very emotive issue, particularly for families of murder victims, and no one is suggesting that those who commit murder, or who knowingly and intentionally assist in committing murder, should not face the full force of the law. However, nor should the evidential bar for serious offences like murder be lower, by virtue of presence or association with the principal offender, as we have all too often seen.
Indeed, there are many cases, many of which I am sure will come to light today, in which people are serving life sentences when it is clear that they did not commit murder but were found guilty under the “old” or “wrong” law of parasitic accessory liability. Furthermore, many others who were convicted as secondary parties are carrying the same sentences as the principal based on a prosecution narrative of gang and association, even though intent and foresight are unproven and the secondary party was not physically present or had withdrawn from the scene.
When one looks at the profile of those convicted of murder, there is a further flaw in how the doctrine is applied. The majority are of black and ethnic minority backgrounds, and the vast majority are young, with many teenagers serving life for a secondary or parasitic role. I will say more, as will others, but we have to ask questions about the disproportionate use of such doctrines in cases involving certain communities.
The political context is also relevant to this debate.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that where 14, 16 and 19-year-olds have gone to prison for significant periods of time when it is absolutely clear to the community that they have not committed murder, as happened in her community of Moss Side, it undermines the black community’s sense of justice, fewer people co-operate with the police, fewer people have faith in the justice system and it undermines all she is attempting to do?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I hope to give everybody 10 minutes. If Members intervene, the danger is that I will have to drop the time limit immediately.
Lucy Powell
I fully agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), but I will try to make some progress.
There was a political context when the joint enterprise law began to be overused and extended in its use during the 1990s and the noughties, but there is a different political context today. As my right hon. Friend has just said, we now more clearly understand the consequences of disproportionate and unfair applications of the law against certain groups. I am pleased the Government recognised that when they launched the Lammy review and in the Prime Minister’s recent comments on “burning injustices”—I hope she can live up to that rhetoric.
Practice and the law have been far too slow to catch up with the changing mood in the country. I will briefly discuss what the Supreme Court ruling does and does not say, and what still needs to be addressed. First, the ruling is clear that the law governing secondary liability has taken a “wrong turn” and has resulted in the “erroneous” application of the law. However, it also sets out that, in order for appeals to be heard “out of time,” a substantial injustice test, not the usual unsafe conviction test, will be applied. Yet the substantial injustice test was not clearly set out in the ruling and has never been set out by Parliament. The substantial injustice test has subsequently been tested through case law and is now an almost impossibly high bar for people to clear. That is why, nearly two years on, there has yet to be a single successful appeal awarded by the Court of Appeal.
Finally, in our opinion the Supreme Court failed to address another question put before it: does joint enterprise over-criminalise secondary parties?
What needs to change in the law—first, what needs to change going forward, and secondly, how can we put right some of the injustices of the past? It is clear that joint enterprise continues to be overused and is disproportionately used against groups of young men, particularly those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. I saw that at first hand in a recent case in which 11 young black men from Moss Side faced charges of murder. Seven of them were convicted of murder and four were convicted of manslaughter. The youngest was only 14 and many of them were not previously known to the police. As research by Manchester Metropolitan University has shown in its study “Dangerous Liaisons”, more than half of all those serving life sentences are children or young adults, and more than half are from a black and ethnic minority background.
Lucy Powell
I will have to make some progress. I am sure someone else will give way later.
The extensive research also found that the establishment had a gang narrative that often relied on neighbourhood narratives, racialised assumptions, unevidenced constructs and loose associations. Things such as social media tags and videos have been critical to securing many of the joint enterprise convictions. We know that there are serious flaws in this approach. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has raised it in his review and why the Home Affairs Committee is looking into it. Indeed, joint enterprise cases continue following the Supreme Court ruling, albeit under new Crown Prosecution Service guidance, but that remains problematic.
We want the Government to look at three areas for future cases. The first is proportionality and whether joint enterprise is being used correctly or disproportionately against certain groups. We ask the Government to do what the Supreme Court failed to do, which is to establish whether joint enterprise over-criminalises secondary parties. Secondly, and related to that, we need the data. Collating the data about who is being charged and convicted, and where, is urgent now and long overdue. Thirdly, the long-awaited outcome of the review of the CPS guidance needs to be brought forward, and quickly. It must include clearer guidance for prosecution discretion so that lesser offences can be brought against secondary parties in many cases.
The final point is about retrospective cases and putting right the injustices of the past. We are not asking for automatic reopening of every single case. It is right that there must be a test, but the test is now so impossibly high that no cases have successfully been heard by the Court of Appeal, and the Criminal Cases Review Commission has yet to recommend that a single case should come back, despite having received 99 fresh applications and reviewing 90 more. Indeed, appeal judges seem utterly dismissive of these cases. Unlike in a usual appeal case, where the threshold is the possibility of an unsafe conviction, applicants in the case of the “wrong” law of joint enterprise are also required to demonstrate that, as well as being unsafe, had the correct law applied there “would” have been a substantial difference to the outcome. In most other cases, this would be simply that it “may” have done so. So we believe that the substantial injustice test needs establishing by Parliament in law, and it should make it clear that the threshold is “may”, not “would”.
Moreover, we think that the Court of Appeal should also be allowed to consider the ongoing effect of the conviction on the applicant and, critically, take account of the applicant’s age, mental health and other vulnerabilities at the time. The old, or wrong, foresight test now applied correctly to adolescents or those suffering with learning or mental difficulties would surely provide a substantial change to convictions. Today we would not expect an immature teenager or someone with learning difficulties to understand the old, weak foresight test.
I want the Government urgently to consider a mechanism for clarifying the threshold in these cases. Just to be clear, this is not about opening the floodgates, but if the law has been wrong for 30 years, during which time hundreds if not thousands of mandatory life sentences were handed out under the old wrong law, then it stands to reason that at least some—not a tiny, tiny few—of the cases are a clear injustice that the courts are currently failing to put right.
I think we can all agree today in the House that the law took a wrong turn. That now needs putting right. The establishment is evidently not putting itself right, so the Government and Parliament need to act. We urgently need a review of the use and scope of the prosecutions brought under joint enterprise, particularly its disproportionate use against young BAME men. We also need urgent clarification of the qualification for appeal so that we can put right decades of substantial injustices and unsafe convictions leading to many serving life sentences for murders they did not commit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Mr Andrew Mitchell, with a 10-minute limit.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, along with the whole House I welcome you back to the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on securing this debate and thank Mr Speaker and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I draw the attention of the House to my outside interests as set out in the register.
We are holding this debate today because we know that thousands of people have been prosecuted under joint enterprise over the last decade alone, and we have a profound fear that some of these convictions are unsound. I am deeply conscious that behind each of these crimes lies a victim, usually murdered, with grieving loved ones whose lives have been changed for ever and ruined. My heart goes out to all those and their families who have suffered in that way. But we also know that there is a wealth of evidence that suggests that joint enterprise has both convicted people in error and wholly disproportionately affected those who identify as black, Asian and minority ethnic.
Young people from ethnic communities have been, essentially, hoovered up for peripheral and in some cases even non-existent involvement in serious criminal acts. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Jogee has established that the previous interpretation of the law was wrong and confirmed the abolition of what I am advised lawyers call parasitic accessory liability, to which the hon. Lady referred. But to date only a very limited number of joint enterprise convictions have been quashed.
To find a defendant guilty of a criminal offence, a jury must be satisfied that a defendant both committed the crime and had the requisite state of mind to carry out the crime. Yet the law on joint enterprise, and secondary liability more generally, was developed by the courts to ensure that all participants in a criminal enterprise could be held accountable. Indeed, it has been a key tool when prosecuting suspected gang members. But there has been a failure by our criminal justice system to distinguish between gangs and groups. The House will understand that not all members of groups have a criminal purpose. Not all members of gangs or groups join in when there is an incident. Humans are by nature social animals. People naturally hang around in groups or sports teams or protest marches. That does not mean, if an incident occurs, that everyone in the group intended whatever happened to happen.
We now have evidence of how discriminatory the law of joint enterprise has been, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on the work he did in revealing the unequal treatment of, and outcomes for, black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. Over recent years, I have worked with Matilda MacAttram, of Black Mental Health, who has done so much good work exposing the inadequacies of the criminal justice and legal system in this respect. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister who, as Home Secretary, ensured that the voice of Black Mental Health was heard in Government.
It is no accident that the bulk of the prison population convicted under a joint enterprise doctrine is young BAME men. It is an uneasy and difficult truth that an association might exist unconsciously or otherwise in the minds of the police, prosecutors and juries between being a young ethnic minority male and being in a gang, and therefore being involved in forms of urban violence. Such findings are echoed by studies of the ethnic profile of prisoners convicted on the basis of joint enterprise. One study by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies found that, for young people convicted under joint enterprise, nearly 60% were BAME.
There is now a real suspicion that justice has miscarried in many joint enterprise cases. Juries were not directed on the correct law, even in the most serious of cases. The high standards of legal accuracy we are entitled to expect of our justice system have simply not been met. In such cases, we rightly expect the appeal system to function and to function effectively.
Even as recently as 2017, prosecutors were still trying to find an easy way to convict, as was shown by the case of Lewis. Thankfully, the judge found there was no case to answer. The prosecution appealed that ruling and rightly lost. There is now a logjam in our criminal justice system, with the Court of Appeal appearing wrongly to block appeals by joint enterprise prisoners. The burden of the substantial injustice test, to which I have referred, has been passed on to the prisoner, which requires the person convicted to satisfy the Court of Appeal that
“he would not have been convicted had the jury been directed on the basis of the corrected law as set out in Jogee.”
Instead, the question should be, “Is there a realistic possibility that he would not have been convicted?”, which I understand has legal precedence and which was the test previously applied in the case of McInnes v. Her Majesty’s Advocate.
Along with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), to whom I pay tribute, I visited Alex Henry in prison in Cambridgeshire. Shortly after his conviction for joint enterprise murder, he was diagnosed with autism. I have taken a close interest in his case over the past two years and think it one of immense concern. As we have learned in recent weeks, the police and Crown Prosecution Service are often difficult to deal with in respect of disclosure. Parliament needs to reconsider the proper approach and the relevant sanctions. The evidence available to a prosecutor is now more comprehensive, with CCTV and phones, which in theory makes it easier to distinguish between those who join in and those who do not. Recent cases of alleged sexual offending have demonstrated the consequences when disclosure is not properly dealt with.
The right to a fair trial is a basic human right. I worry that, in respect of these cases, our courts are too keen to block appeals by those who might have been convicted by error of the courts. Such behaviour serves only to undermine our faith in the justice system. There is a tendency in Britain to believe that we have the best criminal justice system in the world. I put it to the House that our attitude to the British crime and justice system is riddled with a complacency that is wholly unjustified. That view would be borne out by any fair-minded person who focused on joint enterprise.
The whole House should be grateful to the right hon. Member for Tottenham for his recent report, delivered at the Government’s request, on the legal system’s treatment of black, Asian and ethnic minorities in Britain. Quite apart from the right hon. Gentleman, there are many in the legal profession who argue that it is simply unacceptable that today, in 2018, virtually all senior members of the judiciary are white men from privileged backgrounds. That simply does not reflect the society that is Britain today and which the judiciary serve.
We should not forget that all too often in Britain, injustice is remedied not by the organs of the state but by the investigative prowess of a free media or, indeed, by Members of the House. Who can forget that the manifest injustice done to the Birmingham Six was remedied not by the police or the state, but by the indefatigable work of two Members of the House: Sir John Farr, the then Conservative Member for Harborough, and Chris Mullin, the then Labour Member for Sunderland South and subsequently a distinguished Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and a development Minister? Today, the poor families of the victims of that outrage have still not achieved closure, as the ongoing coroner’s inquiry in Birmingham demonstrates.
I hope that, following this debate, the media will take a close interest in the cases in which joint enterprise might have led to innocent people being convicted. JENGbA, the organisation formed in 2010 to which the hon. Member for Manchester Central rightly referred, now supports more than 800 prisoners, many of whom are serving mandatory life sentences of 22 years, and the youngest of whom was just 12 when charged. I hope that the Justice Committee, with its considerable authority—its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), is in his place—will not allow these matters to rest until they have been fully examined by Parliament, so that we can be assured that justice has been delivered.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I, too, welcome you back to this place, Mr Deputy Speaker, following the tragic circumstances that befell your family.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for the thorough way she set out the issues. I also thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for raising the issues he did and for mentioning my predecessor, Chris Mullin, who has an astounding and excellent track record on this issue.
This is a very important debate, but it is difficult for politicians to deal with. Let me say first that my sympathies are always with the victims of crime. People who are convicted of murder must be subject to the full weight of the law, as must people who are safely convicted of joint enterprise, but the Supreme Court’s change to the law in 2016 is not being implemented correctly. The Supreme Court said that the law had taken “a wrong turn” in 1984, which is clearly correct. However, as has been outlined, cases from before Jogee can go back to the Court of Appeal only if the person convicted can prove that their conviction was a substantial injustice.
An injustice is carrying on for many who are still in prison today and cannot be granted an appeal because their cases are “out of time” and would therefore have to pass the substantial injustice test. I wish to focus my remarks on that.
Those who were convicted more than 28 days before the change announced by the Supreme Court have to prove a substantial injustice, which means proving that the change in the law would have categorically made a difference. As has been outlined, that is an enormous bar to have to clear. Those people who were convicted in the 28 days before the change have to show only that their conviction is unsafe—a much lesser test of proof—in that the change in the law might reasonably have made a difference. All that means that, in a hypothetical situation, two people convicted of the same crime with identical evidence would be treated differently in the eyes of the law. That is simply wrong and needs to change.
It is no surprise that of the 800 men, women and children—a lot of them were children when they were convicted—who are supported by JENGbA, not one has successfully appealed their conviction since the Supreme Court’s decision on Jogee. I put on record my support for JENGbA, which has worked extremely hard not only by raising the issues with joint enterprise, but by supporting the families involved.
In most cases, this country can be proud of the British justice system, but when mistakes, misinterpretations or miscarriages of justice occur, they must be put right quickly. The British justice system is judged on that as much as on how the law is implemented. It is clear that the justice system is failing those people who are still in prison—often after many years—who were convicted more than 28 days before the Supreme Court ruling.
The direction of the law needs to be aligned and all cases should be judged against the lesser test of proof, which is that the conviction is unsafe. That would mean people convicted fairly, equally and reasonably against the new test that the Supreme Court set in putting right the “wrong turn” rightly staying in prison to serve their full sentence. However, those who would not have been found guilty under the new rules would get their freedom, and whatever follows.
That is why this debate is so important. Such an outcome would be right and proper and would restore British justice to being seen once again as fair, equal and reasonable. As long as people are judged against such a ridiculously high bar, British justice will be failing the people in prison who were judged under a wrong law.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I join every other Member in welcoming you back to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing this debate. I wish to speak for several reasons. First, as Chair of the Justice Committee, I think it is important that we keep this matter under review. The Committee has given some consideration to this matter in the past, and no doubt we will again.
Secondly, throughout my adult life, I have been a practising barrister. I concern myself very much with the justice system because it is something of which I am part and in which I believe. A belief in that system was one reason why I came to this House. It is massively important that it does what it is supposed to do—that it does justice and that we get it right. Where we fail to get it right, we should not be afraid to say so.
Thirdly, I have a constituent—I think their partner is in the Public Gallery today—who is serving a life sentence, with, I think, a 23-year tariff, as a result of the application of the joint enterprise principle to a case of murder. He made no bones about the fact that he had been party to an offence of dishonesty, but was convicted of murder, by the application of the joint enterprise principle, as a result of the act of violence perpetrated by another individual. Therefore, that case comes exactly into those with which we are concerned.
For all those reasons, this is a very important debate. I am sorry that there are comparatively few people in the Chamber today. One thing that has struck me since I have been here is how, by comparison with the past, this House takes comparatively little interest in reform of our criminal justice law. Through the ’60s and ’70s, Members of this House—either through private Members’ Bills or the pressure that they put on Government to make changes to Government legislation—effected major changes for the better in many aspects of our criminal law: reforms of the law in relation to homicide and the abolition of the death penalty; and changes to the law in relation to the criminalisation of abortion and homosexuality. A vast number of other really important matters of criminal justice reform emanated from debate in this House. Sadly, too often, that gets squeezed out in the current climate. Perhaps we should debate it rather more.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am reluctant to intervene on such a good speech, but the hon. Gentleman knows of my interest as co-chair of the all-parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. Does he not think that the Criminal Cases Review Commission is lacking in that it does not intervene enough, or early enough or persistently enough in these cases?
Robert Neill
There are a number of areas where changes are needed. I have great respect for the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, but I am conscious that it is under pressure both in terms of resource and of its terms of reference. It would not be unreasonable to look at that. Miscarriages of justice do occur. I know that full well because I vividly remember prosecuting one once—not in a murder case, but in a rape case. At the time, the evidence and the legal test appeared compelling, but, thanks to the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, evidence came to light, and I had no hesitation in not seeking to resist the appeal when it came to the Court of Appeal a second time. Its work, therefore, is really important. It is also important that it has the means to carry out its vital job, as its role is a significant one. However, there are other gaps that we must look at as well.
Everybody accepts now that there was a serious departure from good reasoning in the case of Chan Wing-Siu in Privy Council back in 1985. When one reads the case, the odd thing is that the judgment, which was described as “taking a wrong turn” in the Supreme Court, was, actually, almost not based on the principal facts or arguments that had brought the appeal to start with. The noble Lord, the member of the Privy Council, giving the judgment in that case rather went off on a tangent and developed what was then regarded as the concept of secondary parasitic accessory liability.
The matter could have been resolved perfectly well on the facts of its own case. It is set out very well in what is a very detailed judgment of a strongly constituted Supreme Court in the Jogee case. I certainly do not fault the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jogee at all. It is exceedingly well-reasoned, and it is significant that not only the then President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, but the current President, the then deputy president, Baroness Hale, were there. The then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, took the unusual step of sitting in the Supreme Court because of his experience in criminal justice matters. Intellectually, the Supreme Court in Jogee got the answer right and said that the approach, which had encompassed so many people into secondary liability in homicide offences, was wrong. However, some practical errors remain in its application.
Mr Mitchell
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is a lawyer, so can he explain to me, as a layman, why, following this extremely well-written judgment on Jogee, which I have also read, the criminal justice system did not react with enormous alarm and immediately set in train reviewing the very large number of cases affected by that judgment?
Robert Neill
That brings me to my next point. There is a concern that, in practice, the filter effect that has been put to the bringing of appeals out of time and the way that it has been interpreted in cases such as Anwar and others has been particularly restrictive. That is the difficulty. It is very clear that the Court of Appeal in the Anwar case and subsequent cases has taken a very narrow interpretation of the substantial injustice point. That does not necessarily have to be the case on the basis of Jogee, but it was always made very clear in the Supreme Court’s judgment that one should not assume that the Jogee case would mean that every conviction for murder on the basis of joint enterprise should be overturned, or that in many cases, even where convictions for murder were overturned, there would not also be a conviction for manslaughter, where appropriate, but the level of foresight and involvement was less. That is the important point that we have to consider.
None the less, it is really important that we get to a situation in which people are convicted, certainly, of offences where they have done wrong, but they should be convicted of and sentenced for offences that properly reflect the level of culpability of their behaviour. When we do not get that right, confidence in the system is understandably undermined. That is my concern, which is shared by the Members who have already spoken, about the difficulty of bringing cases out of time to the Court of Appeal. Clearly, it is something that needs to be looked at. If the rule of precedent makes it difficult for a court to do that, perhaps Parliament and Government should indeed consider it.
I just observe in passing that there is, in any event, the proviso to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, which would mean that if, once the case has been heard, no material injustice occurred, the conviction can be upheld. At the moment, we have a double test: a test to bring the appeal out of time; and then the proviso. The difference is that, in the test to bring the appeal out of time, the onus is on the appellant to meet that test, whereas, under the Criminal Appeal Act, the test in relation to the proviso puts the onus on the prosecution. That is something that needs to be considered.
When the Justice Committee looked at this matter with some care in evidence sessions in the last Parliament, the view was that it had to be seen in the context of a very unsatisfactory state of the whole law of homicide. The distinction between murder and manslaughter remains extremely unclear in this country. Unfortunately, the Government have not so far taken up the opportunity of examining that. The logical route would be to ask the Law Commission to carry out such an examination.
In evidence to the Justice Committee in the last Parliament, Professor David Ormerod, a former chair of the Law Commission, a senior commissioner for criminal law and a distinguished academic Queen’s Counsel in criminal law matters, identified exactly that point. He said that a review of the law of homicide still represents the
“best solution”
that
“could encompass the decision in Jogee.”
It would enable us, thereafter, to encompass the consequences that stemmed from it. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision, he said that
“they are constrained, as ever in the common law, by the facts of the case and the nature of the argument.”
That is our common law system. He went on:
“It was not possible for them to offer a comprehensive review of the whole of the law relating to secondary liability, which the Law Commission could do”.
One of my asks of the Government, as well as revisiting the test for bringing the appeals out of time, is to take up the Law Commission’s willingness to examine that area. There is vast expertise in the Law Commission, which is sometimes under-used. It can look at the matter dispassionately and set the difficulty that we have with secondary liability in these cases into the broader difficulties that we have with the law of manslaughter. We heard compelling evidence from criminal practitioners, representatives of the Criminal Bar Association, about the real difficulty and complexity of giving direction to juries in manslaughter cases.
Judges have given most careful directions, after discussions with counsel on both sides, but none the less they frequently find juries returning and sending a note seeking further clarification. The greater the lack of clarity, the greater the risk of injustice. I hope that issue can be resolved. I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, whom I welcome to her post, that that would be a sensible and measured approach to find an intellectually sound way forward on this intractable issue.
The other matter that I would like the Minister to consider is the review of the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines, which the Justice Committee has taken evidence on. The fact that the review is taking place is welcome. The hon. Member for Manchester Central and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the disproportionate impact that the use of prosecutions using joint enterprise has on certain communities.
The fact is that a doctrine developed some 300 years ago still has effects on the social life of 21st century Britain, and those effects are very different from what Lord Hale described in his “History of the Pleas of the Crown” in about 1670. We need to have a means of applying that prosecutorial tool in a way that reflects modern society.
I hope that the public interest element of the Attorney General’s guidelines can be strengthened to consider the appropriateness of using this tool in the way we have discussed, given the impact on certain communities within the United Kingdom. I hope that those are constructive suggestions that we can take forward from this debate.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). I take it from his words and from the emotion behind them that the door to the Justice Committee is now open and that at some future stage it will consider this matter, because I think that is one of the loci from which we can seek to bring an end to this horrendous, disproportionate nightmare, which is a stain on British jurisprudence. In this appalling situation, 40 seconds can lead to 12 years in prison, and somebody who just happens to be within a group of people can find themselves facing the best part of their young life locked away for something they could not stop, even if they wanted to.
It is often said that the House is at its worst when we all agree unanimously, but I think that this is the exception to that rule. Tribute has already been paid to JENGbA, Charlotte Henry, Gloria Morrison and all the other campaigners. I would like to think that even without JENGbA’s informed and passionate prodding, people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) would have brought the matter forward, because this is a stain on the British legal system. The Prime Minister has referred to burning injustice. Well, this injustice is burning so strongly and brightly that the smoke is almost choking us, and we cannot see the sense and sanity of the law for the obfuscation that has come from this ridiculous piece of law.
This law was originally introduced to deal with duelling. I appreciate that duelling used to be a pastime of Members of this House, but how can a provision on aiding, assisting or encouraging—or even for parasitic accessory liability—a couple of people duelling in Hyde Park a couple hundred years ago somehow lead to my constituent Alex Henry, a man with a four-year-old child whom he has hardly seen, facing 12 years in prison for what happened in 40 seconds when he was with a group of young men? How on earth can we move from that piece of medieval law to the present situation in which people are suffering?
I suggest that the reason something happened in this area of jurisprudence in the 1990s comes down to one word. It has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who I must forgive for destroying my stereotype of stern, unbending Conservatism, because he has shown himself to be humane, decent and informed on this, for which I pay him full tribute. The word he used was “gang”. In the 1990s, there was an assumption that groups of young people—and young black people—were a threat and that they were somehow out to destroy society: they were corrosive, their music was unbearable, their accents incomprehensible, their clothes unforgivable and their activities incomprehensible to most people. I like to think that those in the senior echelons of the law are well versed in street culture, but on this occasion I think they saw gangs as a threat. They somehow transposed groups to gangs. This piece of draconian, lead-like law was brought in to crush a threat that did not actually exist. Yes, of course there is street crime and violence, but it is not confined to one group of people. Young people such as Kenneth Alexander and dear Alex Henry, who were simply out with friends, now face the life that is ahead of them because of how the law works.
There are few tasks more melancholy that visiting a constituent in prison, and one of the frustrations is the inability to do much more than sympathise and show that they are not forgotten. I think that JENGbA’s work is so crucial because it shows that these people have not been forgotten. Would it be inconvenient for the judicial system to review thousands of cases? Damn right it will be inconvenient, but I will take a bit of inconvenience over 12 years in prison for hundreds of people, seeing their lives frittered away, living in the place where sunlight comes with stripes. As far as I am concerned, they have the right to call upon the judicial system and, if necessary, to be inconvenient.
When Alex’s sister first contacted me about this case, I could scarcely believe it. I had known the family. He had lived a couple of streets away from me—later he became an economic migrant and moved down to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), but I still think of him as a Hanwell man. I wrote to the then Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). This is what he wrote in reply, in June 2014:
“In my view, the law on joint enterprise serves a useful purpose for bringing people to justice when they have been involved in the commission of an offence. I do not share the view that the law penalises innocent bystanders and no longer serves a valid purpose. We have no plans to review or amend the law at the moment.”
I am sorry, but this law does not serve a useful purpose: it penalises the wrong people, it brings the law into disrepute, it punishes wholly disproportionately, it destroys families, it wrecks individual lives and, above all, it disengages a whole group of people from the legal process, because when they see a system go so wrong, how can they possibly have any confidence in it? I have no argument today with the right hon. Member for Ashford, but I think that he was wrong. I think that his letter was based on a brief that probably came from somebody wearing a wig. As far as I am concerned, this law has to be changed.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
My hon. Friend generously gives the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) the benefit of the doubt, but clearly he was reading from a brief and he has been proven wrong, because the Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the courts were wrong.
Stephen Pound
Absolutely. The Supreme Court ruled that the law had been interpreted incorrectly, but that is only half of it. Interpreting the law incorrectly is one thing, but righting the wrong is what has to happen now.
Stephen Pound
When it comes to righting wrongs, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Robert Neill
The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate case, and I agree with him that righting this wrong in the way the law has been applied is important. Does he agree that there is a distinction between the concept of joint enterprise and how it has been applied? For example, if he and I jointly agreed to commit a burglary, the application of joint enterprise in those circumstances would be perfectly reasonable. The problem is the extension to groups of young people when one of them commits acts of violence and when it is suggested that foresight can be equated with intent. That is taking the doctrine beyond a sensible application.
Stephen Pound
The hon. Gentleman has indicated a way forward. He knows the case of Craig and Bentley, which I remember very well indeed. Let us not forget that one of them was hanged in a joint enterprise. Is it not a salutary thought that if the present law on joint enterprise had been applied when we had the death penalty, 20 young men would have been hanged. Can you imagine? If everybody in a group of people where somebody dies was said to be guilty, as with Craig and Bentley, would they then all have been hanged? The mere thought of that is so horrific—so disgusting—that it surely brings into sharp relief the insanity of this legislation and the idea that this great blanket of culpability is cast over a whole group of people. This law is nonsensical. It is cruel; it is brutal; it is outdated; and it has to go.
Amazingly, this is the first time that we have debated this subject on the Floor of the House. I hope that today will be the beginning of a process that leads to people like Alex Henry seeing daylight, and his child and his family, again. When I last saw Alex—I have visited him a couple of times—he was keeping his head down and keeping his nose clean. He was working in the kitchen. He actually had kind words for the staff at HMP Whitemoor, but the hope was going out of his eyes. You could actually see him looking at that long, long stretch ahead of him.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) mentioned, Alex is a man on the autism spectrum. In his appeal, evidence was submitted on his behalf by none less than Professor Baron-Cohen. One cannot get a higher authority than that. Was that opinion accepted? Clearly not, because my constituent is still in prison. He is a young, autistic man who, for 40 seconds of his life, did not stop something happening. He did not do anything wrong; he did not stop it happening. Can it really be right in this day and age that the law we are all sworn to uphold—that we are a part of as part of the establishment of this country—is having that impact on people, disproportionately on young black men, and disproportionately on the innocent?
I profoundly hope that this debate is one of those occasions when something really good comes from this place—where we put down a marker to say, yes, we thank JENGbA for all its work, but even without JENGbA, in our own heart of hearts, in our own knowledge and analysis of the situation, we realise that this stinks. It is wrong—dangerously, destructively, corrosively wrong. We have to do something about it. Let today be the day that we consign the present interpretation of joint enterprise to the dustbin, move forward and bring the law back into repute—take it away from ill-repute. I hope that Kenneth Alexander and Alex Henry can then take their rightful places in society where we want them to be. May they be here in the House of Commons, in the Gallery or wherever, rather than behind bars at the nation’s expense. We cannot go on like this.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you back in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), especially given the points that he raised about the local context—the 40 seconds leading to 12 years—the historical context and this ancient practice deriving from duelling. I appreciate the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) bringing this important debate to the House.
Our justice system needs to recognise the context in which much crime happens. There is a social context. It is more than just an individual engaging with and committing crime. Friends and family have a huge influence on people’s lives, on what they do and on the moral framework in which they act. If an individual gets in with the wrong crowd, perhaps a gang or a mob, and those people encourage, force, direct or egg on people to commit crimes, the justice system has to take account of their actions. There has to be that justice. That is what friends and families of the victims, so often murdered, would want and expect.
Therefore, I would like to support the hon. Lady’s comments about improving the sense of proportionality and about the gathering and presentation of accurate data. It is so important that we have good data to base these decisions on in future. I also agree with her on bringing forward the CPS review.
I am not a lawyer, so I do not want to detain the House for too long. I recognise that following the Supreme Court ruling of February 2016 the CPS has consulted widely on new legal guidance for prosecutors in cases of secondary liability. I hope that the Minister agrees that hon. Members and their constituents would be best served by waiting for that guidance to be issued.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on securing this debate and on the way in which she has gone about representing her constituents, many of whom I met a few weeks ago, who are caught up in this terrible nightmare. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who has championed and taken up many of these issues consistently in this House over the past few years.
The doctrine of joint enterprise is a common law doctrine very much derived from judicial decisions, not legislation passed by Parliament. As has been said, it is now time for Parliament to reflect hard on where we have arrived at and on the fact that this debate is essentially about juveniles—people as young as 14 who are looking at spending significant stretches of their lives behind bars. This debate is about what we have come to describe as “gangs”. We do not use the word “gangs” when we are talking about the Bullingdon club; we do when we are talking about black youth in constituencies such as mine or white youth in constituencies such as Salford in north-west England.
That is why it is so important that we look hard at a doctrine that stretches back to 1846, when two cart drivers engaged in a race that killed a pedestrian. Throughout the 20th century, further court judgments clarified the joint enterprise doctrine in the case of murder. Even if there is no plan to murder and one party kills while carrying out a plan to do something else—for example, robbery—the other participants can still be found guilty. The use of that doctrine has been criticised by academics, by legal practitioners and by the Justice Committee. I want to associate myself with all those remarks and, in particular, with the fantastic work of JENGbA over the past few years.
Following the review that I did for the Government, it is important that we recognise that in black, and particularly Muslim, communities, there is tremendous concern about our judiciary. In those communities, the judiciary do not appear to be independent and justice is not perceived to be blind. That is why I was so disappointed that, when I proposed a target in my review, it was roundly rejected by our senior judiciary and by the Government, although a target is not prescriptive but merely a goal.
I am concerned that the independence that our judiciary say they have, and rightly have in our democracy, means that they are hugely detached from the communities that we are talking about. They do not have to defend their actions in Tottenham town hall or Manchester city hall. They are never present in those communities. They do not have the kinds of surgeries that we do. It is really important that they reflect hard on the common law tradition. In other jurisdictions such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, there has been progress on proximity and diversity in relation to the judiciary, but in this country we appear to be stuck. On this occasion, it is absolutely clear that the common law makes no common sense. That is why I referenced joint enterprise in relation to black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in my review.
The offence of joint enterprise has long been justified, by Ministers of both Conservative and Labour hue, on the basis that it sends a wider social message. I will not quote the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), a former Justice Secretary—hon. Members will recognise that I do not need to; they will know what his views would be—but let me quote Lord Falconer. He said of joint enterprise in 2010:
“The message that the law is sending out is that we are very willing to see people convicted if they are a part of gang violence—and that violence ends in somebody’s death. Is it unfair? Well, what you’ve got to decide is not ‘does the system lead to people being wrongly convicted?’ I think the real question is ‘do you want a law…as draconian as our law is, which says juries can convict even if you are quite a peripheral member of the gang which killed?’”
I want to say that the former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer got it wrong, and the perception in the sort of communities we are talking about is that this is very wrong. Joint enterprise raises significant issues of miscarriages of justice, which must command the attention of this House and of our wider justice system.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I want to put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for the work he has done with his review. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who represents a neighbouring constituency.
This issue has also touched the lives of my constituents. Yesterday, I spoke to Louise Otway, whose son was sentenced to 30 years under joint enterprise. I am concerned by two issues, as a former serving police officer in the Greater Manchester police and as a practising solicitor. My first concern is that, although the Supreme Court has said that the law has taken the wrong turn, nothing has been done to put that right, which is not acceptable. Secondly, as is becoming clear from listening to my hon. Friends, BME and working-class defendants are over-represented, with the use of gang narratives playing into the stereotyping and targeting of these groups. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential we have greater transparency, through the official statistics, about the make-up of joint enterprise defendants?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend’s point is exactly right. The issue is: what would happen if the principal’s intent was graver than the accessory’s? In all the cases that have been mentioned, that is absolutely the case. What would happen if the outcome of whatever act the principal carries out is far graver than the accessory was aware of? Getting into questions about the foresight and intent of a young adult is next to impossible, given all that we know in modern times about child psychology, so it is absolutely right that young people should not be convicted in those cases.
Robert Neill
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case and perhaps I can offer him some support. As evidence to the Justice Committee has made clear, practitioners feel it would be of greater assistance to juries deciding on these issues if there were a statutory framework within which they could work. We have done that with the Theft Act 1968, which replaced out-of-date common law arrangements. Ironically, in the Jogee case, the trial judge of first instance was this country’s first black woman High Court judge, but she was obliged to follow the rules of precedent. Had there been a revision of them by statute, the situation might have been different.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right. He makes the case that it is now for the House really to get thinking about these matters.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, an accessory party can be liable under joint enterprise, even if they withdraw from a group before any crime is committed. Many hon. Members will think of the example of a group of students in a playground or a park, where someone talks about teaching someone a lesson—in fact, we might recall such an occasion from our own lives when we were younger—and one of those individuals thinks that teaching a lesson involves significant violence, assault or even something ending in murder, and just because the group had discussed teaching someone a lesson, someone else may end up in prison for murder.
We have been in the House when or know of times when Members have picked up the Mace—I am thinking of the former leader of the SNP and Lord Heseltine. If you picked up the Mace and an older Member thought it was coming towards them and died from a heart attack, you would be in serious trouble. However, if you had discussed it with your colleagues beforehand, they too would be in serious trouble. A whole political party—on that occasion, the SNP—might have been heading towards that. That shows how ridiculous this situation has become, and it is why we need an urgent review.
We are having this debate after politicians have said, “We have to crack down on gangs and that is why we are doing this.” But has it worked? Knife crime is rising: in England and Wales, there were 36,998 knife crime offences in the 12 months to the end of June. Hospital admissions as a result of knife crime and the use of sharp objects are rising. We have a real problem in London, which the Mayor of London is trying to deal with. Has this therefore had the effect that people suggested it would? It has not. It has not had that effect because it is not minors driving knife crime—it is serious organised criminals: gangsters and kingpins. They are driving the trafficking of cocaine and drugs, which is leading to the turf wars that are making some of the communities we represent more violent. The 14, 15 and 16-year-olds or those in their early-20s locked up for the offence of joint enterprise do not know anything about getting a tonne of cocaine from Bolivia or Colombia. We must go after the gangsters, but we are hearing very little about that.
The Ministry of Justice’s own research on joint enterprise convictions understands the psychology of young people. It understands the need of teenagers and juveniles to belong to a group. It understands that they have a predisposition towards risk, seeking excitement and reckless behaviour. It understands their inability to inhibit their impulses and the fact that they have less self-control. All of us in the House who are raising or have raised teenagers will recognise all those characteristics. Are we really going to throw young men—black and white—into prison because they are young?
I have two boys at home. They navigate the streets of north London on their way to school and one in particular goes through some high knife-crime areas. I am raising boys who would never ever take a knife out of the house and use it on anybody else—I am absolutely sure about that—but can I say, if something is going on in a park, that one of them might not drift towards the action? Hand on heart, as a father, I cannot say that. I do not ever want to have to visit one of my own children in prison. None of us should want ever to have to visit young people in prison. None of us should want that waste. None of us should want those criminal records. It is time that this House acted.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful to speak in this important debate, and it is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I congratulate those who secured this debate, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating it some time.
When my constituent Ms Gillian Hyatt first came to see me in 2012 about her sons in prison, I thought it a straightforward case of a mum doing her best for her children despite the fact that they had offended. I commend her for pressing me to look beyond a concerned mother and to examine the JENGbA campaign. I attended JENGbA’s briefing in Parliament only a few months ago, as did most of my colleagues here today. I was shocked by consistent reports of case after case of mostly young men—including, as we have heard, a disproportionate number from the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities—who had been not only convicted but handed the severest of sentences. I commend JENGbA for its campaign, and for its briefing for today’s debate.
Like other Members, I have not heard anyone say that all those locked up are innocent. Called “inside campaigners”, some may well be, but the message I hear most strongly is that although some may be innocent, many are guilty of lesser offences. Some of those offences are much less serious, and therefore the tariffs handed down by the judges seem questionable at least. The numbers are huge, but efforts to assess how many people are involved have proved difficult. The Ministry of Justice has not produced statistics for those found guilty through joint enterprise, and one has to ask why.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates that between 2005 and 2013, between 1,800 and 4,500 people were prosecuted for murder with joint enterprise used as part of the charge. However, I am getting ahead of myself, because the fundamental flaw in using joint enterprise to prosecute for murder was exposed, as we have heard in speech after speech, by the Supreme Court in 2016. The Court held that in 1984 the law had taken “a wrong turn”—I think every speaker has mentioned that, and it must be one of the weakest euphemisms ever heard—in the case of Regina v. Chan Wing-Siu, and it overturned the verdict of Regina v. Jogee.
Jogee was retried and found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter, and his mandatory life sentence was replaced by an appropriate sentence for manslaughter. The Supreme Court also ruled that cases prior to Jogee could only go back to the Court of Appeal if people could prove that their conviction was a “substantial injustice.” Despite the hundreds of cases at least—I repeat that the Ministry of Justice cannot, or will not, say exactly how many there are—the Court of Appeal has denied every joint enterprise appeal. Incidentally, the youngest person to receive a life sentence was just 12 years old when charged.
The common law doctrine of joint enterprise covers two types of offence. The first is “assisting and encouraging”, also known as “aiding and abetting”, and I have nothing to say about that. The other is “parasitic accessory liability”, which I find quite troubling. Even the title sounds as if the accused must be guilty of something, or has some form of vicious disease. PAL is controversial, as the secondary offender would not need to intend the crime, but merely have been able to foresee it.
Traditionally, for someone to be convicted of murder, it had to be proved that the killer intended to kill, or at least to seriously injure someone. PAL was therefore quite a shift, and led to hundreds, if not thousands, of convictions over 30 years since 1985. The Supreme Court decision in 2016 on Regina v. Jogee must, at least statistically, call some of those convictions into question. That decision, however, applies to out-of-time appeals only if it can be proved that a “substantial injustice” has occurred—that was tested in Regina v. Johnson in 2016—and proved categorically that a change in the law “would” have made a difference. The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 allows the court to quash a conviction where the misapplication of law “might”, rather than “would”, have made a difference. Since the Jogee decision, none of the 800 men, women and children currently supported by JENGbA have successfully appealed against their conviction—not one.
My constituents Asher and Lewis Johnson were both sentenced to 16 and a half years for a murder committed by another man. I will not go into great detail, but suffice it to say that they maintain they had no knowledge of the guilty party’s intention. Asher was a youth worker who had never been in trouble before. It might be that there is more to the case, but for them to be found guilty by association seems worthy of fresh examination, especially given the Supreme Court ruling that the law had taken a “wrong turn.” It certainly had for the Johnson brothers. They want a fresh hearing with the evidence presented in light of the Jogee ruling, but that has been denied. I cannot know all the facts, and like all colleagues here I do all I can to support the police in their difficult job, but something here just does not feel right.
In conclusion, JENGbA is calling for the abolition of parasitic accessory liability charging—as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central explained in her excellent speech, CPS guidance on that is still very confusing. It also calls for the abolition of child life sentences, and for the Ministry of Justice to collect data on all joint enterprise secondary party convictions. It argues that this is a
“common law, used against common people, that makes no common sense.”
I believe it has a very strong case.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating it time today.
I represent some of the family of Alex Henry, whose case was explained in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). Alex Henry was involved in a fatal street fight in Ealing in 2013, and has spent four years in prison, serving 19 years under joint enterprise. His mother, Sally Halsall, is my constituent, and last October I met her and Alex’s sister, Charlotte, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. I really came to understand the importance and significance of joint enterprise, and the need to review the law.
In August 2013 Alex Henry went shopping with three friends. A confrontation took place that lasted just over 40 seconds. It is not clear why the confrontation took place, but it may have been triggered by a stare. One young man used a knife from within a bag, and he stabbed two brothers, one of whom tragically lost his life. On the sixth day of the trial, the man with the knife pleaded guilty to murder and grievous bodily harm with intent, and was sentenced to 22 years. Alex Henry received a sentence of 19 years—only four years less—despite never touching the knife or even being aware of its existence.
Since Alex’s conviction in March 2014, his family have campaigned tirelessly with JENGbA to reform the law of joint enterprise. The injustice, as the family saw it, was that traditionally, for someone to be found guilty of murder the Crown needed to prove that the defendant inflicted fatal harm while intending to kill, or at least to commit very serious harm. Conversely, under joint enterprise the Crown needs only to prove that the defendant foresaw the possibility that the crime “might” happen, rather than that they intended it and knew that it “would” happen. This means that it is easier to prove the guilt of the accessory than the principal offender. Therefore, in Alex’s case the Crown needed to prove that Alex foresaw the possibility that the stabbing “might” happen, rather than that he intended and knew that it “would” happen.
There was no evidence that Alex knew about the possession of the knife and therefore that someone might be stabbed. However, the Crown persuaded the jury by arguing that “friends tell each other everything”, and therefore that Alex must have known the other man was in possession of a knife that day, and foreseen the possibility of its use if any altercations were to arise during the shopping trip. “Friends tell each other everything and therefore the crime could have been foreseen”—what a shocking indictment of the way the law works if that can lock up a young man for so long.
As we have heard, in February 2016 the joint enterprise law was successfully reformed. Now, rather than foresight, the Crown needs only to prove that the defendant intentionally encouraged or assisted the principal offender while knowing that the crime “would” take place. The law of joint enterprise has convicted thousands of men, women and children, 800 of whom are supported by JENGbA. However, the courts have ruled that the change in the law will have no automatic retrospective effect for out-of-time appeals, which include every case resulting in conviction 28 days or more before the change in the law. Instead, those out-of-time appeals will be allowed only if a defendant can prove a substantial injustice, which means proving that the change in law would, without doubt, have made a difference.
However, that is an impossible test, as was found in the case of Regina v. Anwar in 2016. The evidential bar has not been raised by Jogee; in particular, presence at the scene of the offence can amount to encouragement of the crime. Moreover, proof of the defendant’s intent to encourage, coupled with his knowledge that the crime would happen, can be inferred from the friendship of the co-defendants, just as foresight was inferred before Jogee.
If nothing more need be shown evidentially since the change in the law, how can a defendant prove that the change in the law would have made a difference? In comparison, those who have suffered a misapplication of the law changed in Jogee need to show only within 28 days of conviction that the conviction is unsafe, in that the misdirection might have made a difference. So far, no out-of-time case has succeeded on appeal—including Alex’s appeal, which was rejected.
In his excellent report on black and minority ethnic people in the justice system, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, who is no longer in his place, rightly shone a light on unacceptable inequality, particularly for young people from those communities. But two other factors are particularly relevant to joint enterprise. First, there is maturity. Many convicted under joint enterprise are not in full maturity; the justice system is beginning, slowly, to understand that young men under 25 are not mature and need to be considered slightly differently—their maturity must be a factor in their cases.
The other factor is the autism spectrum. Alex Henry’s diagnosis of autism was important in his case. Despite Alex’s having had many problems from an early age, no one had suggested to him or his family that he might be on the autistic spectrum until a viewer of the documentary made about the case wrote to the family. Alex’s family then arranged for Alex to be assessed by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, the leading academic on autism and Asperger’s syndrome in this country.
The professor’s report states that it is incredibly unlikely that Alex could have foreseen what would or might happen in those 40 seconds since, due to his autism, he cannot predict the actions, behaviours or intentions of others. The Court of Appeal rejected that ground because Alex’s mother has a PhD in psychology and so she could have coached Alex in “how to act autistic”. That is shocking. The court also said that it could not understand why Alex was diagnosed so late in life, aged 23, despite seven previous mental health assessments, which did not result in a diagnosis.
Mr Mitchell
I want to strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying about the judgment of the court in that case in respect of autism. I have read the case and, as a layman, I find the response of the court completely inexplicable.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the right hon. Gentleman so much. Anybody who has had any contact with people who have been diagnosed with autism at a later stage knows that the condition is often not diagnosed early. Many people go though many difficulties in their lives before being diagnosed, if at all. Alex was one of those in that unlucky situation. Because autism is an invisible disorder, many assessments found traits of autism as highlighted in Professor Baron-Cohen’s report. That could be a factor in appeals.
The refusal of Alex’s appeal has left the family devastated, as the House can imagine, but they are determined to see him proved innocent. In their view—and mine, from what I know of the case—he is not a murderer. How many people in prison for joint enterprise have undiagnosed autism? We need to look at that.
Since Alex’s appeal was rejected last year, his sister Charlotte has applied to challenge the “substantial injustice” at the Supreme Court. The family are also taking Alex’s case to the European Court of Human Rights. They believe that joint enterprise breached article 7 of the European convention on human rights and the principle of legality that holds that there shall be no punishment without law. Since those convicted under joint enterprise were not actually convicted under a true law, their presumption of innocence under article 6(2) remains, and it is breached by the need to prove that the change in the law would have made a difference.
In October 2016, the Select Committee on Justice, on which I have the pleasure and honour of serving, wrote to the chair of the Law Commission to suggest that it review the law of joint enterprise, given the lack of legal clarity in the wake of the Jogee judgement—particularly on how juries should be directed on the question of intention. Unfortunately, the final version of the 13th programme of reform omits any work on joint enterprise. I know, however, that the Justice Committee’s Chair will continue to push those points.
Robert Neill
The hon. Lady is right that the Committee will want to pursue that point. However, there is nothing to stop the Government themselves asking the Law Commission to carry out a review, as has happened a number of times in the past.
Ruth Cadbury
Like the hon. Gentleman, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
As we have heard, the Justice Committee also wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions suggesting clarification on the intention of the defendant. I support the clear demands put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central: proportionality, the need for proper data, a review of the CPS guidance and a review of older cases. All those are essential, and we look forward to the Minister’s response on all those issues.
For the sake of Alex, the thousands of others imprisoned under joint enterprise and their loved ones, I support the calls of colleagues across the House that the injustice be rectified. Let us right the wrong. If we really want to address knife crime, let us learn from the places that have actually brought it down.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I have had the privilege of working with JENGbA, and particularly with Gloria Morrison, for seven or eight years, and I am pleased that the organisation is now located in my constituency. However, I am sorry that we have not made more progress—by “we”, I mean the House and the Government. As we have heard, JENGbA has a phenomenal record of representing 800 families in these difficult cases. I have a number of constituents serving long sentences who were convicted before the Jogee judgment and are therefore potentially subject to review; I am sure many other Members do too, given the numbers.
Before coming to those points, let me say that these matters are not easy. I am sure that we all also have constituents who have been the victims of violent crime. As my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, we are concerned that people should be punished suitably for crimes that they have committed. There are famous cases, including those of Garry Newlove and Stephen Lawrence, in which joint enterprise played a part in the convictions. When very serious offences are committed, particularly murder, and there are victims and grieving families, it is perhaps only human nature to want to bring people to justice. The difficulty has arisen because, particularly where there are large gangs or groups, it is more difficult to identify who the actual perpetrators are. The danger of a miscarriage of justice is therefore all the greater.
Several Members have referred to the history of what has variously been called common purpose, secondary liability or joint enterprise. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said that the offence was originally developed by the common law to deal with the social evil of duelling, almost as a matter of public policy rather than law. The leading case of Swindall and Osborne in 1846 was about two cart drivers encouraging each other in a race, one of whom killed a pedestrian. It is easy to see in such cases how one can attach guilt to the person who is not the primary perpetrator. My hon. Friend also mentioned the celebrated Craig and Bentley case, in which many factors were involved. On Sunday, it will be 65 years since the execution of Derek Bentley. It is 25 years since he was pardoned, and 20 years since his sentence was quashed. Bentley, who was 19, was hanged, but the actual perpetrator, Chris Craig, was not, because he was under 18.
However such cases were resolved, it is fairly easy to see the principle of joint enterprise at work, but, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and others, we are now dealing with a number of new factors. There is the huge preponderance of people from black and minority ethnic communities who are convicted, there is the number of young people convicted, and there is, simply, the number of people who are engaged. It is, I think, wrong to say that not much attention has been paid to the issue; it is a question of what the outcomes have been. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and his predecessors have produced a number of telling reports.
The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines have been reviewed, although they may still be imperfect, and, of course, there has been the Jogee judgment. That judgment is perhaps unsurprising. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), before Jogee the level of the mental test for secondary participants was lower than the one applying to primary offenders. That had to change, and it has changed. There is, therefore, a possibility of review, but—I think the courts are cognisant of this—there is also the issue of floodgates. Will there suddenly be a huge number of cases to review because of a correction of the law—not a change in the law, but a declaration of what the law should have been all along? Many Members have said, “So be it”, but it is up to the Government to decide how the position is to be dealt with, and I am afraid that the Government have been wanting in that regard.
After Jogee, in November 2016, the then Secretary of State wrote to the Justice Committee:
“We have concluded that no further review of the law is necessary at this time.”
As far as I know, that is still the Government’s position, although we may hear otherwise from the Minister today. Let me say to the Minister that that is wrong. We need such a review. That will not be easy, because this is a complex and difficult offence and because there are arguments on both sides, but the law gets itself into a mess in exactly these areas. When I was a shadow justice Minister between 2010 and 2015, I urged my party, if it were subsequently to come to power, to look at some of these difficult issues. I am thinking of not just joint enterprise, but inchoate offences and, indeed, homicide. A number of common law offences that have developed over a period may not be fit for purpose in the modern world. I hope that we shall hear some positive answers from the Minister today. Reviewing the law in this respect cannot be left to the courts or the prosecuting authorities. Sooner or later, either this or a future Government will have to do it.
My final point—another JENGbA point—concerns evidence and statistics. I cannot believe that we are not collecting proper statistics. It is clear from the statistics that are available that a high proportion of people are convicted of homicide on the basis of joint enterprise. According to some estimates, the proportion who are sentenced is approaching 50%. Two years ago, I asked a parliamentary question on the subject. My question was:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have been convicted under joint enterprise in each year since 2010.”
The answer was as follows:
“Such information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.”
That, too, is quite wrong. If we are to deal sensibly with this difficult and sensitive matter, we must have the facts.
It would be wonderful to hear from the Minister today that there will be a review, and that the Government will refer the matter to the Law Commission, as was indicated by the Chair of the Justice Committee. It would certainly be welcome to hear that there will be a proper collection of statistics, so that we have a sound basis on which to introduce reform.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and her colleagues. They deserve great credit for raising this important matter, and for posing a number of challenging questions.
The consequences of the Jogee decision include, of course, uncertainty and distress for victims and relatives who now wonder whether those who have been held responsible for violent crimes against them will have their cases reopened and their sentences quashed. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the hon. Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) rightly reflected on that. On the other hand, we are all agreed that the so-called wrong turn in the law means that there have undoubtedly been many miscarriages of justice, and people have been convicted and sentenced for crimes far graver than those for which they should have been held responsible. As we know, thanks to the excellent work of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), serious questions have been raised about its disproportionate effects on young men from black and minority ethnic communities.
Members who are far more qualified than me—including the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee—have explained why the decision of the Privy Council in the 1985 case of Chan-Wing Siu was wrong and was required to be “corrected” by the Supreme Court. For me, that correction raises three discrete questions.
It is clear that the law after 1985 has been wrongly applied, and that that has resulted in real injustices. The first question to ask is whether the law on joint enterprise and parasitic accessory liability is now operating as we want it to. How should the criminal law respond when a person engages in a joint enterprise with a principal who goes on to commit a more serious offence outside the scope of that enterprise? I think that, on paper, the Jogee decision is better than what was in place previously, but Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns about whether it is operating effectively in practice, or as Parliament would wish. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) gave appalling examples of judicial reasoning that gave real cause for concern.
The situations in which joint enterprise might arise, and the different views of culpability, are many and varied. A number of Members have focused on the effect on young people and gangs in particular, and we have heard powerful arguments for reform, especially from the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham, but joint enterprise arises in many other circumstances. We therefore need to seek a solution that can respond adequately to all the different facts and circumstances. Sentencing is a related issue. Does the application of mandatory sentences in some cases mean that punishments cannot reflect the different levels of culpability of principal and accessory in certain circumstances, and might that, too, require reform?
There are also serious questions to be asked about appeal rights, about which the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) spoke eloquently. If the decision in the 1985 case had been in statute and reflected the will of Parliament, and if it had then simply been amended or replaced in 2016, there would have been no possibility of a right to appeal for those convicted between those times. As the right hon. Member for Tottenham said, however, common law is very different. The Supreme Court is saying that the law was applied wrongly by the courts, and that people have been convicted of crimes that they did not commit. It cannot possibly be right that no challenges to those convictions have been successful. There is a strong case for saying that the bar for appeals against such decisions has been set too high.
These are difficult decisions. It has been useful for Members to be able to air their views, but I cannot help agreeing with the Chair of the Justice Committee that a thorough and comprehensive review is required. That work is urgently needed if we are not to return to this issue in the very near future.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing this important debate. I also pay tribute to JENGbA on its highlighting of concerns about this law for many years, which contributed to the 2016 Supreme Court ruling that the law had taken a wrong turn.
We have heard many excellent and passionate speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central spoke eloquently and comprehensively about the issues. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talked about the family of a victim and their suffering, and also about miscarriages of justice, making the important point that we must distinguish between groups and gangs. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) rightly said that the victims’ families must not be ignored, but that miscarriages of justice must also be dealt with. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Chair of the Select Committee, talked about the need for hon. Members to press the Government on legal reforms, and the importance of charges and sentences being correct and proportionate to the acts carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) contributed with his characteristically passionate oratorical skill, and talked about his constituent Alex Henry, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I must also compliment my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), on the points he made, specifically on the guidance for the prosecutors involved in making decisions on what charges should follow. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham made a powerful speech about how this law has been applied in practice in certain situations.
The law regarding joint liability is complex. In 2012, the Justice Committee—when I was a member—carried out an inquiry into the operation of the legal doctrine of joint enterprise. In 2014, it revisited the issue to see what had occurred. Both reports deal with the status and application of the law before the Jogee case reached the Supreme Court, where judgment was handed down in February 2016. Although the reports predate this important judgment, much of their background information and analysis remain useful. The Committee explained that joint enterprise is a form of secondary liability whereby a person who agrees to commit a crime with another becomes liable for all criminal acts committed by the other person—the principal offender—in their joint criminal venture. The Committee suggested that the Director of Public Prosecutions should issue guidance on the use of the doctrine when charging. In particular, it wanted guidance on the relationship between association and complicity. I will return to the issue of the clarity of the law shortly, as it remains a concern of many Members even after the Jogee ruling.
Victims of crime are at the centre of Labour’s approach to justice. Victims, their families and the wider public must have faith in our justice system, and to achieve that our justice system must deliver certainty. Labour is also clear that, where there are substantial injustices arising from the application of the law of joint enterprise before the case of Jogee, these should be addressed.
Jogee is reasonably described as a landmark court judgment. It established that the law on joint enterprise had been misinterpreted in the criminal courts for three decades. The ruling turned on the judgment that an individual foreseeing a possible crime does not equate to “automatic authorisation” of it, as the law had been interpreted in previous cases. A higher threshold of proof is now required as a result.
It is welcome that the Supreme Court clarified the application of the law of joint enterprise. The judgment also set out criteria by which potential miscarriages of justice can be addressed where a substantial injustice has occurred.
Subsequent judgments following the Supreme Court ruling relating to joint enterprise appeals have developed the argument around the nature of the substantial injustice. Judgments in joint enterprise cases since Jogee have explained why the law must provide certainty.
It is clearly in the public interest that convictions are not automatically reopened when judges in later cases develop the law. To reopen all cases would undermine the certainty of convictions and deny closure to victims’ families. In the Court of Appeal case of Johnson, it was stated:
“The need to establish substantial injustice results from the wider public interest in legal certainty and the finality of decisions made in accordance with the then clearly established law…It also takes into account the interests of the victim (or the victim’s family), particularly in cases where death has resulted and closure is particularly important.”
Labour is clear that victims of crime and their families must have confidence in our justice system. However, it is also vital that victims of miscarriages of justice have opportunities to have their cases heard. Without those opportunities, we would risk injustices being permitted to continue.
Those who believe that miscarriages of justice have been committed are of the opinion that how “substantial injustice” is defined has not yet been fully developed. It is right that more clarity is brought to this vital question, and we hope that today’s debate has contributed to that. In addition, we welcome the news that the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing its guidelines and we hope that this opportunity will be taken to help provide more certainty and clarity for both victims and the wider public.
Many members of the public will be surprised to know that no official statistics are available on joint enterprise convictions. That can make it difficult to assess how big an impact the wrong turning in the law between the cases of Chan and Jogee has had in practice.
Almost two years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) asked the Secretary of State for Justice how many people had been convicted under joint enterprise in each year since 2010, and a similar request was made by the Justice Committee in the 2010-15 Parliament. The Government response was that the information was not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. That is a plainly unsatisfactory response to a very reasonable request for information that would shed light on the scale of joint enterprise convictions. May I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government take action to rectify this urgently? There is a need to keep proper statistics on offences of joint enterprise; that would greatly assist everyone.
Although there are no official statistics, the evidence that there is from academic research suggests that the doctrine of joint enterprise may have been applied in a discriminatory way. Where such profiling does exist, it shows that the doctrine is not only unjust but undermines the social contract and community support for our criminal justice system.
In its 2014 report on joint enterprise, the Justice Committee explained:
“It is clear that a large proportion of those convicted of joint enterprise offences are young Black and mixed race men. In the Cambridge research sample, 37.2% of those serving very long sentences for joint enterprise offences are Black/Black British, eleven times the proportion of Black/Black British people in the general population and almost three times as many as in the overall prison population. There is also a much higher proportion of mixed race prisoners convicted of joint enterprise offences than there are in the general prison population (15.5% compared to 3.9%).”
The Justice Committee also heard evidence about why there was disproportionality:
“Dr Ben Crewe from the Cambridge Institute of Criminology said that there were probably two main reasons for the disproportionate impact of joint enterprise on young Black men, the first being that ‘BME men may be over-represented in the kinds of communities where young men typically hang around in groups that are labelled by outsiders as gangs’ and the second that ‘an association may exist unconsciously in the minds of the police, prosecutors and juries between being a young ethnic minority male and being in a gang, and therefore being involved in forms of urban violence.’”
Many Members today have alluded to that point.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham for his work in the Lammy review. It states:
“Despite the High Court ruling, experts in the field remain concerned about some of the legal practice on Joint Enterprise. Many are not convinced that the line between ‘prohibitive’ and ‘prejudicial’ information is drawn appropriately in the evidence put before juries when cases reach trial. People must be tried on the basis of evidence about their actions, not their associations—and the evidence put before juries must reflect this.”
This again demonstrates the clear need to publish accurate statistics on offences of joint enterprise. We ask the CPS to take this opportunity to rework its guidance on joint enterprise and to consider its approach, so that this and associated laws are not implemented in a discriminatory way and so that, when prosecutors are deciding the appropriateness of the charge and who needs to be prosecuted, this guidance is applied properly and fairly. I hope that the Minister takes this opportunity to do that today.
Mr Mitchell
It was unforgivably remiss of me earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, not to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) to her first outing on the Government Front Bench. The whole House will wish her well in what will undoubtedly be the start of a long and distinguished ministerial career.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I would like to start the debate by commending the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for securing this debate on an issue that is close to her constituency and to her heart. I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for supporting the motion today.
I fully recognise the importance of the law in this area. When anyone is charged and convicted of a crime, it will have serious consequences for them, their families and their victims. This is especially the case when the charge may be for such a serious crime as murder. I also recognise the sensitivity of this issue, given that the youngest of those that JENGbA supports was 12 when he was charged with the offence, as many Members have mentioned. That will obviously have a significant impact on his life.
Many Members have identified what the Supreme Court decided, but it is important to set out the principles involved because some Members put forward hypothetical circumstances that could result in a conviction for accessory liability, and I am not sure that all those circumstances were right. It is important to be clear what we are talking about from the outset.
First, I will summarise a few of the points in the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jogee, which was handed down in February 2016. It concerned a very specific area of the law on joint enterprise called parasitic accessory liability, rather than the whole law of joint enterprise. Such liability arises when two people, person 1 and person 2, participate together in one offence, such as a burglary, and during those events, person 1 commits a second offence—for example, he or she murders a security guard. Under the law as it stood before Jogee, if the second person foresaw that the first person might act with the intention to kill or cause really serious harm and participated in the burglary none the less, that second person would be guilty of murder alongside the first.
In the Jogee judgment, the Supreme Court said that that was wrong, as the motion recognises. A person cannot be guilty merely for foreseeing that an accomplice might commit a second offence during the course of the original plan. Rather, the Supreme Court held that such a person can be guilty only if he or she intentionally encourages or assists a person to commit such an offence and intends them to have the mens rea required for that offence. The effect of Jogee is that members of a gang who are not the principal perpetrators of the crime will not necessarily be guilty of the crime in question unless it can be shown that they have intentionally encouraged or helped the principal perpetrators to commit that crime. As many Members have said, the Supreme Court also held that offenders convicted under the old test would be granted permission to appeal only if they had suffered “substantial injustice”. That is the position as it stands, as a matter of law.
I should like to respond to some of the points that have been made today. In the short time allotted, I am afraid that I will not be able to respond to them all. I shall concentrate on those that are identified in the motion. There has been a suggestion that the number of cases brought under joint enterprise has been unchanged since the Supreme Court judgment. As the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and others have pointed out, however, the difficulty with that argument is that there are no official statistics to enable us to confirm or deny that. A number of Members have criticised the Ministry of Justice for not collecting that data, and we are looking into that. It might be possible to address that under our reforms relating to the common platform. I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice is looking into the matter.
The point was also made that there has not yet been a successful appeal. I understand that that could be extremely frustrating for the parties concerned, but it does not mean that there is no route to an appeal. There is a system to challenge any previous decisions. It is possible for an appeal to be made by an individual, who could also apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to have their case reviewed by the Court of Appeal. Indeed, a number of cases have been brought. [Interruption.] They have been brought, but they have been unsuccessful. There has also been criticism of the threshold that the Court of Appeal applies in relation to substantial injustice, but this is not a new test brought in by the Supreme Court in relation to Jogee. It is a long-applied test that the Court Appeal uses in relation to out-of-time appeals.
The key point that has been advanced in relation to the motion today is that there is a need for legislation. I should like to identify a few reasons why it might not be appropriate to bring forward legislation at this stage. First, the law on joint enterprise is not set out in statute; it has evolved through case law. Some criticism was made of that by the right hon. Member for Tottenham, but the evolution of law through the courts has always been an important part of our common law justice system. In our law, the common law has equal weight with law made by statute. No judge in the Jogee case identified a need for Parliament to change the law. Indeed, the hon. Member for Manchester Central has accepted, today and previously, that the Supreme Court ruling said that it was the responsibility of the courts to put the law right. Many Members have accepted that the law as set down by the Supreme Court is right, but some have identified that the implementation of that decision is flawed. I would like to make a few points in relation to that.
The Crown Prosecution Service has already amended its guidance and it is currently operating on guidance in line with the Supreme Court decision. More importantly, it has consulted on revised guidance for use by prosecutors. The hon. Lady has contributed to that, which is to be commended. I am told that the CPS aims to publish a summary of its response to the consultation and the final version of its guidance in the early part of this year.
Many Members have rightly identified the disproportionate number of black and minority ethnic defendants in these cases, and I am pleased that the CPS has confirmed that the revised guidance will take account of the Lammy recommendations, which task the CPS with taking the opportunity of reworking its guidance on joint enterprise to consider its approach to gang prosecutions in general. The CPS has also revised its internal resources on gangs in the light of the recommendations resulting from the Lammy review.
The motion calls for clarity in the law, but it does not identify what the lack of clarity is or how the law could be improved. Indeed, as the hon. Lady has said, what is needed is for the Supreme Court judgment to be followed. There is no suggestion that the law itself needs to be changed; it just needs to be enforced.
Robert Neill
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not the doctrine of joint enterprise that needs to be put on a statutory basis or given clarification, but that its operation in relation to homicide, and the law of homicide itself, would benefit from a statutory review? That has been suggested by the Law Commission and by the Criminal Bar Association, and it would give us an opportunity to deal with the anomalies in joint enterprise in the context of homicide. I think that that is what we are looking for.
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is prescient; I was about to go on to the broader points that were made during the debate. He made that point in his own speech, and he has raised it in the Select Committee as well. As a new Minister, I am happy to consider that in due course.
Some other, broader points were made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned disclosure, which I know the Attorney General is looking at. Many other points were made, and I will happily address them when time allows.
To return to the motion, I recognise the importance of the law on joint enterprise and the impact that it can have on people, such as the constituents of the hon. Member for Manchester Central and the others mentioned today. For the reasons set out, however, the Government do not believe that the time is currently right for any changes to the law on joint enterprise. It is for the courts to interpret the law, as laid down by the Supreme Court. I hope that the revised guidance on secondary liability will provide a clear direction for prosecutors in this area of law, and I am happy to keep the matter under review. With that in mind, I invite the House to reject the motion.
Lucy Powell
Notwithstanding the Minister’s response, I think that everyone watching this debate can take away from Parliament the fact that there is a clear and unified view that the law has got it wrong and that the law needs to be put right. Judging by today’s debate, I suggest that there would be a parliamentary majority in favour of doing just that. In the meantime, I ask all who are watching—the prosecutors, the Appeal Court judges, the police and others—to start putting things right. We will consider, as a cross-party group, how to put further pressure on the Government and work with them to improve the situation.
I think that there is a clear consensus about proportionality, gangs versus groups, the CPS guidance—the initial interim guidance was problematic—and a wider homicide review. Critically, there is a broad consensus on the retrospective cases and the substantial injustice test, which would prevent unsafe convictions. It is critical that age, maturity, mental wellbeing and potential disabilities can be taken into account.
This has been an historic debate, and many people who are watching will feel its historic importance. We are not going to stop here. I hear what the Minister says, and I disagree with some of it. We will continue to press the Government to take further action.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jogee and Ruddock of February 2016 that the law on joint enterprise and parasitic accessory liability had been wrongly interpreted for more than 30 years; further notes that since that judgment, the number of cases brought under joint enterprise has remained unchanged; further notes that there have yet to be any successful appeals of cases from before February 2016; and calls on the Government to review the use of joint enterprise and to bring forward legislative proposals to clarify the law on joint enterprise.
Proscription of Hezbollah
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation driven by an antisemitic ideology that seeks the destruction of Israel; notes that Hezbollah declares itself to be one organisation without distinguishable political or military wings; is concerned that the military wing of that organisation is proscribed, but its political wing is not; and calls on the Government to include Hezbollah in its entirety on the list of proscribed organisations.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is bringing this issue to the House. I do not know whether she is aware of this, but in December the Government held a debate on the extension of proscribed organisations. During that debate, the Minister for Security and Economic Crime told me that only the military organisation of Hezbollah was proscribed, but that Hezbollah supporters who engaged in terrorist activities in this country would be prosecuted.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that terrorist activities should not be the only grounds for prosecution, and that there should be prosecutions for incitement to hatred, incitement to anti-Semitism and other crimes that are being committed on the streets of London? As the Mayor of London has said, Hezbollah should be banned in its entirety.
Joan Ryan
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for that intervention, which I take as 100% support for the motion.
I am the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, an organisation that has campaigned for many years on the issue that we are addressing. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, driven by anti-Semitic ideology, which seeks the destruction of Israel. It has wreaked death and destruction throughout the middle east, aiding and abetting the Assad regime’s butchery in Syria and helping to drive Iran’s expansionism throughout the region. It makes no distinction between its political and military wings, and nor should the British Government.
In 2010, the Obama Administration labelled Hezbollah
“the most technically capable terrorist group in the world”.
Over the past three decades, it has been implicated in a string of deadly attacks against Israeli, Jewish and western targets in the middle east and far beyond. Its operatives have been arrested for plotting or carrying out attacks across the globe, in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. The litany of death and violence widely attributed to Hezbollah includes the 1983 murder in Beirut of 241 American and 58 French peacekeepers; the 1986 wave of bombings against Jewish communal targets in Paris, in which 13 people died; the 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, in which 29 people died; the 1994 bombing of the Argentine-Jewish mutual association, which led to the deaths of 85 people; the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in which 19 US servicemen lost their lives and nearly 500 people were injured; and the 2012 attack on a bus of Israeli tourists in the Bulgarian resort of Burgas, in which six people were murdered and for which two people finally went on trial last week.
Such terrorist acts are promoted, glorified and encouraged by the Hezbollah leadership. Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, has, for instance, praised suicide bombings—or “martyrdom operations”, as he prefers to describe them—as
“legitimate, honourable, legal, humanitarian and ethical actions”
saying that “those who love death” will triumph over those who fear it.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that the 1,000 or so people who marched in London under the Hezbollah flag subscribe to the very agenda that she has described? There is no difference between the military and political wings of Hezbollah, as it continually acknowledges. The only recognition of a difference is in UK policy; it does not exist in reality. It is time for that policy to change.
Joan Ryan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for that intervention. He is completely right to say that there is no distinction and we need to be clear about that.
Hezbollah’s actions are driven by a deep-seated, intractable and vicious hatred of Jews. The House does not need to take my word for it; Hezbollah’s leaders have proudly boasted of their anti-Semitism:
“If they all gather in Israel,”
declared Nasrallah,
“it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”
Nor is Nasrallah a lone voice. Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s deputy leader, has said that
“the history of Jews has proven that, regardless of the Zionist proposal, they are people who are evil in their ideas”.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does she agree that, as well as being anti-Semitic, Hezbollah has assassinated and murdered Christians? As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has said, any distinction between a military part and a political part of Hezbollah is entirely without meaning.
Joan Ryan
I have no difficulty agreeing with my hon. Friend on that point. Hezbollah has killed probably more Muslims than anybody else, as well as Christians, Jews and others.
Hezbollah’s leaders and its media peddle classic anti-Semitic tropes and lies. They refer to Jews in the basest of terms, labelling them “apes and pigs”, and suggesting that
“you will find no one more miserly or greedy than they are”.
Hezbollah’s leaders and media make spurious claims about Jewish conspiracies and world domination, and they deny the Holocaust, suggesting that
“the Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities”.
Hezbollah’s hatred of Jews is a noxious mix, which, in the words of one writer, fuses
“Arab nationalist-based anti-Zionism, anti-Jewish rhetoric from the Koran, and, most disturbingly, the antique anti-Semitic beliefs and conspiracy theories of European fascism”.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I just want to highlight the backers of Hezbollah, the Iranians, who provide training and weapons, including rockets. While the Iranians’ malevolent influence continues throughout the middle east, they are jeopardising the prospects for peace between the Palestinians and Israelis and posing a strategic threat to the very state of Israel.
Joan Ryan
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point with which I absolutely agree. I will come to it a little later.
Hezbollah is a menace throughout the middle east, but Israel is its principal target. That is no secret. In its founding manifesto in 1985, in which it also pledged its loyalty to Ayatollah Khomeini and urged the establishment of an Islamic regime, Hezbollah says of Israel:
“Our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated… We recognise no treaty with it, no cease-fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.”
This is no mere rhetorical sabre-rattling; Hezbollah vehemently opposed the Oslo peace process and has fought any normalisation of relations between Israel and Arab countries. On numerous occasions—most notably in 1993, 1996 and 2006—it has sought to provoke conflict with Israel, and the consequences have been disastrous and devastating for the peoples of both Israel and Lebanon.
In 2006, Hezbollah kidnapped and murdered Israeli soldiers on the country’s northern border and proceeded to launch Katyusha rockets to indiscriminately pound the Jewish state. The resulting conflict led to large numbers of civilian casualties and the evacuation of several hundred thousand people. In defiance of UN resolution 1701, which brought the conflict to an end, Hezbollah has spent the last decade restocking its arsenal and rebuilding its forces in Lebanon. It has trebled the size of its fighting force from 17,000 to 45,000 men. It has launched an arms procurement programme, amassing short, medium and long-range missiles and rockets, drones, precision-guided projectiles, anti-tank weaponry and ballistic missiles. It now has an estimated 120,000 to 140,000 rockets and missiles—an arsenal larger than that of many states.
That Hezbollah has been allowed to replenish and then expand its armoury in this manner represents a terrible failure on the part of the international community, a breaking of the assurances provided to Israel and a betrayal of the people of Lebanon and Israel. The implications are truly horrifying. Andrew Exum, an expert on the region and President Obama’s former deputy assistant secretary of defence for middle east policy, wrote recently:
“I shudder to think what the next conflict will look like.”
Hezbollah has no qualms about such a war. It does not care about the loss of thousands of civilian lives—of Israelis, Lebanese, Jews, Muslims and Christians—that its aggression will lead to.
Quite deliberately, Hezbollah has embedded its forces and weaponry in towns and villages, turning the people of southern Lebanon into human shields. Quite deliberately, it will, as it has done in the past, target civilian population centres in Israel, even vowing, in the words of Nasrallah, that there will be “no red lines” in any future conflict—he underlined the pledge with threats to attack the Dimona nuclear reactor and the ammonia storage facility in Haifa. Quite deliberately, it will seek to draw in other regional actors. Its capacity may be many times greater than those of other terrorist groups, but its aim—to instil terror by inflicting mass civilian casualties—is the same as that of those who wage attacks on targets big and small throughout the world, and of those who attacked London Bridge, the Manchester arena and this House only last year.
Hezbollah has not simply exported terror globally and wreaked havoc in Israel and Lebanon; its bloody fingerprints are all over the Syrian civil war, the most brutal conflict of this century. In 2016, it was estimated that more than a quarter of Hezbollah’s forces were engaged in fighting on behalf of the murderous Assad regime. It has not only contributed to the killing fields of Aleppo and Homs; it has helped to eliminate the non-extremist opposition to Assad, thus contributing to the ranks of Sunni jihadists and stirring sectarian hatred.
Hezbollah has indeed become Iran’s indispensable partner—the Blackwater of Iran, as some have labelled it—helping to promote and further Tehran’s expansionist agenda throughout the middle east, in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Such a vast enterprise cannot be run on the cheap, so in addition to the vast sums of weaponry and cash lavished on it by Iran, the party of God is now engaged in money laundering, arms sales and drugs smuggling. It works through informal networks and centrally run enterprises. The latter, one leading middle east expert told the US Congress last summer, were operating like “international organised criminal entities”.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Do not the various elements that my right hon. Friend is describing show the indivisible nature of Hezbollah? It does not have separate wings but is one criminal terrorist entity.
Joan Ryan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a distinction that Hezbollah not only does not recognise but denies.
As the House will be aware, the British Government have long held the view that Hezbollah’s military wing is involved in conducting and supporting terrorism. In 2001, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation was added to the list of proscribed organisations. In 2008, this proscription was extended by a reference to the
“military wing of Hezbollah, including the Jihad Council and all units reporting to it (including the Hezbollah External Security Organisation)”.
Hezbollah’s political wing, however, is not proscribed, even though this distinction is not one that Hezbollah itself has ever recognised.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case and we are grateful to her for bringing this to the House. Does she not agree that it should make both the Government Front-Bench team and our Opposition Front-Bench team deeply uneasy that they are effectively in an alliance in refusing to recognise the bogus distinction between the so-called military wing and the rest?
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Is the right hon. Lady aware of the ComRes poll showing that 81% of the public want Hezbollah proscribed in its entirety, and does she agree—I see that there are some very honourable Members on the Opposition Benches—that the Labour Front-Bench team has got this wrong and should agree with the motion, not oppose it?
Joan Ryan
Obviously—unless the Labour Front-Bench team is agreeing with my position—we have a difference of opinion, but I am calling on the Government to change their position. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but his point would have far more weight and power if he addressed it to his own Front-Bench team, as they are in a position to lead on this but are not doing so.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
It is so great to see you back in your seat, Mr Deputy Speaker. I high-tailed it from my office in Norman Shaw South when I saw the right hon. Lady on the television screen and was absolutely inspired by the passion with which she is speaking. She is a friend of Israel, and I am a friend of Israel, but does she agree that you do not have to be a friend of Israel to believe that Hezbollah, in its entirety, is a terrorist organisation? You can be a friend of Syria, a friend of Lebanon or a friend of the entire middle east, but you should want Hezbollah, in its entirety, to be banned.
Joan Ryan
Well said—I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation and it should be banned in its entirety—whoever you are a friend of—if you are not a friend of the terrorists. I would add one other thing: it is not just for Jews to fight anti-Semitism, and this is an anti-Semitic organisation; it is for all of us to stand up on that issue.
The distinction is not one that Hezbollah has ever recognised; in fact, it has consistently and explicitly refuted it. In 1985, its founding document stated clearly:
“As to our military power, nobody can imagine its dimensions because we do not have a military agency separate from the other parts of our body. Each of us is a combat soldier when the call of jihad demands it.”
It could not be clearer.
In 2009, Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s deputy general secretary, made it clear that
“the same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel”.
It could not be clearer. He repeated this message three years later, declaring:
“We don't have a military wing and a political one; we don’t have Hezbollah on one hand and the resistance party on the other…Every element of Hezbollah, from commanders to members as well as our various capabilities, are in the service of the resistance, and we have nothing but the resistance as a priority.”
Those are Hezbollah’s own words.
Also in 2013, Nasrallah himself ruled out any notion that the military and political wings were somehow different:
“However, jokingly I will say—though I disagree on such separation or division—that I suggest that our ministers in the upcoming Lebanese government be from the military wing of Hezbollah.”
He also mocked our Government’s division between the two, saying
“the story of military wing and political wing is the work of the British”.
That is what he said. It is a distinction that, with good reason, many other countries throughout the world do not recognise. Those that do not include the Netherlands, Canada, the US, the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The right hon. Lady’s passion and clarity on this issue are absolutely right. I agree that it is incumbent on the Government in principle—I hope those in the Opposition Front-Bench team would follow—to change the policy. Is it not absolutely possible to work with the Government of Lebanon—a Government with whom we are extremely friendly and whom we are assisting to defend herself against the predations of ISIS, initially, and now of other factions in Syria? Is it not absolutely possible to assist our legitimate and welcome allies in Lebanon against those things, yet still call out this terrorist group for what it is, for the violence it is committing in Syria and for the destruction it is carrying out in northern Israel and all around the region?
Joan Ryan
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right. Those Governments that do proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety do talk to the Lebanese Government. If Hezbollah wishes to change its views on Israel—to not obliterate it—and to signal that it will give up its arms, I am sure that, whether it is proscribed or not, that would be the right road to take if it wished to take part in any peace negotiations, which it clearly does not.
Many Members of this House do not recognise the false distinction between the military and the political wing, as is evident today. Last summer, marchers at the al-Quds day parade in London displayed Hezbollah flags, causing great offence to many, especially in the Jewish community. Once again, they were exploiting the utterly bogus separation that the Government choose to make.
I pay tribute to Jewish communal organisations, such as the Community Security Trust, the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council, which have tirelessly campaigned on the issue of Hezbollah proscription. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), as well as the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and the Mayor of London, for their efforts to persuade the Government to proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety.
I note not only the Government’s unwillingness to do so but their inability to explain or justify why they will not act. I understand that, in conflict situations, it is sometimes necessary to keep open channels of communication to facilitate dialogue and to encourage those who are engaged in violence to abandon the bomb and the bullet for the ballot box. However, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this is Hezbollah’s intention. In both its rhetoric and its actions, this leopard shows no sign of changing its spots.
Nor do I accept the notion, which Ministers have previously advanced, that banning Hezbollah’s political wing might somehow—the Chair of the Select Committee touched on this—impede our ties with Lebanon, where Hezbollah exercises not just military but political power. Proscribing Hezbollah in its entirety does not appear to have hampered relations between Lebanon and any of the countries we have already referred to. I am deeply concerned that this Government are simply not taking the threat posed by Hezbollah seriously. Only last week, I was informed by the Home Office that it does not collect data on the numbers of Hezbollah members or supporters in the UK, a practice that is followed by other European countries, such as Germany.
The Terrorism Act 2000 allows the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation which
“(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism,”
including the unlawful glorification of terrorism, or
“(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”
As I have demonstrated, Hezbollah, the leaders of which assert that it is unified and indivisible, more than fulfils those criteria. Even if a distinction between the political and military wings could be drawn, the words of the former in promoting, encouraging and glorifying terrorism surely meet the Government’s criteria for proscription.
After last June’s terrorist attack at London Bridge, the Prime Minister said
“there is, to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.”
I agree. Hezbollah is an organisation that is driven by a hatred of Jews, that promotes and encourages terrorism and that calls for the destruction of the middle east’s only democracy—a key British ally in the region. However, as long as the Government do not proscribe Hezbollah’s so-called political wing, the tolerance will continue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I suggest an informal time limit of around 10 minutes to 12 minutes.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), because she made an exceptionally powerful speech on an issue that matters to so many of us. I refer the House to an entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding a visit to Israel that I undertook in February. I thank the many constituents who have contacted me about this important debate today to make their views clear: they want to see Hezbollah banned in its entirety. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is wonderful to see you back in the Chair, even for a debate on a matter as sad and as serious as this.
As the right hon. Lady stated in her speech and as many others stated in their interventions, the distinction currently made in our law between Hezbollah’s political and military wings is artificial. Hezbollah is a single operation, and that has been stated by its leadership on numerous occasions. For example, its deputy leader, Naim Qassem, has said that Hezbollah has
“one leadership and one administration”.
Hezbollah’s political leaders have a long history of personal involvement in the group’s terrorist and criminal activities. For example, its secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, is believed to have taken part in hostage taking, plane hijacking and violent attacks on rivals.
Hezbollah presents a clear danger to the security of our country. The decision to proscribe parts of the organisation was prompted by the 2012 attack on a bus of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria but, as we have heard his afternoon, the list of its crimes and atrocities is long and includes the notorious truck bomb in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people and injured many others. It was the deadliest terrorist outrage in Argentina’s history. Just a few years ago, when a Hezbollah operative in Cyprus was found guilty of planning to attack Israelis, he said he was
“collecting information about the Jews”
and that that was what his organisation was doing everywhere in the world. We should be under no illusion: Hezbollah poses a serious threat to the citizens of this country and to our neighbours across Europe, and we should proscribe it in all its forms.
In taking that step, the Government would have considerable support both from this House and from the public. Yesterday, the Jewish News published details of a wide-ranging ComRes representative poll that it commissioned. Of some 2,000 people questioned, 44% would support the political wing being designated a terrorist group, compared with just 10% who were opposed. With 46% answering “don’t know”, that means that 81% of those expressing a view backed the designation of the whole of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.
We should be in no doubt about whether the question we are debating today matters in a real, practical way. By limiting proscription to the so-called military wing, we are undermining the ability of the police to protect us from the danger posed by this group. The fact that some parts of Hezbollah are not proscribed limits the ability of law enforcement agencies to seize funds using asset freezing and forfeiture powers. Classifying the whole organisation as a terrorist group would significantly constrain its ability to raise funds and would stop it using UK banks to transfer money around the world.
I emphasise that terrorism is not the only type of unlawful activity in which Hezbollah is involved. Just a few weeks ago, the French authorities referred a 15-member Hezbollah cell to a criminal court on money laundering charges. In October 2015, the US and French authorities arrested two individuals from Hezbollah, one in Atlanta and one in Paris, who were caught laundering drugs proceeds and seeking to purchase weapons and cocaine. According to court documents, they used “Hezbollah-connected associates” to provide security for narcotics shipments. One of those associates was located in the UK and apparently laundered £30,000 for a US Drug Enforcement Administration undercover agent who was posing as a narcotics trafficker.
The partial proscription of Hezbollah has not deterred the group from engaging in criminal conduct on British soil. Moreover, the Community Security Trust reports that Hezbollah has been heavily involved in the drugs trade in South America. In February 2016, the DEA uncovered a massive Hezbollah money laundering and drug trafficking scheme. In the view of the DEA, Hezbollah enjoys established business relationships with the South American drug cartels and is responsible for trafficking large quantities of cocaine into Europe and the US.
Proscribing an organisation is a serious step. It is right that the law sets out clear criteria that must be satisfied before a Minister can take such a decision. There can be no doubt that the parts of Hezbollah that are overtly terrorist and military fall squarely within the definition in section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000, the relevant legislation. In my view, there is a very strong case to say that the criteria of subsection (5) are also satisfied in relation to the political wing of Hezbollah. The political leaders of the organisation have promoted and encouraged the group’s terrorist activities, as the right hon. Member for Enfield North so powerfully explained. Hezbollah defines itself as one single organisation, which is how it should be treated by our legal system.
Quite frankly, the annual al-Quds Day march is a scandal. It is not acceptable that people can fly the Hezbollah flag on the streets of London and get away with it simply by adding a post-it note claiming the support shown is for the political wing, not the military aspect of the organisation. This has to stop. As the campaign emails that arrived in our inboxes point out, this is an embarrassment. They are laughing at us.
In considering whether to proscribe an organisation, Home Office guidance states that the Home Secretary should take into account factors including
“the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism”.
It is time we followed the lead set by countries such as the USA, Canada and the Netherlands, which have implemented full proscription.
Hezbollah has been carrying out murderous attacks in countries across the world for more than 30 years. The organisation is heavily implicated in crime and money laundering, as well as being a deeply malevolent presence in the Syrian war. It is a violent, anti-Semitic organisation, and its main ambition is the complete destruction of the state of Israel. We should ban it, all of it, now.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
It is absolutely fantastic to see you back in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on her speech, and I agree with every word. The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) was superb, absolutely brilliant, and she should be commended for it.
I thank all the people of Dudley who have written to tell me that they think Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, that they think it should be banned in its entirety and that waving its flag is an incitement to terrorism and violence. As we have heard, the organisation has carried out terrorist attacks and racist murders in the middle east, in Europe and across the world. Its stated aim is the destruction of Israel, but it does not limit its attacks to people in Israel; it targets Jewish people anywhere and everywhere.
It is not true to claim that there is a political wing and a military wing. As has been said, Hezbollah itself does not make this distinction, and the supposed distinction undermines the fight against terrorism. That is why the United States, France, the Gulf Co-operation Council, Canada, the Netherlands and Israel have all proscribed Hezbollah in full, and why I cannot understand why our Government have not been prepared to do the same. I very much hope that that stance will change as a result of the debate this afternoon.
Zac Goldsmith
We have heard in the past that proscribing Hezbollah might somehow destabilise Lebanon and the wider region, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that by engaging in this pretence and indulging a terrorist organisation we are destabilising the many moderates in Lebanon who are determined to marginalise the terrorists, marginalise the extremists and marginalise Hezbollah?
Ian Austin
The hon. Gentleman is right about that. It is a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North made when she opened the debate and that was made eloquently by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
It is unacceptable to see Hezbollah’s flag waved on the streets of Britain, and it is disgusting to hear the virulently racist abuse and racist chants that accompany it. So I agree with many of the comments that have been made today, but I want to focus on three particular issues.
First I want to talk about Hezbollah’s role in the middle east and its impact on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. We have debated that many times in this House, but we should be under absolutely no illusion about the difficult issues that will need to be confronted in the negotiations—borders, land swaps, the status of Jerusalem, settlements and so on. Let us be really honest about this; none of those issues remotely interest Hezbollah. It is not interested in the compromises that all sides will need to make to bring about a two-state solution. Its sole interest is the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah has made that absolutely clear. It declared in 1992 that the war is on
“until Israel ceases to exist and the last Jew in the world has been eliminated. Israel is completely evil and must be erased from the face of the Earth.”
That is why, when Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah’s response was not peace but the murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and an avalanche of rocket attacks just six years later. It is why, today, Hezbollah, thanks to its Iranian paymasters, threatens Israel by pointing 120,000 to 140,000 rockets at the country.
In October, Hassan Nasrallah, in just one of the Hezbollah leader’s many threats, urged Jews to flee Israel before it is devastated by war. Last February, he warned that there would be “no red lines” in any future conflict between the terror group and Israel. In April, he boasted of his organisation’s preparedness for war, and in June he spoke of the “hundreds of thousands” of Shi’a fighters from across the middle east who would rush to Hezbollah’s side when it next takes the fight to the Jewish state.
John Woodcock
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case, as he always does. Does he agree that it is also important to keep reminding people of the role that Hezbollah has played in training the Houthi rebels, who are causing such terrible carnage, destruction and death in Yemen?
Ian Austin
In Lebanon and Israel, in Syria and Yemen, Hezbollah is causing carnage. That is its stated aim.
Jack Lopresti
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as others have said, one of the best ways of defeating Hezbollah is to encourage and assist a stable, functioning Lebanese state?
Ian Austin
That is correct, and the point was made eloquently by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee earlier. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) goes to the middle east a lot; he knows a lot of people there. He is an expert on the region and what he says is worth listening to. I hope that Ministers will be listening to the advice that they have just been given.
Analysts warn that the next conflict between Israel and Hezbollah
“will likely be the most destructive Arab-Israel war yet.”
Israel’s military believes that, in a future conflict, Hezbollah will be able to launch 1,500 rockets and missiles a day. Israel has increased its defensive capabilities, but Hezbollah is likely to target military facilities, important infrastructure and civilian population centres.
In the past, Nasrallah has threatened that Hezbollah will attack an ammonia storage facility in Haifa and a nuclear reactor at Dimona. The week before last, I was in Haifa, which is just over 20 miles from the border with Lebanon and is the site of Israel’s oil refinery, making it one of Hezbollah’s main targets. Imagine the carnage, devastation and civilians deaths that could result in a future conflict when Hezbollah start to rain down missiles on Haifa from just a few miles away, as it has done in the past.
Sadly, Israel’s experience in southern Lebanon was repeated in Gaza. Israel signed an agreement with the Palestinian Authority on movement and access to Gaza, which gave the Palestinians control over their borders for the first time in history, allowed imports and exports, and approved the construction of a seaport and discussions on an airport. Israel pulled out of Gaza but, just as in Lebanon, an Islamist movement, a terrorist organisation, a powerful armed militia—this time Hamas, also equipped by Iran and just as committed to Israel’s destruction as Hezbollah—launched a coup, banned elections, drove out Fatah, threw fellow Palestinians from the rooftops, summarily executed people outside mosques after Friday prayers and declared themselves the new rulers of Gaza, saying that they would use the strip as a base to destroy Israel. The unilateral withdrawal of 8,500 Israelis from Gaza was met not by peace but, after Hamas’s brutal takeover, by rockets and attack tunnels. When we look at the experience in Lebanon and in Gaza, we can understand why, whether or not people in this Chamber like it, the Israelis are very reticent about pulling out of the west bank.
As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), the Iranian proxy Hezbollah poses a significant threat to security and stability in the middle east—explicitly the whole middle east, not just Israel. My second point is that Hezbollah has played a particularly pernicious and powerful role in the internal affairs of Lebanon. Its armed forces have been described as more effective than Lebanon’s army and its military power is occasionally used to pressurise the Lebanese Government, allowing Iran to exercise influence in the country. Once seen as a state within a state, Hezbollah’s growing influence in Lebanon threatens to draw Israel’s northern neighbour, and its army, into any future conflict.
My third point is that, as we have heard, Hezbollah’s so-called resistance against Israel is influenced by its deeply anti-Semitic ideology. The group’s leader Hassan Nasrallah has said that if Jews
“all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”
He has also suggested:
“God imprinted blasphemy on the Jews’ hearts.”
Hezbollah’s deputy leader, Naim Qassem, has said that
“the history of Jews has proven that, regardless of the Zionist proposal, they are a people who are evil in their ideas.”
The late Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, one of Hezbollah’s most influential figures, peddled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jews. He declared:
“The Jews want to be a world superpower…the Jews will work on the basis that Jewish interests are above all world interests.”
I have criticised the Government for not proscribing Hezbollah, but I also wish to address some remarks to my party. In 2009, at a meeting of the so-called Stop the War Coalition, which must be the worst or most inappropriately named organisation in British politics, the leader of the Labour party said that he had invited “friends” from Hamas and Hezbollah to an event in Parliament. Later, when asked why he had called them friends, he said:
“I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk.”
He also said:
“There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas”.
First, who would describe a racist, fascistic and terrorist organisation like Hezbollah as friends? Social democrats—indeed, all democrats—should always be crystal clear about how they describe totalitarian movements and Governments, whether that is Hezbollah or, for instance, the Iranian dictatorship that backs Hezbollah.
Secondly, the statements by the leaders of Hezbollah make it very clear that they have absolutely no interest in the negotiations and compromises that could lead to peace. The idea that Hezbollah is a partner for peace is utterly misguided. Its contribution to the Oslo peace process was to threaten to murder Jewish tourists and businessmen visiting Arab countries that normalised their relations with Israel. Even if we were to set all that to one side, I do not think that the leadership of our party has shown the same interest in speaking to the Israelis. Invitations to meet the leaders of Labour’s own sister party, who have repeatedly invited our leader to visit Israel and talk to them about their plans to bring the conflict to an end, have not been accepted.
The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is enormously difficult and complex.There are no easy answers. If there were, they would have been found by now. However, some elements are clearer than others, and the case of Hezbollah is one of them. This is an anti-Semitic, racist terror group—acting at the behest of Iran—which wishes to drive Jews from the middle east and murder Jews around the world. Hezbollah is part of the problem; it will never be part of the solution. That is why this House and our Government should agree today to proscribe it in its entirety.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
May I say, too, how very pleased I am, Mr Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair today? I congratulate the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) on her opening speech and on securing this important debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating it. I should declare an interest as chair of the Council for Arab-British Understanding.
There is no doubt that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. Indeed, it is one of the largest, most powerful, most vicious and most dangerous terrorist organisations in the world. Although it is, ostensibly, a political party, and one of the key political players in Lebanon, it also overtly and rigidly adheres to the Shi’ite revolutionary agenda of Iran. Its emergence in 1982 in the wake of the Israeli invasion of south Lebanon was directly attributable to the intervention of Iran. The influence of Iran was made clear in Hezbollah’s manifesto, dated 1985, which stated:
“We are the sons of the umma—the party of God, the vanguard of which was made victorious by God in Iran.”
Hezbollah, in truth, is an Iranian proxy, closely associated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and, like Iran, it considers the United States and Israel its principal enemies. Early in its existence, Hezbollah pledged allegiance to Ayatollah Khomeini, and since Khomeini’s death in 1989 it has continued allegiance to his successor, Ali Khamenei.
Central to the ideology of Hezbollah is the concept of resistance, chiefly to the United States and Israel, and resistance is Hezbollah code for terrorist activity. Indeed, the history of Hezbollah has been one of one terrorist act after another. In April 1983, very shortly after its formation, it carried out a suicide attack on the United States embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people. Six months later, there was another suicide bombing—of the US Marines barracks in Beirut—which killed 241. US nationals have been repeatedly targeted by Hezbollah, and, indeed, Hezbollah was responsible for killing more Americans than any other terrorist organisation until the 9/11 attacks on New York city.
Israel and Israeli interests have also been the repeated targets of Hezbollah terrorism. After Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah carried out numerous cross-border incursions, culminating in an attack in July 2006 that killed eight Israeli soldiers. In the conflict that followed, Hezbollah fired thousands of Iranian-supplied rockets into Israeli territory, killing 39 civilians and 120 soldiers.
Hezbollah has also planned and executed many other terrorist attacks outside the region, including on the European continent. Two Hezbollah operatives are being tried in their absence for the 2012 bombing of a bus carrying Israeli citizens at Burgas airport in Bulgaria. Such actions are seen as part of the “resistance” to Israel that is one of Hezbollah’s avowed objectives. Many of the attacks have been on non-Israeli Jewish people and Jewish interests—the right hon. Member for Enfield North catalogued those attacks extensively.
Quite understandably and properly, Hezbollah’s activities have led to it being designated a terrorist organisation in many parts of the world. In 1996, Israel listed Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, followed by the United States in 1997. It has also been proscribed by Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, France and Bahrain. In March 2016, the Gulf Co-operation Council designated it a terrorist organisation, stressing its status as a proxy for Iran in regional conflicts, including with the Houthi rebellion in Yemen. The secretary general of the GCC, Abdul Latif bin Rashid Al Zayani, commented:
“The GCC states consider Hezbollah militias’ practices in the Council’s states and their terrorist and subversive acts being carried out in Syria, Yemen and Iraq contradict moral and humanitarian values and principles and international law and pose a threat to Arab national security.”
Very recently, in November last year, most of the Arab League’s 22 members condemned Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, stating that it was supporting terrorist groups across the middle east by supplying them with weapons, including ballistic missiles.
The United Kingdom’s position on Hezbollah has been somewhat more nuanced. In 2001, the UK proscribed Hezbollah’s External Security Organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. That proscription was extended to the military wing, including the Jihad Council, in 2008 as a consequence of Hezbollah’s targeting of British soldiers in Iraq. The UK was also instrumental in persuading the European Union to designate the military wing a terrorist entity in 2013.
However, the British Government have consistently been reluctant to extend the proscription to the entirety of Hezbollah. In an explanatory memorandum to the European Scrutiny Committee in August 2013, the then Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), stated that although the UK does not engage with Hezbollah’s political wing, some EU member states do engage with it as a political party in Lebanon and therefore had concerns over the effect of EU designation on that engagement. He explained that by distinguishing between Hezbollah’s political and military wings, the designation would not prevent those member states that have contacts with Hezbollah’s political representatives from maintaining such contact.
The Minister stated in the same memorandum that the military wing of Hezbollah was separate from the political wing, which included Ministers, Members of Parliament and other representatives, and was overseen by a political council. I suggest that such a distinction is completely illusory. The fact is that Hezbollah itself denies that there is any distinction to be drawn between its military and political wings.
Nick Boles
My right hon. Friend is making a persuasive speech. Does he agree that it would be as absurd to suggest that one could distinguish between the British Government and the British armed forces, and that somehow one could declare the British armed forces to be an enemy without declaring the British Government to be one? The armed forces of Hezbollah are under the control and direction of the political arm of Hezbollah, and therefore they must be treated as one.
Mr Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. More to the point, Hezbollah itself agrees with him, because in 2000 its deputy secretary general, Naim Qassem, declared:
“Hezbollah’s Secretary-General is the head of the Shura Council and also the head of the Jihad Council, and this means that we have one leadership with one administration.”
In 2012, Qassem said:
“We don’t have a military wing and a political one; we don’t have Hezbollah on one hand and the resistance party on the other. Every element of Hezbollah, from commanders to members as well as our various capabilities, is in the service of the resistance and we have nothing but the resistance as a priority.”
So Hezbollah is, in reality, a single entity, and it is ludicrous to suggest that it is not.
As a single entity, Hezbollah is a threat to the entire world. British interests, not least, are affected by it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) gave a catalogue of the extent to which Hezbollah carries out activities that are directly threatening British interests, and is also carrying out crimes on the streets of Britain. At an unarguably less dangerous but nevertheless highly offensive level, Hezbollah protesters routinely display Hezbollah flags on the streets of London at events such as al-Quds day, disingenuously labelling them flags of the political wing of Hezbollah, rather than its military wing.
It is very clear that the partial ban is not having the desired effect, or much effect at all. The Government have contended that banning the organisation in its totality might destabilise the political order in Lebanon. I would suggest, however, that the greatest destabilising influence in Lebanon is Hezbollah itself. Even as we debate today, four Hezbollah members are being tried before the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in connection with the murder of the late Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri. Hezbollah forces have supported the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The organisation continues to conduct terrorist attacks against Israeli interests.
While I understand the Government’s concerns and anxieties, I suggest that partial proscription has not had the effect either of curbing Hezbollah’s terrorist activities or of clearing Hezbollah from the United Kingdom. Hezbollah is on our streets, defiantly waving its flags and thumbing its nose at the British Government. I consequently urge the Government to reconsider their stance and to conclude that Hezbollah—a dangerous, aggressive terrorist organisation that is a threat to regional stability and to the security of this country—should be proscribed in its entirety.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great privilege to follow so many excellent contributions from all parts of the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for securing this extremely important debate and for her very powerful opening speech.
Hezbollah is a radical Shi’a Islamist terrorist organisation founded in Iran soon after the 1979 revolution. It is an anti-Semitic organisation that carries out acts of international terrorism. It should be proscribed in its entirety. Instead, the UK accepts the spurious distinction between Hezbollah’s political and military wings, banning the military wing but permitting the so-called political wing to operate. As hon. Members have pointed out, Hezbollah itself does not accept this distinction. In 2012, its deputy secretary General, Naim Qassem, said very explicitly:
“We don’t have a military wing and a political one; we don’t have Hezbollah on one hand and the resistance party on the other.”
The evidence that Hezbollah engages in terrorism and engenders hate is overwhelming. Hezbollah was behind the bombing of the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 85 people. It has murdered people—Jews, Christians, Muslims and others—in places such as Nigeria, Thailand, Bulgaria and Cyprus. It is complicit with the murderous Assad regime in Syria. Operating with Assad and Iran, it is part of the “axis of resistance” that seeks to confront Sunni power, western influence and Israel. It is a malign influence.
Hezbollah specifically promotes anti-Semitism. Al-Manar, Hezbollah TV, was the first media outlet to make the false claim that 4,000 Jews or Israelis did not go to work in the World Trade Centre on 9/11, allegedly on the basis of advice from Mossad. This lie has now become a widespread anti-Semitic libel. Hezbollah’s message incites violence. Esther Webman, who has studied Hezbollah’s anti-Semitic motifs, has concluded that Hezbollah’s brand of anti-Semitism is typical of contemporary violent Islamist groups. She describes it as
“combining traditional Islamic perceptions with Western anti-Semitic terminology and motifs to express its opposition to Zionism. Zionism, in turn, is equated not only with the State of Israel but also with imperialism and with Western arrogance.”
This issue has very serious implications for us in the UK. At the annual al-Quds march in London last June, Hezbollah’s green and yellow flag—the same flag displayed in military operations—was put on show. The purpose of the march and of al-Quds day itself is to agitate for violent resistance and the destruction of the state of Israel. At the centre of the flag, the largest Arabic word in green reads “Hezbollah”, out of which emerges a globe with an upraised arm grasping an assault rifle. The letter A of Allah is linked to the upraised arm grasping the assault rifle, signifying the ideological legitimisation of Hezbollah’s armed resistance as being divinely sanctioned. That message is clear, menacing and extremely powerful. The menacing chants at the march on the streets of London this year included the heinous cry:
“Zionists/ISIS are the same.
Only difference is the name.”
Zac Goldsmith
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech. It is also worth pointing out that the march was led by the director of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, who, during his speech, blamed the Grenfell Tower tragedy on the Zionists. As we all know, the word “Zionists” is a euphemism for Jews. The whole enterprise was just entirely bonkers, as well as being anti-Semitic.
Mrs Ellman
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I will refer to the Grenfell Tower disaster in a moment.
All this is inciting violence, hatred and division on the streets of the UK. This is happening as anti-Semitic offences in this country reach record levels, as shown in the recent Community Security Trust report. There are many other disturbing recent examples of incitement to hatred, and I will now mention the important point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Tahra Ahmed, a volunteer running a network helping the survivors of the Grenfell fire tragedy has claimed that the 71 people who perished were
“burnt…in a Jewish sacrifice”.
That is horrendous—horrendous incitement to hatred.
On the march at that al-Quds event, some marchers held flags with small stickers attached to them stating:
“I support the political wing of Hezbollah”.
This was designed to give the marchers protection against any legal challenge—pretending that the political wing of Hezbollah is somehow a separate entity. This is a farce. The flags indicate military might, and their display incites hatred on our streets and division in our communities.
I recently went to see the Metropolitan police to express my great concern about expressions of hatred on our streets, specifically in relation to the al-Quds march, but also in relation to other recent events. I asked the police why they were not taking any action against this incitement to hatred. It was clear from the discussions that ensued that a key factor in the police’s failure to act was that Hezbollah’s political wing is not illegal, and neither is displaying the flag.
Dr Offord
I, too, have met the Metropolitan police, including Pat Gallan, who informed me that the Met had a Queen’s counsel opinion stating that they are not able to take any action, for the reason the hon. Lady outlined. Pat Gallan did not feel that it was appropriate for me to read the opinion, but a legal opinion is simply that—just an opinion.
Mrs Ellman
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that should be pursued. My discussions with the Metropolitan police made it clear that its decisions on how to deal with individual incidents are to do with the legal situation at the time, the need for freedom of expression and the police’s interpretation of how those two aspects interact. Opinions are important, but so is incitement on our streets.
It is time for change. The fallacy that Hezbollah has two separate sections should be exposed. Under UK law, only the so-called military wing of Hezbollah is listed as a proscribed terrorist organisation. Evidence from abroad and on our streets in the UK is clear that Hezbollah is a single, terrorist, anti-Semitic entity. It is guilty of mass murder abroad, it promotes terrorism and discord across the middle east, and now it is importing anti-Semitism and anti-western hatred on to the streets of London, sowing discord and division in our communities.
I call for Hezbollah to be banned in its entirety. I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench are listening hard to the contributions from Labour Members, but the Government are responsible for what happens and I ask the Minister to take action.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I apologise for ducking out of the debate earlier. I wanted to sign the book commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day, and I recommend that other Members take the opportunity to do so before it closes in about half an hour.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) on securing this debate. Hezbollah claims to be the party of God, but it is simply a genocidal, anti-Semitic terror group based in Lebanon that seeks the destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews worldwide. The organisation is well known, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) reminded us of the terror attack that took place in 1994, with the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people. The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) reminded us of the comment by the leader of the Labour party who infamously described Hezbollah as his “friends”. Well, they are no friends of mine.
Hezbollah is a creation of Iran. It is one of Iran’s most important and powerful international terrorist proxies, and it gives it extensive access to the Arab world. Iran has provided hundreds of millions of pounds for Hezbollah’s weapons and technology, and salaries for tens of thousands of fighters. In June 2006, Hezbollah secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, confirmed that he was
“open about the fact that Hezbollah’s budget, its income, its expenses, everything it eats and drinks, its weapons and rockets, are from the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
Before leaving office in December 2016, former UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, reportedly had concerns about Nasrallah’s remarks and stated that Iran’s supply of weapons to Hezbollah violates a long-standing arms embargo against the country.
With Iran’s support, Hezbollah fighters have been deeply engaged in supporting the regime of Iranian ally, President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and gaining battle experience, probably in preparation for their next attempt at conflict with Israel. Hassan Nasrallah has repeatedly threatened Israel with war, warning that Hezbollah is ready to strike anywhere in Israel with “no limits”. Iran has established rocket factories in Lebanon under Hezbollah’s full control, which together with military provisions and other weaponry are located throughout civilian villages in southern Lebanon. As the hon. Member for Dudley North reminded us, the terror group now has up to 150,000 rockets capable of striking the whole of Israel.
Last week, I presented a petition to the House on behalf of 896 people in my constituency who are calling on the Government to proscribe the political, as well as the military, arm of the Hezbollah organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Government currently distinguish between Hezbollah’s so-called political wing, and its military wing, even though the group itself does not.
I have attended the al-Quds march on many occasions, and most recently I went last year with former MP Michael McCann, who spoke at the event. We witnessed the yellow flags of Hezbollah, which feature a large green assault rifle, being waved with impunity on our streets. Despite the countless representations made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Metropolitan police and Ministers have failed to take any action.
The Islamic Human Rights Commission, which organises the march, has provided guidance on its website for participants, advising that although flags of illegal organisations could not be waved at the event, demonstrators could bring a Hezbollah flag to show support for its political wing. I take some credit for that being on the website because two years ago I called on the Met to ban the march. I received abuse, but also correspondence from the so-called Islamic Human Rights Commission, which told me that it had never had any illegal flags—it was, of course, referring to those of Daesh, not Hezbollah. Subsequently, it has advised people that they should put a post-it note on their flags to say that they are supporting Hezbollah’s political wing, not its military wing.
The Home Secretary has recently explained the position on offences in respect of displaying flags:
“For an offence to be committed, the context and manner in which the flag is displayed must demonstrate that it is specifically in support of the proscribed military wing of the group.”
Taking that into account, flags flown at the march featured the disclaimers that I have mentioned, even though we have been reminded that the organisation itself does not recognise any difference between the two wings.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Hezbollah is appalling and I would very much like to see it banned. Only one argument might say that it should not be: the security services might be—we will never know this—advising the Minister that it is better to keep it where we can see it rather than send it underground. That might be the only argument against a ban.
Dr Offord
I am not in favour of banning things, I have to say. But the hurt, resentment, agitation and general disruption that this annual march causes—not only to the Metropolitan police, but to the people of London—should in itself lead to its being banned. This year, I called again on the Metropolitan police not to allow the march to go ahead. Infuriatingly, days after the Grenfell Tower fire, with the police massively stretched by the tragedy, the organisers insisted on going ahead with the march even though the Met did not have the resources to police it. That was reprehensible on the part of the IHRC.
This year, the march was led by a director of the IHRC, Nazim Ali, who in a speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) mentioned, blamed the Grenfell fire tragedy on
“the Zionist supporters of the Tory Party”.
He also accused the Israel Defence Forces of being a
“terrorist organisation that murdered Palestinians, Jews and British soldiers.”
Participants in the rally called for the destruction of Israel and waved slogans, including one stating “We are all Hezbollah”. Shockingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition has spoken at the annual event in the past. I take this opportunity to call on him not to do so again in future.
As we have heard, senior Hezbollah officials have repeatedly said that Hezbollah is a single entity, proudly stating that “resistance” is their “priority”, and even publicly mocking the UK and other European countries for distinguishing between the two wings.
Dr Offord
The right hon. Lady has made a really good point, and I want to respond; I am grateful that she took my intervention earlier. She is absolutely right—there is an issue with not only Labour Front Benchers but Government Front Benchers. I certainly hope that they hear what I am saying today. This is not about one party or another. I do not seek to make this a party political issue, but when I see the shadow Home Secretary rolling her eyes at some of the comments made by Labour Back Benchers, that makes me think that her heart is not really in this issue and that she is not as concerned as many Government Members—or, indeed, many Opposition Members.
According to Home Office guidance,
“Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation: commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.
It is worth reiterating that senior Hezbollah officials have openly and repeatedly stated that no substantive separation exists between so-called “political” and “military” wings. Given that fact, I believe that Hezbollah meets the criteria for full proscription under the Terrorism Act.
It is not just the Jewish community in this country who are distressed by Hezbollah’s overt presence in the UK; it also distresses those of us who deplore terrorism and hate all kinds of bigotry and those of us who want this country to be a welcoming and safe place for our many diverse communities.
A number of Members are unable to be here today because they have returned to their constituencies. No doubt they will be attending this weekend’s Holocaust Memorial Day commemorations. However, we must not underestimate the strength of feeling among the British public in favour of rooting out anti-Semitism and hatred wherever it occurs. Anti-Semitism is rising throughout Europe, and as we commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day on Saturday, we must be the ones to say, “Enough is enough.” It is in the best interests of us all to proscribe Hezbollah in full.
Let us demonstrate our commitment to tackling extremism by finally putting aside the mistaken belief that Hezbollah has a political wing. It quite simply does not exist. My constituents think we should not wait any longer before admitting that, and so do I.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for securing this important debate. It has been excellent.
I think that it incredibly important for the Home Secretary to take a clear look at Hezbollah, its activities and the positions that it takes. As we know, it is involved in a number of terrorist activities and has made clear its desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, but the main concern that I wish to raise today concerns its anti-Semitic language. Let me take a moment to read out some of the comments made by leaders of Hezbollah to emphasise how shocking they are.
Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, has been quoted as saying—I read this out with deep discomfort—
“the Jews…are a cancer which is liable to spread…at any moment.”
He has also said:
“If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”
Such views are expressed not just by Nasrallah, but by his deputy. Naim Qassem has been quoted as saying:
“The history of Jews has proven that, regardless of the Zionist proposal, they are a people who are evil in their ideas.”
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree that those comments are utterly deplorable and should be challenged at every opportunity. Such language should not be allowed to continue, because it feeds into a terrorist ideology that calls for the destruction of Israel, but also of the wider Jewish people. We have heard it in the past, and we stood up against it then. We should stand up against it now as well, because the use of such language in our society should not be tolerated, whether it is used here or elsewhere in the world. There is absolutely no place for it.
What is especially pertinent when we recommit ourselves to standing up to this hate-filled language is that, as we speak, many people are gathering near Parliament Square to remember the holocaust at the Holocaust Memorial Day service. I was torn today: I wanted to take part in both events, but I chose to come to the House and make my speech. Only a week ago, colleagues stood here in the Chamber and movingly marked that auspicious day.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is the power of words. The aim is to explore how language was used in the past and is used in the present. It reminds us never to be complacent. Right now, an organisation that calls for the annihilation of one of our allies and a whole ethnic population is lawfully allowed to be supported in this country, and last year, as we have heard, its flags were flown on the streets of our capital. Hatred should not go unchallenged, wherever it may raise its ugly head.
The British Government must stand strong with resolve and say, “Enough is enough, and we will not stand for their hatred and terrorist activity.” We can all agree that Hezbollah is a dangerous organisation that commits terrorist crimes across the world in the name of its warped view of Islam and that repeatedly vocalises hate-filled language towards a group that it wishes to exterminate. There is no room for its deep-seated hatred—none at all. Therefore, in response to this debate, I hope the Home Secretary—although not present—will ensure that she listens in full to the concerns raised from across the House today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in this House, but especially on this issue. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and all other Members who have spoken. If I may pick out one Member, the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) set the scene very well for us all. When she asked me to accompany her to the Backbench Business Committee to request this debate, I was happy to do so, as I wanted to take part in the debate. As someone who has lived through a terrorist conflict and who bears the emotional and political scars that other—some very gallant—Members have, this topic is of great interest to me.
The first question we must ask ourselves is, what is the first duty of Government? As clearly outlined by every Member who has spoken, the first duty of any Government is to protect the public. Are we protecting the public? Can we do better? Yes, we can. Protection cannot, of course, be guaranteed; there will always be those determined to break through or get around whatever security measures our Government have put in place. But it is the Government’s job to do what they can to ensure that in a free society people can go about their lives facing the smallest possible risk of crime or terrorist attack. The debate is taking place because there has been a failure to provide that protection.
On 4 June 2017, the day after the London bridge terror attack in which eight people were killed and 48 injured, the Prime Minister—my Prime Minister, everyone’s Prime Minister—stood in Downing Street and said:
“While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is—to be frank—far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.
So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out—across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult and often embarrassing conversations, but the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism”.
On 22 June, the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), following a statement on terrorism, called on the Home Secretary to ban Hezbollah. To support his request he gave a first-hand account of what he cited as a celebration of the terror group Hezbollah that he witnessed on 18 June at an Al-Quds rally in central London. He explained in some detail how people were walking down the streets of this city waving the flag of the genocidal terror group Hezbollah—that is what it is—while simultaneously mocking the British laws that allowed them to do so. He described how frustrating that was. There can surely be no greater and more blatant illustration of the Prime Minister’s view that we are far too tolerant of extremists. That shows why this debate is important.
It is also important to remember the context. In 2017, a year marred by terror attacks in Manchester and London, our Government allowed that march to take place. I question why that was allowed.
In response to the hon. Member for Newark, the Home Secretary agreed to come back and discuss the matter with him and if necessary to come back to this House. I understand that there has been a chasm of silence since then, which concerns me. As with many issues, there may be a belief that, if we let matters sit and cool, sometimes people do not demand firm action to be taken. This is not one of those times and the Home Secretary’s commitment must be actioned.
I thank the right hon. Member for Enfield North and the colleagues who backed the call for this debate. We can have a full discussion today and we will hopefully have action. We look to the Minister. The call for action is coming from Members in all parts of the House.
Let me make it clear that this is not a campaign to satisfy a handful of MPs; it goes much wider than that. In a campaign organised by the Israel Britain Alliance and its numerous partners, more than 10,000 people have written to their MPs to register their concerns about the Government’s delusion that Hezbollah is two separate organisations and to highlight the Government’s dereliction of their first duty to protect the public. For the record, the publicly available evidence that Hezbollah is a single organisation with a single command structure has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. In addition, the Government’s own assessment of Hezbollah’s capability renders their stance untenable and demands the protection that the evidence points to.
I am concerned that we are not being given the full story about the need that is said to be there; it has been said that there may be some evidential base out there. We want to see that in the open. The Government are also aware of the Hezbollah sleepers and they are watching them as well. Let us make it clear to those who think they are not being watched that they are indeed being watched and we know who they are. As I said, I am concerned that we are not being given the full story. Only three days ago, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), the Minister said:
“The military and political activities of Hizballah are distinct, though links exist between the senior leaders of the political and military wings. The UK proscribed Hizballah’s External Security Organisation in March 2001 and in 2008 the proscription was extended to Hizballah’s military apparatus.”
My concern is that, by dragging our feet over taking the necessary action, we are placing the British people in grave danger. It is our responsibility to look after them.
Bob Stewart
Please do not think that I support Hezbollah. All I say is that there might be some reason that we cannot know about—that even I, who have been in military intelligence, cannot know about—for not banning the political wing of Hezbollah in this country. It might be something very important, and it might be that the decision has been made to protect us from a much more difficult situation. I do not know.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention, but let us make the position clear today: we want the proscription of Hezbollah. That is the thrust of this debate. That is what we are about. There are not two wings in Hezbollah.
Joan Ryan
I should like to clarify this point. Most members of the armed forces cannot comment on these issues, but very senior members of our armed forces who are no longer actively serving have made it clear that they think that this is a false division, and that Hezbollah should be proscribed in its entirety. I agree with them, although I understand that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is not saying that he supports Hezbollah.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. In a moment, I will give the House an example of an ex-soldier who has knowledge of the situation and whose position will become clear. Perhaps then, everyone in the Chamber will understand why we need and want this proscription.
Hezbollah leaders have openly stated that there is no separation between its component parts. The group in its entirety meets the criteria for full proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. Its leaders have repeatedly encouraged terrorism and supported jihad and martyrdom. Hezbollah has been responsible for attacks on Jewish people across the globe, yet last year, as the hon. Member for Newark witnessed, people with Hezbollah flags marched down Oxford Street celebrating al-Quds day with complete disregard and with the AK-47 on their flags. If that is not provocative and illegal, I would like to know what is. Along with the flags and banners that day, we had all the associated inflammatory rhetoric because the purpose of the demonstration was to agitate for violent resistance and the destruction of the state of Israel under the euphemism of “liberating al-Quds”—Jerusalem. The context was militaristic, not political.
The domestic consequence of the current Government policy that the Minister will repeat in due course is a fabricated division that allows public support for a terrorist organisation and anti-Semitism to flourish freely on our streets. These actions are detrimental to social cohesion and damaging to community relations, and that is why Hezbollah must be banned. Many Members across the Chamber have made it clear that we have taken a stance against anti-Semitism. The Government have taken a stance against it, but there are others who need to be stronger when it comes to taking that stance, and we encourage them to do so.
Colonel Richard Kemp, to whom I referred a moment ago, is the former head of the international terrorism team at the Cabinet Office. I hope that we can all respect the fact that his credentials are impeccable as he explains his view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s position. He says:
“The Foreign Office deludes itself that by appeasing Hezbollah it can influence the organisation. And that it will do its killing elsewhere. Instead this gives legitimacy to Hezbollah. Piling appeasement on appeasement, Britain and the rest of the EU hope to mollify Iran, the biggest state supporter of terrorism. They know designating Hezbollah would enrage the ayatollahs.”
Ian Austin
The hon. Gentleman is right to quote Richard Kemp. I refer him to Lord Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff, who has made exactly the same point. I am not calling into question the motives of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) or asking why he said what he did; I am just saying that Richard Kemp and Lord Dannatt both make the opposite point. I think that, if such intelligence existed, they would be aware of it.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for putting on record that extra evidential basis. The Foreign Office position appears to be creating two delusions: first, that Hezbollah is not a single organisation and, secondly, that it will do its killing elsewhere. Colonel Richard Kemp’s column in The Times devastates another Foreign Office fable, namely, that we are not in danger. He says:
“During the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hezbollah was involved in Iranian-directed bombings that killed well over 1,000 British and US servicemen. Despite this, in Britain and elsewhere in Europe Hezbollah can freely raise funds for terrorism. Its supporters flaunt their assault rifle-emblazoned flags on our streets. They maintain sleeper cells in this country: planning, preparing and lying in wait for orders to attack.”
I commend our security forces for their good work, which everyone in this House endorses and supports. Our intelligence services are the best in the world and we are very happy to have them.
When we hear such things, we say to ourselves, “What damning testimony there is.” I see you looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am coming to the end of my speech. Those in the Foreign Office who seek to appease, and who are fearful of offending the ayatollahs, are allowing people on our streets to celebrate an organisation that has been complicit in the killing of British soldiers. We have a responsibility to look after, nurture and care for our soldiers and their families, and the situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is past time that the Government did the right thing and banned Hezbollah. Members may ask what that will achieve. Let me quote Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah, on that question:
“The sources of our funding would dry up, and the sources of moral, political, and material support would be destroyed.”
If we are looking for a good reason to proscribe Hezbollah, that has to be one.
Jim Shannon
I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I commend him for his contributions in this House, and he has been a stalwart supporter on this matter. During debates on the Iran nuclear deal, he and I said the same thing on opposite sides of the House, and it was good to have that consensus. Many others joined us.
We need to proscribe Hezbollah for the very reason that I have outlined: its sources of funding will dry up, and its moral, political and material support will be destroyed.
Theresa Villiers
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that extending proscription in the way that pretty much every Member has called for is important if we are to ensure that Hezbollah cannot use the banking system in this country to further its evil ends?
Jim Shannon
If we starve Hezbollah of its funds, we will take away the blood that it needs to exist. It is important that we do that. Proscribing Hezbollah and removing all its resources—the bones in its system—is one way to achieve what we want. I believe that the British people will happily accept the proscription of Hezbollah.
Mr David Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that although we require the complete proscription of Hezbollah as an organisation, we should never lose sight of the fact that it is a proxy for the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard corps, which is causing so much havoc and distress throughout the middle east and beyond?
Jim Shannon
I fully endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. It is clear to me and, I think, everyone in the House that the Iranian national guard has such control that its influence and encouragement extend to Hezbollah. Where do we find it in the world? It is everywhere where there is contention, murder and conflict. That is the frustration we have.
Putting the public at risk and changing the odds in favour of terror suspects and against those who protect us is, at best, grossly complacent and, at worst, disastrous for public security. In memory of the British victims of Hezbollah, this terror group, this scum of the earth, should be banned from this day forth.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
This has been a passionate but thoughtful debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) and her colleagues on bringing it to the House.
Members have repeatedly made it clear that Hezbollah in its broadest sense has engaged in atrocious terrorist activity. They have highlighted attacks in the middle east and beyond. In 2012 in Bulgaria, a bus of Israeli tourists was blown up. In Buenos Aires in the 1994, the bombing of the Israeli embassy was followed by the detonation of explosives outside the Argentinian-Israeli Mutual Association. Plots and activities have extended to Thailand, Nigeria, Cyprus and many other countries. Those arguing in favour of the motion have made a powerful case for full proscription. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and others have highlighted the knock-on consequences of sticking only with partial proscription for law enforcement here, including the seizing of financial assets.
Is there any possible counter-argument? In supporting partial proscription, the Home Office under the previous Labour Government pointed to the
“legitimate political, social and humanitarian role Hizballah plays in Lebanon”,
while in a debate just before Christmas, when this issue was raised, the Security Minister pointed out that Hezbollah formed part of the Government of Lebanon. That has meant that much of this debate has focused on whether Hezbollah is just one organisation and whether it is realistic to divide it into political, military and terrorist parts, as some countries do, including the UK—but not just the UK—for the purposes of proscription. In the December debate, the Minister himself said:
“If…the non-military wing is viewed as not separate…we will review the situation, use the law and take the required steps.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 1018.]
Members have argued today that these are false and unreal distinctions, pointing even to the rhetoric of Hezbollah itself and arguing that there is a unified decision-making power in the Consultative Council.
The next question is: does it matter that there is a degree of unity at the top, if there are clearly distinct branches that can be separated? It is only fair to record that different countries have taken different approaches to that question. For the Netherlands, as we have heard, it did matter and was conclusive. In its annual report in 2004, its general intelligence and security services stated:
“It can also be concluded that Hezbollah’s political and terrorist wings are controlled by one co-ordinating council. This means that there is indeed a link between these parts of the organisation. The Netherlands has changed its policy and no longer makes a distinction between the political and terrorist Hezbollah branches”.
In fairness, not all countries take that approach. It is not, for example, the approach taken in Australia, where what it refers to as the External Security Organisation of Hezbollah is listed as a terrorist organisation but not Hezbollah as a whole. In the statement explaining their decision, the Australian Government do not seek to argue that they are very distinct organisations. They describe on one hand a
“pragmatic political organisation with deep roots in Lebanese society”
that
“maintain a social welfare network that encompasses education and health services”,
but at the same time include what they describe as “a branch”—the ESO—responsible for
“the planning, coordination and execution of terrorist attacks against Hizballah’s enemies outside of Lebanon”.
Despite the fact that the Australian Government take the view that the ESO is a branch of a bigger organisation, they simply chose to proscribe the branch rather than the whole organisation. So different Governments can come to different views.
As some hon. Members have pointed out, it is relevant to note that under the 2000 Act, the Home Secretary has powers but not a duty to proscribe organisations—it is a “may”, not a “must”. As some have alluded to, one wonders whether there are other considerations at play here, including a desire to keep certain diplomatic channels open and concerns about maintaining stability in Lebanon. In the past, the President of Lebanon has asked the EU and its member countries not to proscribe Hezbollah, describing it as an essential component of Lebanese society. However, in response, the right hon. Member for Enfield North fairly points out that countries that do proscribe the whole group continue to play a diplomatic role in the country—things do not have to end there. So I do not envy the Minister the task he has or the decisions he has to make.
One problem I have raised before in debates on the proscription of terrorist organisations is that the information hon. Members have at their disposal is, I suspect, but a drop in the ocean compared with what is available to the Minister making the decision, and I think that was essentially the point the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) alluded to in his intervention. I wonder whether there may be a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee in scrutinising such decisions and in advising Members more generally.
In conclusion, I congratulate hon. Members on bringing about this debate and on posing serious and difficult questions to the Government. I am sympathetic to the case they make, and I await the Minister’s response with interest, because it is fair to say that, so far, there has not been a coherent counter-argument.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
First, I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the application led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) and for allowing these important issues to be brought forward. While nobody in the House would deny the right to peaceful protest, we should of course debate in the House when offence and distress are caused by public displays, and we should also debate these important issues of proscription. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley North (Ian Austin), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for their contributions to the debate.
I want to deal with the issue of the displaying of Hezbollah flags, which, at least in the short term, is what led to this debate. Let me say at the outset that Labour Members unequivocally condemn support for violence and acts of terrorism, the likes of which have been described in the Chamber today. We are grateful to the police and to our security services for the work they do daily in keeping us all safe.
Many Members have spoken about the current position regarding proscription. It is of course correct that, in March 2001, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation —part of the military wing—was proscribed. In July 2008, that was extended to the whole military wing, including the Jihad Council. The then Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty—a former Member of this House—said in the House on 15 July 2008 that the proscription of Hezbollah’s military wing would not affect the role it played in Lebanon, but it would send out
“a clear message that we condemn Hezbollah’s violence and support for terrorism.” —[Official Report, 15 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 195.]
It is, of course, the case today that Hezbollah forms part of the Parliament and the Government of Lebanon.
More recently, in December of last year, the Security Minister said: “Those organisations”—this includes Hezbollah—
“are not proscribed in their entirety. Their military wings are proscribed, but as Hezbollah forms part of the Government in Lebanon…the proscription applies only to the military wing.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 1008.]
It is for the Government to keep under review the organisations they proscribe. These are always careful decisions, and clearly, in difficult and volatile situations, there has to be a balance between making absolutely clear our abhorrence at the use of violence to achieve political ends and, at the same time, seeking to facilitate and encourage solutions to conflict through participation in the democratic process.
It is for the Government, on the information they have before them—not all of which, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) pointed out, may be in the public domain—to be vigilant in keeping the list of proscribed organisations under review. The statutory test is under the Terrorism Act 2000, and of course, as the Opposition, we will hold the Government to account on their application of the test, as we did just before Christmas in relation to a number of other organisations. I ask the Minister today for the assurance he has previously given that the situation is always kept under review.
I want to turn to the current position on proscription, but I want first to make an aside, if I may, because it is important. An internal document containing the position of those on the Labour Front Bench got into the public domain today. While colleagues may or may not disagree with it, there is an issue, in that the front of the document contains the work email address of a member of my staff. Before I came into the Chamber today, he had already received an email, as if he personally was responsible for the position of the entire Labour Front Bench, which clearly is not the case. I ask the organisations that are displaying that document on the internet and elsewhere to remove the work email address of my member of staff, so that he does not receive any more emails. It is for us in this House, not our staff, to take responsibility for our positions, and our staff do an excellent job for us.
For the displaying of a Hezbollah flag to be an offence under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000—I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) about that—it is correct that it has to be in support of the proscribed elements of the group. However, that does not mean that nothing can be done. I have not read the QC’s advice to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I would be interested in a dialogue with either the Metropolitan police or other police forces from around the country on this matter. Law enforcement agencies on the ground judge the context and circumstances in which the flag is flown, but that of course relates to the 2000 Act. There are other, wider criminal offences in respect of public order, displays that cause harassment, alarm and distress, and incitement, all of which can be enforced on the streets of our country.
Ian Austin
My hon. Friend is completely right to say that his member of staff’s email address should not be displayed on the internet. I imagine that he is referring to the brief.
Ian Austin
My hon. Friend is completely right about that, but I am concerned about some of its contents. Given that he has mentioned the document, why does it not mention Hezbollah’s anti-Semitism? Why does it suggest that Hezbollah could be a partner for peace when it is absolutely clear that it has no interest at all in the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will make two points to my hon. Friend. First, when briefings are prepared, they tend to focus on the narrow issue of the debate, but let me be clear that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. Secondly, with regard to peace going forward, we have to be careful about closing off diplomatic channels. For example, I was interested to read the comments made by former Prime Minister Tony Blair about Hamas only a few months ago. He was talking about the boycott of Hamas after the Palestinian elections of 2006 and said:
“In retrospect I think we should have, right at the very beginning, tried to pull”
Hamas
“into a dialogue and shifted their positions. I think that’s where I would be in retrospect.”
While I do not for a moment underplay the terrible violent acts, we should be careful about our maintenance of engagement in these difficult conflicts around the world.
Zac Goldsmith
Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of when not proscribing the whole of Hezbollah has in any way facilitated a move towards peace—just one example?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To ask about what would have happened had the whole organisation been proscribed is clearly counterfactual. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is entirely hypothetical.
Theresa Villiers
Hezbollah is a violent, genocidal terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel, and I challenge the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to support the calls that have come from both sides of the House today to proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Nobody supports terrible, violent, barbaric acts; we simply look at the situation as it is and try to strike a balance. I have already set out—[Interruption.] I will deal with the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) in a moment. I have already set out that I would be happy to speak to police forces around the country about using the powers that they have at the moment.
The Opposition absolutely condemn the violence, and we continue to support the proscription of the military wing of Hezbollah, which has been the Government’s position. We believe that engagement with the Government and Parliament of Lebanon is important for the wider middle east peace process, and we should be careful about damaging that engagement, but it is of course a question of balance.
Mr David Jones
It was, of course, a Labour Government in 2008 who drew the distinction between the military and political wings of Hezbollah. Everyone who has spoken in this debate today regards that as nonsense and fiction. What is the position of the Labour Front-Bench team?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have heard a number of speakers make the point about the links. I simply observe that their activities are distinct—the activities of violence, which we absolutely condemn, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, engagement with the democratic process. Labour Members have supported the balance that the Government are striking, which is not to say that I am not sensitive to the views I have heard from both sides of the Chamber. I respect those views.
When analysing the difficult and important matters of proscription, the balance as it stands, which we support, is proscription of the military wing. That should not at this stage be extended to the political wing, for the reasons I have set out.
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I congratulate hon. and right hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), on securing this debate and raising this important issue.
The Government are proud to be a friend of Israel, and we are proud to support working with Israel. No Conservative Member, and no one in this House, supports the use of terrorism or violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and I have often been on the wrong side of terrorist attacks. I have first-hand experience of violence, intimidation and terrorism, and no one more than me wants to see people who use violence to progress their beliefs being stopped, prosecuted and put away, or driven out of this country at the bare minimum.
Perhaps I should start by reassuring hon. Members that the Government are determined to do all we can to minimise the terrorist threat to the United Kingdom and to our interests and friends abroad, and to disrupt those who engage in terrorism. Proscription is an important, but not the only, part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the activities of terrorist groups and those who provide support to them.
As many Members have said today, Hezbollah was established during the Lebanese civil war and in the aftermath of the Israeli incursion into Lebanon in 1982. From the outset, resistance to Israel has been an important part of Hezbollah’s agenda. However, Hezbollah also represents Lebanon’s Shi’a community and, over time, has gained significant support from that community. Hezbollah provides social and political functions in Lebanon. As a major political group and the largest non-state military force in the country, Hezbollah clearly plays an important role in Lebanon.
The UK Government have long held the view that elements of Hezbollah have been involved in conducting and supporting terrorism and, as a result, proscribed Hezbollah’s External Security Organisation in 2001. Not only did I listen but I heeded many of the comments made today about Hezbollah’s statements and beliefs, which are outrageous, disgusting and should be condemned at every opportunity. Hezbollah is anti-Semitic and wishes the destruction of our ally and friend, the state of Israel. We support none of that.
In 2008, in recognition of more such activity, proscription was extended to include the whole of Hezbollah’s military apparatus, namely the Jihad Council and all the units reporting to it. Hezbollah’s military wing is also designated in the UK under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010. Funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled by Hezbollah’s military wing in the UK therefore can be, and will be, frozen. In July 2012, the EU designated Hezbollah’s military wing a terrorist organisation under the EU asset freezing regime.
Although the proscription of Hezbollah in its entirety is kept under review, our current position maintains a balance. I have heard from many Members today that Hezbollah’s military and political wings are indivisible, joined at the hip and centrally led. That is not, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) pointed out, the view of every country. Australia, New Zealand and the EU take a different view. I pledge to the House that we constantly monitor these groups and individuals involved in them. We constantly review the use of proscription as a means to take action where we see fit.
I wish to reassure hon. Members. It has sort of been implied that Ministers pick who to proscribe off the top of their head and that we ignore our security services, the police and the military. Colonel Richard Kemp is often quoted. Ministers do not make up proscription decisions over a cup of coffee. We make them on the recommendations submitted to us by our law enforcement agencies, security services here and intelligence services overseas, and we make a judgment.
Mr David Jones
My right hon. Friend says that it is not the view of every country and every security service that Hezbollah is indivisible. Is not his difficulty that it is Hezbollah’s own view that it is indivisible, and considers itself a single organisation?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, but he must recognise that it is difficult to separate Hezbollah from the state of Lebanon. Hezbollah is in the Parliament and the Government, and that represents a different challenge from that which we find with many other terrorist groups.
Ian Austin
The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), dealt eloquently with the point about Hezbollah being a single organisation. As the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) has said, Hezbollah’s political affairs official, Ammar Moussawi, stated:
“Everyone is aware of the fact that Hezbollah is one body and one entity. Its military and political wings are unified.”
That is what they are saying; it is not what we are saying. That is the point that the Government should consider.
Mr Wallace
With all due respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. I visited Lebanon in June last year to meet the Government, the Lebanese armed forces and other agencies, including the United Nations, to discuss the future of Lebanon and the United Kingdom assistance to it. I disagree with that view about engaging with the Lebanese Government and what barriers could or could not be removed to that.
Zac Goldsmith
I have a simple question: does the Minister believe that the United States has any difficulty engaging in dialogue with Lebanon, given that it has taken the view, as the House has clearly done today, that both parts of Hezbollah are one and the same—that there is no division?
Mr Wallace
The United States finds it harder to engage with Lebanon than does the United Kingdom. I visited the United States embassy when I was in Beirut and spent time at the memorial to the US Marines killed there. The United States does not take these things lightly. It does what it can in Lebanon to secure it as a strong state. It has proscribed Hezbollah in its entirety for some time. As we heard from Opposition Members, that has not prevented Hezbollah from growing exponentially—it has not been a silver bullet and it has not stopped Hezbollah behaving as it has. That is why I made the point earlier that proscription is only one tool in dealing with terrorism, hatred and incitement.
Mr Wallace
No. I should press on before giving way.
The Government do not condone any terrorist activity and we continue to press Hezbollah to end its status as an armed group and to participate in the Lebanese democratic process on the same terms as other political parties. As hon. Members will be aware, groups that are not included on lists of proscribed organisations are not free to spread hate, fund terrorist activity or incite violence as they please. Not being proscribed does not mean that groups can do lots of things that we would view as illegal.
Mr Wallace
I am not going to speak on behalf of protestors walking down Oxford Street whom I have never met. I listened to the points my hon. Friend made earlier about frustrations with the police taking action, and what I will say is that the police already have comprehensive powers to take action against individuals under criminal law, regardless of whether an organisation is proscribed. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) also made that point from the Opposition Front Bench.
Whether it is part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, or part 3 itself, which is about racial hatred, that Act gives police the powers to prosecute people. It is perfectly possible for someone to stand up with a national flag and incite hatred or religious hatred, and to then find themselves prosecuted for and convicted of a criminal offence. Not proscribing Hezbollah in no way prevents the police or the Crown Prosecution Service from taking action against that type of incitement. I certainly hope that the CPS and the police listen to the concerns expressed by Members today—I shall certainly raise those concerns when I next see them.
I heard the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) that not proscribing Hezbollah somehow hinders our police; it absolutely does not. Those people might be involved in drug dealing or money laundering. I was previously Minister for Security; I am now Minister for Security and Economic Crime. There is a plethora of offences on the statute book and powers that we can use to weaken Hezbollah and prevent it from doing things that are illegal either in the criminal space or in ways that go against our national security. This does not hinder the police in the way being alluded to, which is that without the proscription of the other half, this country will somehow be unable to protect its citizens and its interests from Hezbollah’s actions.
Jim Shannon
I am reminded of the analogy of the Siamese twins. The two twins are the Hezbollah of politics and the Hezbollah of armed insurrection and guerrilla warfare. The blood that flows through one flows through the other. We are suggesting to the Minister, very gently—perhaps very forcefully—that we need Hezbollah to be proscribed because by doing so we will take away their money and resources and their moral and political livelihood. If we do that, we can stop the killing. That has to be the way forward.
Mr Wallace
With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, we take action against Hezbollah and non-Hezbollah actors where they are involved in criminality and when the intelligence or evidence is provided for us to be able to take action, and we do so across a whole range of issues. It is not the case that because the political wing is not proscribed, we sit back and do nothing about it. We do everything we can when evidence is presented. The worrying thing about the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) is that people have presented evidence to the police, or sat down with them and told them about some of those statements about Grenfell Tower, but no action has been taken. I think that everyone in the House would urge the CPS and the police to use the range of powers at their disposal to take action and not tolerate such horrendous statements and incitements.
Mrs Ellman
I gave examples of hate speech on our streets, but it appears that the police are reluctant or unable to take any action against it. Does the Minister not agree that that is appalling? Also, does he not agree that had Hezbollah been proscribed, the people on that march waving flags would simply not have been allowed to go ahead with their hate speech and incitement?
Mr Wallace
On the hon. Lady’s first point, it is not acceptable if the police or CPS do not take action when there are offences that would allow them to do so. It is not always that they are not able; it may be a choice that they have made, either because of resources—we can debate that—or perhaps because they have found that, for the public good, they could do something about it later. I stood on the Falls Road for many months of my life watching paramilitary flags go past. When I was a soldier on those streets, we had the power to do something, but, perhaps for the good of the public order, the view was that we should not do anything about it. I do not know about the individual motives of the people on the march the hon. Lady mentions or of the police on that day, but it is not the case that they do not have the power to do something. This House has given them the powers, year on year, over many decades, to take action.
I think that we all feel, especially in this social media age, in which we are often inundated by hate and intimidation, whether on Twitter or in emails, that there is a broader debate about how we can deal with and prosecute hate and extremism in this country. Unfortunately, from my point of view it seems to be on an upward rather than downward curve among some groups of people in society.
Political parties of all colours need to send very strong messages to supporters, allies or over-excited individuals who seek to take our parties’ names and use them alongside hatred, anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobic comment. All that is unacceptable. We should not forget though that we need to encourage our police and CPS to take action and to set an example with regard to some of these plans. As I have said, the Government continue to exercise proscription power in a proportionate manner in accordance with the law, and we will continue to monitor groups and people of concern.
Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power to the Home Secretary to proscribe the organisation if she believes that it is concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that
“an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in an act of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”
If the test is met, the Secretary of State must then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, she is also guided by the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities, the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom, the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas, the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her powers to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. For an individual to be proscribed, the police and Crown Prosecution Service must have evidence to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt that the context and manner for which the flag is displayed, for example, aroused reasonable suspicion that the individual is specifically a member, or a supporter, of that proscribed group and elements of a wider group.
Peaceful protest is a vital part of our democratic society. It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their views, however uncomfortable or repugnant those can be to the majority of us, but they must do so within the law. There is of course a balance to be struck. Protesters’ rights need to be balanced with the rights of others to go about their business without fear of intimidation or serious disruption to the community. Rights to peaceful protest do not extend to violent or threatening behaviour, and the police have powers to deal with as many such acts, as I have said.
The management of protest is of course a matter left to the police. As I said earlier, the investigation and prosecution of all criminal offences is a matter for the CPS and the police. I will happily push to the organisations —the police and the CPS—the messages that I have heard from the House today to make sure that they step up their efforts in this area.
Zac Goldsmith
I thank the Minister for giving way again. The Government have their reasons—I cannot understand them, but they have their reasons—for not wanting to proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety. Will he not accept that maintaining this pretence that there is a division between the two branches of Hezbollah reflects very badly on this place and very badly on the Government? It looks like weakness and it is embarrassing.
Mr Wallace
I hear what my hon. Friend is saying. There are lots of reasons, but perhaps I can offer the House one reason. Members may not agree with it, but it is one that I felt at first hand when I was in Lebanon on behalf of the Government. We believe that the best way to weaken Hezbollah in the region and further afield is to have a strong state of Lebanon. The stronger the state of Lebanon, which represents multi-faith groups, has a democracy and Speakers of Parliament and recognises the individual religious minorities in the country, the weaker Hezbollah will be. It is not in our interests to have a weak, fractured Lebanon.
We should not forget that Hezbollah’s birth and strengths started in the civil war of Lebanon, when Lebanese were killing Lebanese, Druze were killing Muslims, and Muslims were killing Christians. We think that the way to ensure that Hezbollah is contained and persuaded to follow the course of peace—I listened to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) who may or may not believe this and many of us may agree with him—is to have a strong state of Lebanon. That is in our interests.
The British Government assist with aid, help to train the Lebanese army, so that it can defend the state, and encourage Ministers of all faiths in that Government who believe in Lebanon, rather than in a non-military actor or an overburdened group of one minority or another. That is one logical reason why I believe we have to take some of these difficult decisions and find a balance.
When one visits Lebanon and meets the Ministers struggling to survive in a rough neighbourhood, trying to build a nation state and living with a shadow over their shoulder, as we have discussed, one realises that their best defence is a strong and capable state of Lebanon, with all its safeguards and its constitution. They would be worse off, the region would be worse off and we would be worse off if that state was weakened by a fractious civil war.
Dr Offord
That is all very well about Lebanon, but my concern is the constituents of Hendon, when they cannot go into central London and the police are overstretched, when they are spat at and called Nazis and when people are vile and anti-Semitic towards them. My concern is the people of Hendon—the people of this country.
Mr Wallace
I have listened to my hon. Friend. First, the people of this country will not be better off with an even more fractious, divided and murderous middle east. Secondly, he will know that many of the things he has just mentioned are already criminal offences and can be prosecuted.
Mr Wallace
Well, as I said earlier, that is a matter for the police, if people are spitting and inciting hatred. In this country, we have operational independence between Ministers and the police. We can talk about whether we are giving them the right resources—we regularly do across the Dispatch Boxes—but fundamentally what will protect my hon. Friend’s constituents, whether they are Christian, Jewish or Muslim, is for Parliament to give our law enforcement and security organisations powers and to fund them, so that they can use those powers to keep us safe by dealing with the threat based on intelligence, as we receive it, and ensuring that we deradicalise people who might be attracted to hate.
If my hon. Friend’s constituents are being abused, that is not a failure of the Government; it is a question to ask the police. We will help him ensure that the police deal with that, but I have to say that it is not because of the partial proscription or de-proscription of Hezbollah. He must understand—I am sure that he does—that a stable middle east is the best way to provide long-term peace for Europe and the United Kingdom. We do not want an unstable middle east at all.
I have listened to the debate and heed the very valid points that have been made by Members on both sides of the House. My commitment as Security Minister is to continue to keep groups such as Hezbollah under review. We will continue to talk to our friends and allies in the region and around the world, but we will fundamentally focus on what we need to do to keep the United Kingdom safe, for the short and long term. I will certainly do my best to encourage the police, other political parties and all our supporters and friends to ensure that hate is not tolerated, no matter who it is aimed at.
Joan Ryan
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for accompanying me to the Committee to apply for it. For contributing today, I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and the hon. Member for Strangford. Their powerful contributions have been much appreciated.
I draw attention to the fact that not a single Back-Bench Member who has spoken or intervened today has opposed the motion, which I think speaks volumes about where the House is on the matter. The public agree with us. As the hon. Member for Hendon said, a ComRes poll reported today shows that 81% of the public also believe that Hezbollah should be proscribed in its entirety.
The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), said that he is sympathetic to the motion. We welcome that sympathy and hope that it will turn into something a little more forceful policy-wise.
I very much hope to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who speaks from the Labour Front Bench, that proscribing Hezbollah in its entirety is the right thing to do. I hope to have further discussions with him on this. However, I appreciate the tone that he took in the debate.
The havoc, death and destruction that Hezbollah has caused in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Israel—indeed, across the middle east—as well as in Nigeria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Argentina, Thailand and other places have been outlined today, to our horror. What about the streets of London? The CST has made it clear that the domestic consequences of the artificial division with regard to Hezbollah has consequences here: a policy is pursued that allows public support for a terrorist and anti-Semitic organisation.
The argument the Minister made is a little tortuous. The US, Canada and others proscribe Hezbollah and still manage to talk to it. No peace has been forthcoming from Hezbollah, despite not proscribing it. We are giving moral, political and social authority to Hezbollah by not proscribing it in its entirety. Hezbollah itself does not agree with the Government. The Government should look again at their position. Keeping this under review is not adequate. They are wrong.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation driven by an antisemitic ideology that seeks the destruction of Israel; notes that Hezbollah declares itself to be one organisation without distinguishable political or military wings; is concerned that the military wing of that organisation is proscribed, but its political wing is not; and calls on the Government to include Hezbollah in its entirety on the list of proscribed organisations.
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The borough of Sandwell is a place that can be very proud of its identity. It is full of rich industrial heritage, with a network of historic towns, and full of many decent, hard-working people from very many diverse backgrounds. Unfortunately, however, in recent times, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council has become synonymous with local government incompetence, corruption, and cronyism. Frankly, it has become a stain on the reputation of the area. As a local Member of Parliament with a proportion of my constituency within Sandwell, I am only too familiar, when out on the doorstep in Rowley Regis, with local residents’ concerns, anger and disillusionment regarding Sandwell Council.
Too often, politicians of different parties can make cheap political points out of their opponents, but the issues facing Sandwell Council go way beyond that. This calls into question the abuse of power by individual councillors and officers, a manipulation of processes, and a culture of fear and bullying among those who work for and sit on the authority.
John Spellar
Oh—we have quite a bit of time. If the constituents whom the hon. Gentleman encounters in Rowley Regis, part of the borough that I live in, are so disillusioned with Labour, why is every one of their council representatives Labour, and with substantial majorities? That is the real test of public opinion, is it not?
James Morris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. No, I do not think that that is the test of public opinion. In the borough of Sandwell, different groups and even members of his own party are becoming increasingly aware of the depth of corruption, lack of accountability and failed leadership within Sandwell council, which I will come on to speak about in more detail.
I thought long and hard about calling this debate mainly because, as a democrat, I had hoped that our institutions would now have stepped in and something would have been done to ensure that the people of Sandwell could have faith once again in their local authority. However, despite the years of police referrals, public speculation, leaks and serious allegations, nothing has changed and, unfortunately, I have lost faith in anything being done soon.
While all this has dominated the minds and actions of so many in Sandwell, its political leadership have ignored the very important work they should be doing, which is running public services. For example, the children’s services department has been failing for years, letting down some of the most vulnerable citizens in the borough, and it has received damning Ofsted inspection reports. While councillors have been fighting each other, children have been left in a broken system, and they often do not receive the help they need.
In this debate, I want it placed on the public record that the people of Sandwell have had enough: they want change and they want it now. They want an end to the ever flowing supply of newspaper cuttings and headlines about local councillors and officers embroiled in scandal. When I was first elected as the Member of Parliament for Halesowen and Rowley Regis in 2010, I had fairly good and constructive relations with the local authority. Despite the fact that the authority was dominated then, as it is now, by the Labour party, the authority seemed to have been run properly. It did not take long for this to start to unravel.
The late Darren Cooper was elected leader of the council following the arrest of the former leader for theft. I feel uneasy when speaking ill of the dead, but following the death of Darren Cooper, a vacuum was created within Sandwell Council that seemed to lift the lid on much of what had been going on, and I find it very difficult to believe that he did not know and was not involved.
Following serious allegations against of a number of councillors, a report was commissioned by Wragge and Co., which is now known as Gowling WLG. The report was never meant to see the light of day. It primarily looked at the allegations surrounding Councillor Mahboob Hussain, then the deputy leader, including selling council land cheaply, cancelling parking tickets for family members and bullying. The public and private squabbling to ensure that these reports were kept private was damaging to the reputation of the authority, councillors and officials. It was embarrassing, and further emphasised the feeling of a cover-up.
Despite the fact that these allegations have been in the public domain for several years and that the Wragge report was published in May 2016, it has taken until this month for the council’s standards committee to hold a hearing into them.
The Sandwell Council misconduct hearing found Mahboob Hussain had broken rules—
James Morris
I will not give way again. I made it clear at the start that I would take one intervention from the right hon. Gentleman in the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking from a sedentary position and perhaps he thought he would not be heard, but if he is alleging that another hon. Member is misleading the House, I cannot allow that. Even if he said it from a sedentary position, I would be grateful if he now, from a non-sedentary position, withdrew what he said.
John Spellar
I said I am sure the hon. Gentleman is inadvertently misleading the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification.
James Morris
The Sandwell Council misconduct hearing found that Mahboob Hussain had broken the rules in a sale of public toilets. It said that the councillor “ignored” a £130,000 valuation, and instead sold them for £35,000 to a family friend. Councillor Mahboob Hussain has denied any misconduct, and of course he has the right to defend himself. West Midlands police have said that there is “insufficient detail” to launch a criminal investigation into the breach. However, James Goudie QC, who chaired the hearing, found that the councillor had breached the code of conduct a total of 12 times. He summarised that by saying that Mr Hussain
“compromised the integrity of other council officers by exercising complete control over the action of the sale of the toilet block…The councillor’s actions brought the council into disrepute.”
I am aware that the Wragge report was a contested document, and there are serious questions about its cost and how it was commissioned. As I have said, it was intended never to be made public, and it has reportedly cost the authority about £185,000—a substantial sum of money. Since the publication of the report in 2016, further historical allegations about a number of individuals have come to light. In January last year, an audit report brought to the public’s attention further and more widespread allegations, all of which are in the public arena and have been published on Sandwell Council’s website. Some of them have not been investigated properly, and where wrongdoing has been proved, that has not resulted in any action being taken. I do not take a view about the nature of the allegations; I merely describe them to give the House a perspective on the level of allegations that have been made about the conduct of some councillors in Sandwell Council.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Given the serious questions that have been raised about the disposal of council land in Sandwell, does my hon. Friend agree that the council should also investigate the case of my constituent, Patricia Barlow? Her late mother repeatedly tried to buy a piece of land next to her house, only to find out—after years of asking—that the council had disposed of that land to another business without even notifying her. Should the council look at the price at which that land was sold, and at whether it was all above board?
James Morris
I agree. My hon. Friend is right, and I will come on to describe other allegations that have been made about land sales in Sandwell metropolitan borough. Those allegations include land sales to Councillor Bawa and Councillor Hussain, for which an investigation found potential collusion and fraudulent practice in public office. Only Councillors Bawa and Hussain, and their immediate family members, submitted bids for those plots in September 1999, and those bids gave the impression of potential cover pricing and bid suppression. For one plot, four bids were received, all from Councillor Hussain and members of his family, without any declaration to the council that that was the case. Two plots that were sold in March and April 2000 were sold at a value below the guide price, and contrary to the agreement at the time the scheme was approved.
Councillor Bawa failed to declare his role as a councillor when a planning application was submitted on his behalf in October 2007, and there are concerns about the disposal of a plot of land that was removed from public auction in order to sell it to Councillor Rouf. Potential breaches of the financial regulations and the members’ code of conduct have also been found. Furthermore, a council house was allocated to Councillor Rouf, even though he had just sold a house for £125,000. Even more astonishingly, Sandwell Council spent £200,000 on the demolition of eight terraced houses and the clearing of the site, only for that to be purchased by Councillor Rouf’s son for £65,000. He was then granted planning permission for a seven-bedroom house, where Councillor Rouf now reportedly lives.
Former Councillor Derek Rowley was allegedly involved in the disposal of a number of council-owned containers to a member of the public. The council’s investigators could not look into that because the man in question is no longer a councillor, but it beggars belief that nothing can be done about such serious allegations of misconduct in public office. Another allegation was about former Councillor Rowley’s involvement in the hire of marquees that allegedly involve the ownership of a company that was not declared and had done business directly with Sandwell Council. Again, the council has not been able to do anything about the issue. It has decided to strengthen members’ and officers’ protocols, but—
James Morris
All these allegations have exposed a number of incidents in which Sandwell councillors have apparently crossed the line and exposed flaws in how councillors and officers have behaved.
I come now to the next stage of this saga: the election of Councillor Steve Eling as leader of the Council. When Councillor Eling was elected leader, he said that he wanted to “drain the swamp”. To his credit, he made sure that the Wragge report was published. However, having watched his leadership over time, I am not convinced that anything he has done so far has brought about a new era of transparency or fairness—if anything, he has behaved in a way in which he has used his political power against individuals in the authority.
I am very concerned that the standards and audit committee, for example, has been used in a way that preserves the leader’s position and has deliberately targeted certain individuals. There are currently two standards investigations live within Sandwell Council, but there are serious questions to be asked about the conduct of the standards committee, its composition and the modus operandi being used to investigate two individuals. It is incredible that the council has spent over £7,000 on two QCs to chair a standards hearing against one councillor, while others have been let off scot-free. Far from draining the swamp, Councillor Eling has allowed the swamp to fester.
James Morris
As I made clear to the right hon. Gentleman, I was going to give way to him only once.
The smell of corruption and cover-up is as strong as ever, and I have come to the conclusion that Councillor Eling must resign immediately as leader of Sandwell Council. Someone has to take responsibility for the rottenness at the heart of Sandwell Council. I do not say that lightly.
Probably none of this information would be available today if it were not for the dogged persistence of a few individuals. Although I do not necessarily always approve of the techniques or the language used on the Sandwell Skidder blog, it would be remiss of me not to accept that it has contributed an awful lot to exposing what is going on in Sandwell. Because of the blog’s work, Councillor Eling and his colleague Councillor Marshall tried to enlist the support of the blog’s author, Julian Saunders.
I have drawn the conclusions I have about Councillor Eling’s leadership because of the publication of a series of WhatsApp messages placed on the blog. The contents are absolutely astonishing. The messages are primarily from Councillor Richard Marshall, but came following a meeting with Councillor Eling, who wanted to open a line of communication to the blog. They include Councillors Eling and Marshall asking the blog to give the assistant chief executive a “kicking” and supplying information relating to her personal life. Messages were also sent in respect of the senior officer’s employment, including that she had been sent home to “consider her position”. In another case, information was shared about a senior officer leaving the authority before a public announcement was made. There were also leaks of information concerning a Travellers’ site, messages including sexual remarks relating to other councillors, and transphobic remarks. Those are just a few examples taken from the many reams of messages and communications.
The behaviour of Councillor Richard Marshall, who appears to have been under the direct instruction of Councillor Eling, is below that which is expected of those in public or any other office. Councillor Marshall has also been subject to a bankruptcy order, but continued for a substantial time as a cabinet member. That is an issue in itself, and I should be thankful if the Minister would look into it. I cannot see how an elected official can stay in office after being declared bankrupt.
Almost all these allegations have been reported to the Labour party for it to investigate, but I am told that after nearly four months there has been hardly any movement towards a conclusion. It is incumbent on us all—Members of Parliament, councillors, and members of the public—to ensure that when allegations of wrongdoing are raised with us they are passed on to the correct authorities, and that we do all we can to ensure that those allegations are investigated properly and quickly.
One of my fellow Sandwell MPs, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson)—who is not in the Chamber—is, of course, the deputy leader of the Labour party. Right on his very doorstep, there are allegations of fraud, misconduct in public office, sexism and bullying, and he has hardly breathed a word. Of all the people who would be able to step in, call a halt to the reign of some of these councillors and ensure that allegations are investigated properly, he would be the one.
I think that the hon. Member for West Bromwich East has some questions to answer about why he has remained so quiet.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I must ascertain from the hon. Gentleman whether he gave the hon. Member for West Bromwich East notice that he intended to refer to him during the debate.
James Morris
Over the last few years I have written to the Secretary of State several times about these matters. He has looked into them, and I am grateful for his time. Let me now end my speech by asking the Minister to investigate whether the following actions can be taken.
I should like the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make the strongest intervention possible in respect of the capabilities and governance of Sandwell Council. I should like it to make a series of recommendations which would restore public trust and confidence, and which would be overseen by an independent commissioner. I should like it to look into the behaviour and conduct of both elected and non-elected members of the authority, and I should like those who are found to have behaved inappropriately to be removed from their posts. I should like the Minister to look into the rules relating to councillors and bankruptcy to ensure that those who have been declared bankrupt cannot hold public office, and to strengthen the independence of standards committees by keeping them free from political influence by ensuring that independent members are externally appointed.
There are also many questions to be answered by the local authority, including questions about monitoring officers. Perhaps the Minister could look into that as well, because Sandwell has been through a number of them in the last four years. I should like to know how much the redundancies cost, and whether the use of compromise agreements has been used to gag those people. I understand that such agreements have been used. I should like to understand why, and also why it is so difficult for the authority to keep monitoring officers in post.
What I have said today has, in many respects, probably just scratched the surface. No one will ever know the complete story, and I may well have missed out many things that others will feel needed to be said. I initiated the debate primarily because I felt that it was in the public interest to do so: the public need to know answers, and I will continue to press for the truth to come out. I did so also because I have met and spoken to so many people in Rowley Regis, in Sandwell, and further afield who are gravely concerned. I have spoken to residents, faith leaders, businesses, and others who have given decades of service, including members of the Labour party who were in tears as they spoke to me about the state of political authority and control in the party in Sandwell. They now feel that there is nowhere left for them to turn.
I hope that the Minister has been as disturbed by what he has heard today as many residents of Sandwell are, and I hope that he will be able to intervene in a way that will restore public trust and bring an end to this rotten regime.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot speak in this debate. In order to do so, he would need the permission, sought previously, of the hon. Member whose debate it is and of the Minister, and the Chair would also expect to know, and that is not the situation in which we find ourselves, so I am afraid that it is not in order for the right hon. Gentleman to speak.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) on securing this debate on the governance and capabilities of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, and I am grateful to him for raising awareness of these issues of public concern.
I know Sandwell Council has been on a number of people’s radar for some time, especially since the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) raised concerns during business questions to the Leader of the House on 30 October last year; Madam Deputy Speaker, I can tell you that I have informed the hon. Gentleman that he was to be mentioned in this debate. His concerns focused on alleged inappropriate behaviour of a councillor and cabinet member at Sandwell Council.
I am pleased to have this early opportunity in my new role to discuss local government, standards and councillor conduct. It is vital that local government operates effectively because, as we all know, it is in the frontline, delivering essential services to some of society’s most vulnerable. The conduct of local councils and their councillors has a direct impact on the reputation of an area and of their fellow members. Their ability to lead a community and impact the lives of all those they serve is significant, and it is only right that they are held to a high standard.
I want to emphasise up front that the vast majority of local government functions well. There are many examples of innovative and excellent practice to be found across all types of councils, being led by forward-thinking and dedicated public servants from across the political spectrum. But, as in all walks of life, sometimes things go wrong and help is needed, and when councils do require help or advice, it is the sector that is best placed to assist in the first instance. That support is available from the Local Government Association, for which my Department provides funding.
John Spellar
Would the Minister therefore be interested to know that the LGA did an assessment of Sandwell, as it does of boroughs around the country, which said that Sandwell had strong and stable financial management and a clear intention and track record of protecting frontline services? That is what the Conservative-dominated LGA said.
Rishi Sunak
I am about to come on to the most recent local government peer inspection.
The £21 million of funding that the Department has provided has supported training and guidance for members and officers, policy briefings and a programme of external peer challenges.
I will now address each of the points my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis has asked me to respond to. First, on the question of intervention at Sandwell Council, it is important that I take this opportunity to stress that the decision to intervene in a local authority and remove control from those who have been democratically elected is very serious. Only as a last resort would the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government use his powers of intervention, and only where there is comprehensive evidence of extremely serious and widespread systemic failings in a council. Statutory interventions are rare: the powers have been used only twice in the last five years and only six times in the last 15 years.
I am aware of the allegations that my hon. Friend has outlined today, and of the fact that Sandwell Council has been the subject of extremely negative press coverage that has no doubt undermined public confidence locally and raised serious questions about conduct. I am also aware that, in response, Sandwell Council has recently invited a Local Government Association external peer challenge, which was conducted last week with a team led by the chief executive of Sefton Council. The peer challenge team is due to report back to the council formally within the next week or so. I have every confidence that it will have looked forensically at the council’s strengths and weaknesses and that it will provide clear feedback and robust recommendations. I will be particularly keen to review the team’s conclusions and recommendations, and I am urging Sandwell Council to share them with me at the earliest possible opportunity. I would expect the council to take the results of the external challenge very seriously and to take all action required as a result.
I want specifically to address the points raised about councillor conduct, standards and governance. The Localism Act 2011 provides a broad framework for local authority standards, allowing local authorities to tailor their arrangements to meet local circumstances. The Act requires relevant authorities to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of the authority. Each local authority must publish a code of conduct that is consistent with the Nolan principles of standards in public life and that covers the registration of pecuniary interests.
Authorities must make arrangements to investigate allegations of failure to comply with their code of conduct, and in many cases councils have standards committees to undertake that role. If a councillor breaches the code, they can be censured and any portfolio responsibilities or memberships of outside bodies can be removed. The council must consult an independent person before making a decision on a breach of its code of conduct. It is vital that that independence is genuine, so that it can provide proper oversight and good governance. The independent person must therefore be among the electorate; have no political affiliation; have no current or previous association with the council; and have no friends or family members associated with the council. Last week, Sandwell Council recruited and appointed an additional independent person for its ethical standards and member development committee, which is now at its full complement with three independent members and eight councillors. I would of course expect those councillors to take seriously their responsibility to hold their peers to account and provide democratic accountability.
It is also a statutory requirement for all councils to have a monitoring officer to ensure that the council operates within the law. The monitoring officer’s duty is to investigate concerns about conduct, and they are ultimately responsible for ensuring the genuine independence of members of standards committees. I expect monitoring officers to live up to those responsibilities with the utmost seriousness. A new monitoring officer has been in post at Sandwell since September, and I hope that we will continue to see a change in the council’s ability to get to grips with the long-standing standards issues that have been generating negative attention. I understand that some progress is now being made, albeit somewhat belatedly, on two of the long-standing allegations involving the disposal of council property. As we are aware, there are further allegations that are the subject of a police investigation, so my hon. Friend will obviously understand that I cannot comment further on them. I would encourage the monitoring officer to continue his work in transparently dealing with complaints and allegations and acting without fear or favour.
My hon. Friend asked about the rules on councillors and bankruptcy. I can tell him that the existing legislation is clear that any individual who is subject to bankruptcy orders is disqualified from standing as, or holding office as, a member of a local authority. As part of local openness and accountability, it is right that the disqualification ceases only when the individual has paid his debt in full. I wholeheartedly agree with the principle that it is important that elected members are held to high standards of conduct in public office. If there are allegations that this law has not been complied with, as has been suggested, I would urge the monitoring officer to investigate.
The LGA peer challenge and the sharper focus that the council is giving to standards and conduct are important steps in addressing the issues that the council faces. As my hon. Friend has highlighted, however, it is undeniable that Sandwell has had other significant challenges to address in recent years. Since 2010, the council has received attention in relation to its children’s services, with four “inadequate” Ofsted ratings. An independent report concluded that the council did not, on its own, have the capability or capacity to improve children’s services. That led the Department for Education to issue a statutory direction in January 2016, requiring the council to work with an appointed commissioner for children’s services and develop a children’s trust. I hope that the council will work closely with the children’s commissioner, Malcolm Newsam, and the Department for Education to agree detailed proposals about how the trust will work. The Government are committed to working together to make sure that children and families in Sandwell receive the best possible care and support through the new trust.
In conclusion, as my hon. Friend will be aware, local government is independent of central Government—a principle enshrined in the Localism Act 2011. Through elected councillors—and, where applicable, Mayors—councils are accountable to the communities that they serve, through the ultimate sanction of the ballot box.
Rishi Sunak
No; I am getting to the end of my remarks. It is clear that Sandwell has had sharp challenges, and the issues that have been highlighted today raise serious concerns, but I am pleased to see that the council has invited external challenge. It is important that the council develops its corporate governance and capabilities, and that the drive for improvement is sustained. I hope that those responsible have taken note of our words.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Minister is not giving way. The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) is normally an extremely well-behaved Member of this House, and I hope that he will revert to that within the next few seconds.
Rishi Sunak
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis that I will continue to take a very close interest in the situation, including the outcome of the Local Government Association peer challenge and the steps that Sandwell Council takes to respond to it. I commend my hon. Friend for raising awareness of these concerns on behalf of his constituents. It is absolutely right for him and his constituents to expect and demand high standards of conduct from their local representatives. For our system of local accountability to work, it is important that issues are dealt with swiftly, transparently and rigorously. In the first instance, it is vital that we shine a light on areas of concern. That is exactly what he has done today, and I commend him for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018
Draft Investigatory Powers (Technical Capability) Regulations 2018
Draft Investigatory Powers (Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2018
Draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Investigatory Powers (Technical Capability) Regulations 2018, the draft Investigatory Powers (Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2018 and the draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice) Regulations 2018.
Mr Wallace
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am pleased to be given the opportunity to debate these important regulations, which are being made under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The Act passed with strong support from Members on both sides of the House of Commons and received Royal Assent in November 2016, following unprecedented parliamentary scrutiny.
That legislation brings together the powers available to our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It ensures that those powers and the safeguards that apply to them are clear and understandable, and it radically overhauls how the powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a double lock for the most intrusive powers so that they cannot be used until the decision to do so has been approved by a judge. It has also created a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner—a post held by Lord Justice Fulford—to oversee how the powers are used.
Let me be clear: the powers in the Act are absolutely crucial to our national security and the safety of our citizens. They make sure that our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies are equipped to carry out their critical work of protecting the public and ensuring that terrorists, paedophiles and other perpetrators of serious crimes can be brought to justice. In the light of the horrifying attacks in this country in the past year, making sure that our agencies maintain the powers that they need is more important than ever.
The regulations are all intrinsically linked to the implementation of the Act. They do not create any new powers; rather, they enable a number of the Act’s provisions to be exercised and set out further details of how certain powers will be used. Collectively, they also create additional safeguards about the use of the powers, building on those set out in the primary legislation.
We will debate four sets of regulations. First, the draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice) Regulations 2018 bring into force five codes of practice covering a number of vital provisions under the Act. The codes relate to the interception of communications, equipment interference, the bulk acquisition of communications data, national security notices and the intelligence services’ retention and use of bulk personal datasets. Each of the five codes sets out processes and safeguards governing the use of the investigatory powers to which they relate. They give detail on how the relevant powers should be used, including examples of best practice. They provide additional clarity and ensure that the highest standards of professionalism and compliance with this vital legislation are adhered to.
The codes are primarily intended to guide the public authorities that can exercise powers under the Act, as well as communications service providers that might be required to provide assistance in giving effect to its provisions. The codes provide information on the process associated with applying to use each of the powers, as well as the safeguards and oversight arrangements that will ensure that the powers are used in the intended manner. The codes are detailed and comprehensive, together with more than 400 pages of guidance and best practice, ensuring that the use of these important powers is subject to the most stringent safeguards.
Secondly, the draft Investigatory Powers (Technical Capability) Regulations 2018 set out the obligation that may be imposed on a telecommunications or postal operator in a technical capability notice. The purpose of such a notice is to ensure that when a warrant or authorisation is served on or given to an operator, that company has the capability to provide assistance, giving effect to it securely and quickly.
As part of maintaining a technical capability, the Act specifies that a telecommunications operator may be required to maintain the capability to remove encryption from communications that it has applied or that has been applied on its behalf. The regulations do not change that position and simply make it clear that such an obligation could be included in a technical capability notice when necessary and proportionate.
The Act sets out robust safeguards on the use of technical capability notices. Such a notice may be given by the Secretary of State only where necessary and proportionate, having taken into account a number of factors such as technical feasibility and cost, and having consulted with the operator to which a notice is to be given. The decision of the Secretary of State to give a notice must be approved by a judicial commissioner.
Thirdly, the draft Investigatory Powers (Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2018 are fundamentally linked to the technical capability regulations. The Act provides for the important safeguard that a telecommunications operator in receipt of a technical capability notice, a national security notice or a data retention notice may seek a review of that notice by the Secretary of State. In conducting such a review, the Secretary of State must consult the Technical Advisory Board—a non-departmental public body—as to the technical feasibility and cost of the notice. These regulations set out the circumstances in which a review may take place and how the board must be constituted.
The final set of regulations is the draft Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018. The Act provides that it is a criminal offence to intercept communications in the absence of lawful authority. It also makes clear that lawful authority includes interception by businesses or other bodies where it is legitimate practice. The regulations set out what conduct that includes, and simply ensure that companies can undertake routine activities without falling foul of the offence of unlawful interception. Such activities might include, for example, call centres recording telephone calls for training purposes or companies scanning their computer networks to detect cyber-attacks.
In summary, the regulations give effect to provisions already set out in primary legislation that is fundamental to our national security. The regulations make clear how a number of provisions in that Act will operate, and establish additional safeguards to the already rigorous controls set out in the primary legislation.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.
I will make a few general remarks and then deal with the regulations in the same order as the Minister, for the convenience of the Committee. I pay tribute to the work done on the Investigatory Powers Bill during its passage through Parliament, particular that of my predecessors in the shadow Home Office team, who sought reassurances and changes, and that of my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Torfaen, the now Lord Murphy, who chaired the cross-party Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, which considered it in detail and suggested a number of changes.
Turning to the draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice) Regulations 2018, the Opposition believe that strong powers should always be accompanied by strong safeguards. The regulations bring into practice five specific codes under paragraph 1(1) of schedule 7 to the Investigatory Powers Act, dealing with the matters of bulk acquisition of communications data, equipment interference, interception of communications, national security notices, and the intelligence services’ retention and use of bulk personal datasets. The Opposition believe that in the context and framework of the Act the codes of practice are important, and we do not oppose bringing them into effect. As the Minister has already set out, clarity, best practice and compliance with them across the board is extremely important, and I hope those codes will have that effect.
Secondly, the draft Investigatory Powers (Technical Capability) Regulations 2018, set out the obligations that may be contained in a technical capability notice given by the Secretary of State under the Act. Clearly, for the Act’s provisions to work, relevant operators—defined as a postal operator or a telecommunications operator—have to have technical capability, and a technical capability notice imposes obligations to ensure that those bodies have the ability to provide assistance regarding warrants and authorisation. The regulations clearly set out the obligations that can be placed in notices, and telecommunications operators that provide only banking, insurance, investment or other financial services are excluded. There is also a requirement that certain obligations apply only to operators providing a service to more than 10,000 customers. We believe that those limitations are sensible. We also believe in the importance of necessity and proportionality, to which the Minister has already referred. Therefore, on that basis, the Opposition will not oppose the regulations.
Thirdly, the draft Investigatory Powers (Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2018 apply where a data retention notice has been issued and the body concerned wishes to review any part of it as unreasonable. In those circumstances, it can be referred to the Secretary of State for review, but he or she has to consult the Technical Advisory Board. That referral has to be within 28 days, starting from either when the notice was given, or when a particular variation was made. The Technical Advisory Board has to consider the technical requirements and financial consequences of the notice for the person making the reference.
The regulations are also clear in terms of the composition of the Technical Advisory Board. There has to be a minimum of 13 members and a maximum of 15. Six must represent the interests of the operators, on whom obligations can be imposed by a retention notice, a national security notice or a technical security notice. The board has to have at least one and a maximum of three members who are independent, not representing either those on whom the obligations can be imposed or those who can apply for warrants and authorisation. Again, the Opposition believe that the regulations seem to constitute useful safeguards in the context of the Act, and we will not oppose them.
The fourth and final set of regulations is the draft Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018. Section 3 of the Act creates an offence of intentionally intercepting a communication during transition by a telecommunication system without lawful authority. The regulations set out the conduct that can be authorised: it has to be for one of the purposes set out in the regulation, and it has to be done by or with the express consent of someone who has the right to control the operation or use of the telecommunication system in question. There are also further restrictions in the regulations. We believe that that framework, with intentional interception being illegal save in the prescribed circumstances, provides a very sensible balance. Again, the Opposition will not oppose the regulations.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. We all agree that we must give our intelligence, security and police services the tools needed to fight serious crime and terrorism, and I pay tribute to the amazing work they do day in, day out on our behalf. However, it is also vital that any new powers are proportionate, focused and in accordance with the law.
The Investigatory Powers Bill—I sat on the Joint Committee to which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Torfaen, referred—contained some important and welcome developments, including those set out by the Minister. It consolidated and, in some places, clarified existing law and introduced new oversight procedures. Despite what the Minister says, it was also a very controversial piece of legislation, and there were many important debates on where the balance lies between empowering security and intelligence services and protecting individual liberties and privacy.
My party had huge issues with the developments regarding the bulk powers contained in the Bill and, of course, with new powers regarding internet connection records. Ultimately, we voted against the Bill. Whether one supported or opposed the Bill, we can all agree that such debates are not only difficult and important, but very complex and technical. I think that the debate should continue.
Excepting the draft Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018, we have concerns about the scope of some of the regulations, which outline practice in relation to some of the powers we objected to during debates on the Bill. For example, industry has raised concerns with us about the scope of the technical capability notices that might be issued. Arguably, they contain new and slightly broader powers than those envisaged in the Bill.
The more fundamental point is that we have a problem with process. Issues surrounding investigatory powers, including bulk acquisition, should receive the fullest scrutiny and, we believe, greater scrutiny than that which a Delegated Legislation Committee can provide. The Minister himself referred to 400 pages of codes and guidance. The ideal would be for fuller Committee scrutiny, including evidence gathering or at least a debate in the House. Although opposing the regulations will not deliver that, at the very least it will ensure that the whole House has the chance to vote. The Minister, as ever, has presented his case impeccably; we simply believe that the regulations should be tested more thoroughly. For those reasons, we will object to three of the four sets of regulations.
Mr Wallace
May I first thank the official Opposition for their position and considered view on the regulations? The passing of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 through the House was a significant process, with many Government concessions and lots of working across party lines to ensure that we struck the balance between freedoms and security, while trying to allow our law enforcement agencies and intelligence services to stay one step ahead of paedophiles and terrorists who often exploit technology to outwit or to remain undetected.
It is not easy in my job to listen to the intercepted communication of paedophiles plotting to kidnap a child. Sometimes that is behind encrypted communication. They do that knowing that they are hard to detect because some of the data they use is hard for us to analyse or capture. That is why the 2016 Act was so important. I do not think any Government like to change a piece of legislation at any stage, but it has allowed us to detect, prosecute and convict some of the people in society who pose a real danger to us.
The codes of practice are user-friendly, believe it or not. Often the statutory instruments we debate are slightly gobbledegook and we have to refer to the explanatory notes and go back to the original debate to understand what they are about. The codes of practice are designed for the superintendent or the official sitting at their desk doing an investigation to ensure that they comply with the law. The codes are user-friendly and accessible.
In the drafting of the codes of practice, I was determined to ensure that the protections we promised to the House in primary legislation are reflected strongly. In terms of the protected professions, I ensured that journalism, about which people expressed concern during the passage of the Bill, was given the due prominence required in the codes so that when people are considering using the powers, they understand that we have to give extra consideration to a number of protected provisions. For that reason, I am content with the regulations.
I am grateful for the official Opposition’s support. The regulations contain all sorts of ways to ensure that the agencies are held to account. Lord Justice Fulford is a formidable individual and a highly respected judge. The independence of the interception commissioners will be without question. One or two are from Scotland and some are from jurisdictions across the United Kingdom to ensure that it is not just the usual suspects, but a broad base of judiciary, and our decisions and the technical notices will be subject to that scrutiny. Judges will not do it with favour; they will do it in compliance with the law. When I look across the oversight that we now have, both independent and in this House, of our intelligence agencies, I see that we have the Intelligence and Security Committee, the varying roles of the tribunals, including the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—some of those roles will be folded into the commissioners’ jobs—and Parliament and the review of terrorism. We have many more layers of oversight than some of our contemporary countries across Europe and the United States, and we should be proud of that.
When I visit our intelligence services, I am always struck by how determined they are to abide by the law. Sometimes I am tempted to say, “Why are we not doing more of this?” and more and more they reflect back to me, “Minister, we have to do what is proportionate, necessary and no more.” Those professionals in those organisations take that duty incredibly seriously. The secondary legislation will ensure that they have that capability. I genuinely believe that by having it, they will help us and our children stay safe from predatory paedophiles, terrorists and organised crime. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will know that only recently one of the major serious organised crime kingpins was arrested. He had military-scale weapons on him, including military-grade communication encryption. That is the enemy we can be up against, and that is why we need the powers. I urge him to reconsider his opposition.
The legislation has had lots of airing, and I am incredibly grateful to all parties that have supported it. The people who use it do so in a measured, proportionate and necessary manner.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Investigatory Powers (Technical Capability) Regulations 2018
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Committee has considered the draft Investigatory Powers (Technical Capability) Regulations 2018.—(Mr Ben Wallace.)
Ministerial Correction
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Field
Many people will have followed the media coverage last year when three high-profile pro-democracy activists, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow, were sentenced to imprisonment. We were further concerned when we heard that the British national Ben Rogers had been denied entry to Hong Kong in October last year. He is a champion of democracy and human rights, well known to Members of all parties. The Prime Minister spoke about his case in the House, we summoned the Chinese ambassador to the Foreign Office to discuss it and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government raised the issue with the Hong Kong Secretary for Labour and Welfare during his visit to Hong Kong in November.
I wrote to the Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam setting out our position on all four of those cases. Her response was consistent with previous public comments made by the Hong Kong authorities on the issue.
[Official Report, 23 January 2018, Vol. 635, c. 124WH.]
Letter of correction from Mark Field:
An error has been identified in my response to the Westminster Hall debate on Democracy in Hong Kong.
The correct response should have been:
Mark Field
Many people will have followed the media coverage last year when three high-profile pro-democracy activists, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow, were sentenced to imprisonment. We were further concerned when we heard that the British national Ben Rogers had been denied entry to Hong Kong in October last year. He is a champion of democracy and human rights, well known to Members of all parties. The Prime Minister spoke about his case in the House, we summoned the Chinese ambassador to the Foreign Office to discuss it and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government raised the issue with the Hong Kong Secretary for Labour and Welfare during his visit to Hong Kong in November.
I wrote to the Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam setting out our position on this case. Her response was consistent with previous public comments made by the Hong Kong authorities on the issue.
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 25th January 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 View all Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 January 2018 - (25 Jan 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everybody. Before we start, I will read out a few paragraphs about Committee arrangements. Some people are extremely familiar with all of this and a few are not, so just bear with me. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chair do not intend to call starred amendments, which have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period in Public Bill Committees is three working days. Therefore amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on Tuesday.
Not everyone is familiar with the procedure of Public Bill Committees, so let me briefly explain how we will proceed. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the amendments selected for debate have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar and related issue. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in the group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye in order to speak to the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once depending on the subjects under discussion.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendments in the group to a Division, they will need to let me know. I will work on the assumption that the Government wish the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments.
Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order that they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. Decisions on new clauses will therefore be taken at the conclusion of the line by line consideration of the Bill. Where it is not already indicated on the selection list, Mrs Main and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses or individual schedules.
Clause stand part debates begin with the Chair proposing the Question, “That the clause stand part of the Bill.” There is no need for the Minister, or any other Member, to move that a clause stand part of the Bill. We now move to line by line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 1
Charge to import duty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
Good morning, Ms Buck; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a pleasure to see some familiar faces on the Opposition Benches as we debate this important Bill.
Clause 1 provides that customs duty is to be charged with reference to the import of goods into the United Kingdom, in accordance with part 1 of this Bill; part 1, of course, deals with import duty. As members of the Committee will be aware, the UK’s current customs duty regime is set out in EU law. That legislation will cease to apply to the United Kingdom following our departure from the EU. This Bill makes provision for the establishment of a UK customs duty regime. The regime established by this Bill seeks as far as possible to replicate the effects of the existing EU provision. The aim of doing so is to ensure that on day one, operators who currently pay EU customs duty will see very little change in the process that is to apply following the establishment of the new UK regime. Clause 1 establishes the new charge to tax and provides that import duty is to be chargeable. Such a provision is a fundamental requirement of any tax regime.
Clause 2 provides the definition of chargeable goods, a term used throughout the provisions relating to import duty. The concept of goods being chargeable is fundamental to any import duty regime and therefore its meaning needs to be set out explicitly on the face of the Bill. As I explained, part 1 of the Bill sets out the UK’s new regime for import duty, which will be needed once we complete the process of withdrawal from the European Union. In doing so, it takes as its starting point the EU legislation, which currently provides the rules for import duty, and replicates them within domestic legislation. The virtue of doing so is that the majority of importers will see no change to the process by which they pay import duty. This principle applies to rules for determining which goods are liable for import duty or, to use the language of clause 2, to the way in which “chargeable goods” are defined.
Clause 2 is relatively straightforward. It sets out the basis upon which customs duty is to be charged. Clearly not all goods are liable for customs duty. The most obvious examples are goods that were made in the United Kingdom and have never left the country, or goods from abroad on which duty has already been paid. Clause 2 therefore uses the concept of domestic goods to define when goods are not to be treated as chargeable for the purposes of customs duty. It sets out that chargeable goods are any goods that are not domestic goods.
Domestic goods are defined in clause 33, and Members will have the opportunity to consider that definition in greater detail later in Committee. In essence, domestic goods are any goods on which no import duty is due, either because any duty has already been paid or because they were manufactured in, or originate in, the United Kingdom.
Clause 2 is straightforward. The concept of goods being chargeable forms a fundamental cornerstone of the UK’s import duty regime. I therefore recommend that both clauses stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Obligation to declare goods for a Customs procedure on import
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 3 does two important things: first, it establishes an obligation to declare goods that are imported into the United Kingdom; and, secondly, it introduces the concept of declaring goods for a specific customs procedure. Those are the basic building blocks of the UK’s new import duty regime.
The need to declare goods for a customs procedure is fundamental to any import duty regime. The procedure for which goods are declared determines when liability to import duty arises. The clause goes on to introduce another fundamental part of a customs regime—the customs procedures for which chargeable goods may be declared.
The purpose of importing goods may be to make them available for use in the UK, in which case they can be declared for a procedure known as free circulation, at which point they incur a charge to import duty. However, it is not always the intention to make goods freely available when they are imported into the United Kingdom. Goods are often brought to the UK for different reasons, such as to put them into customs warehouses for the time being, or to transport them through the UK on the way to another destination outside the country. In situations such as those, a business may declare the goods for a special customs procedure.
Special procedures either defer when a liability to import duty is incurred, or reduce the rate of import duty applicable to goods, provided of course the relevant conditions have been satisfied. Without those procedures, a business would have no option but to declare imported goods for the free circulation procedure and incur any import duty up front.
UK businesses currently rely extensively on special procedures, which together provide reliefs worth hundreds of millions of pounds each month. The provision made by the clause is supplemented by the detailed rules set out in schedules 1 and 2, to which I shall now turn.
Schedule 1 sets out the obligations to present and declare goods to customs on import. Many of the matters covered are of an administrative nature, such as the information that a declaration must contain or the time limits for when it must be made. I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to explain all those matters in detail, but I should highlight one important matter in which I think the Committee will be interested.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule enables Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to specify when goods must be declared before they are imported into the UK. That is an important point. Steps might be needed to reduce the risk of disrupting the flow of traffic at locations where goods need to be cleared quickly through customs. An obvious case in point is a port such as Dover, where significant amounts of goods arrive on roll-on roll-off ferries. It would clearly be of great help, in a situation such as that, to require the goods in question to be declared before their arrival at the port. That situation is therefore addressed by the schedule.
Schedule 2 deals with special customs procedures. There are five in all, namely: storage, transit, inward processing, authorised use and temporary admission. I will briefly describe their purpose.
A storage procedure allows imported goods to be stored without incurring liability to import duty. The goods must be kept in an approved facility, such as a customs warehouse or a free zone. There are currently no free zones in the UK, but should an area be so designated, provision may be made under the Bill for its operation.
A transit procedure allows goods to move between two places in the UK without incurring import duty. For example, goods from another country can pass through the UK en route to another destination, or goods within the UK can move from a customs warehouse to a port for re-export without needing to be declared for free circulation.
An inward processing procedure allows goods to be imported into the UK with the purpose of undergoing a qualifying processing activity without incurring a charge to import duty at that point. Once the procedure is discharged, goods may be exported without any import duty being due. Alternatively, a business may decide to declare the processed goods for free circulation in the UK and incur duty at that point.
An authorised use procedure is designed to assist certain industries by allowing a zero or reduced rate of import duty to apply to goods brought to the UK for a specific use. Finally, a temporary admission procedure allows for a relief from import duty for goods that enter the UK temporarily and for a particular reason. For example, that procedure applies when artworks situated overseas are brought to the UK on loan for display in a public gallery.
Taken together, the special procedures I have outlined exist to support trade fluidity and facilitate the movement of goods into the UK. Provision made by and under schedule 2 will allow HMRC to operate these special procedures. The obligation to declare imported goods is essential to an effective customs regime, and an effective customs regime must include special procedures that offer businesses in the UK the simplifications and reliefs that they rely on.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee, and to take part in the scrutiny of this important piece of legislation.
The Minister is right to talk about the administrative nature of the clause and its associated schedules. It appears to be the Government’s position that the UK will choose to leave the customs union. We are not yet clear whether they will pursue another form of customs union with the EU, but if they do not, or if they do not manage to get a customs union with the EU, it is likely that significantly more customs declarations will be required because we will not have those coming from the EU.
My concern about the clause arises from Tuesday’s oral evidence sessions, and it would be useful for the Minister to provide an update on that. Various organisations expressed concerns about the resourcing of HMRC and Border Force. Border Force is the first line for many imports, ensuring that customs declarations are made appropriately and that all appropriate processes are followed.
On HMRC, the concern was that no customs officers will be based north of Glasgow or Edinburgh. If goods are coming in to places such as Inverness, it is a three-hour drive for people to get there and look at those goods. What assessment has the Minister made of the extra resourcing that HMRC will need to fulfil the obligations in the clause and the schedules? Reasonable concerns have been expressed by businesses and organisations.
Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Lady to the Committee and thank her for that initial contribution.
In terms of where the final deal with the European Union lands, whether we have a form of customs union with the remaining 27 members is subject to negotiation. The Government have made it clear that we wish the end point to be the facilitation of trade between ourselves and the remaining 27 members of the customs union. The Bill provides for that end point to be as close as possible to the existing rules and regulations around the Union customs code; that is very much what the Bill seeks to achieve. At the same time, the Bill retains the flexibility to ensure that we can put into effect the necessary and appropriate measures no matter where the deal lands—or, indeed, if there were to be no deal at all with the European Union, as we certainly do not expect.
The hon. Lady raised the important issue of HMRC resourcing. As we move towards our day one scenario—whatever that may finally look like—I assure her that the Government are vigorously engaged not just with issues around HMRC’s human resource requirements, but with other infrastructure requirements, whether for hard infrastructure or information technology systems such as the Customs Declaration Service, which will be important.
To address her particular issue, the head of HMRC has made it clear that his feeling is that we will need between 3,000 and 5,000 additional staff across HMRC to ensure that we cover off, wherever the day one deal lands. For an organisation of well in excess of 50,000 personnel, such an increment in staffing, particularly given that some will be reallocated rather than entirely new recruits, is perfectly manageable.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to you for being in the Chair, Ms Buck. If I may, I will question the Minister on his explanation. I am grateful for it, but on Tuesday we learned that after HMRC’s ongoing restructuring programme there will not be a single HMRC hub north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, nor will there be one anywhere along the south coast, including Dover. We heard ample evidence in the witness sessions that that is the busiest and most concerning port from the point of view of customs procedures going wrong. In the light of that evidence, should we reconsider that HMRC reorganisation programme?
Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Lady to the Committee. She mentions the location of the new HMRC hubs as they are rolled out, and I will make two important points. First, Border Force, which is very much part of the frontline, is in the Home Office’s remit, not HMRC’s. Secondly, proximity to the hubs or otherwise is not critical in determining whether HMRC provides the support that Border Force and other agencies require. The absence of a hub close to a need does not mean that HMRC staff cannot be in proximity to that point; they do not need to be based constantly at any one hub.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
May I pick up on that? I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East said, but try to reinforce the seriousness of the evidence witnesses gave on Tuesday. Mr Runswick said:
“HMRC is closing offices in places such as Southampton…So we think that there will be a real struggle to deliver the work that HMRC does with Border Force in that situation. My union believes that HMRC should pause the office closure programme until it is clear what the Government will need HMRC to do in a post-Brexit situation.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 37, Q45.]
I want to tease out a little more from the Minister. Does he recognise that argument at all? It seems to be business as usual.
Mel Stride
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Committee. He reiterates the point that the hon. Lady just made, so I will spare the Committee a repeat of every element of my answer. However, specifically with relation to the points made in the evidence session by Mr Runswick, the trade unions have been resistant to the changes to HMRC wholesale, right across the piece. Therefore, when it comes to arguments about whether HMRC can be effective in clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance, bringing in tax yield and so on, the argument has been run that we need a number of offices in multiple locations to do that.
The critical answer is that the very nature of running an efficient tax system and customs regime needs technology, the right skills and the right people. That lends itself to having a concentration of such individuals in hubs, where skills and IT can be developed and brought in to be effective. Without repeating my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend, the Government and HMRC are clear that the configurations of the new hubs will lend themselves to appropriately support the new customs regime.
Kirsty Blackman
Other than the resourcing, which the Minister has fully addressed, I am concerned about the geographical issue. We do not want people to be a number of hours’ drive from the customs officials. Can the Minister give us some comfort that even though there might not be hubs in the area, there will be customs officers based closely and able to respond on a 24-hour basis?
Mel Stride
I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that the situation as it will pertain when we move to the new hubs—we are making some assumptions about what exactly the end point of the negotiations will be—will be sufficient to make sure we have a customs regime that works, that is low friction, and keeps trade moving and raises revenues on the duties that we may or may not apply.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
On resourcing, to add to the points already made, I want to double-check this because the first time I saw it I did not believe it was true, but it is. In December you asked for volunteers to be deployed to help plug the gaps in the UK’s Border Force. There had already been an acknowledgment that it did not have the number of people needed and you called for volunteers, which was opposed by Conservative MPs, who said they did not want to see a return to a Dad’s Army protecting the UK. Are you still planning to plug the gap with volunteers or will people be employed?
Mel Stride
I will take the hon. Lady’s references to “you” as not meaning the Chair of this Committee, but me. The issue that she has raised, which ran in the press a few weeks ago, relates to an issue for the Home Office and Border Force, not HMRC. It is outside the immediate scope of this Bill. I know that at least one Minister in the Home Office was able to refute those suggestions, but I will not dwell on that in this Committee.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The other thing that came out in the evidence was the concern about the loss of experience at a critical time. Is the Minister giving us a strong assurance—I think he is—that there will not be any problems as we move forward? If there are any problems, the Minister and HMRC will be jointly and severally responsible.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Member for his very helpful intervention. Of course Ministers have responsibilities for the areas that they oversee. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have had discussions with HMRC staff, including the head of HMRC, and we have looked specifically at the right mix of skills and people, so I am confident that we will have the right team in place to meet the challenges ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 4
When liability to import duty incurred
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
The clause determines when a liability to import duty is incurred. This is a necessary part of establishing a stand-alone customs regime as both businesses and HMRC need to know the point at which any money is due. The clause sets out a framework for determining the point at which liability to import duty is incurred. The general rule for importers wishing to release their goods for free circulation—that is, to discharge all customs obligations—is that the liability is incurred when HMRC accepts their declaration. For example, if a business were importing electronic goods from east Asia and declared the goods for free circulation, the liability for import duty would arise when HMRC accepts that declaration.
Similarly, the general rule when importing something under the temporary admission or authorised use procedures is that liability is incurred when HMRC accepts the declaration, but at a reduced rate. However, to facilitate trade and support businesses, liability can be deferred. In cases where goods are declared for a transit procedure, inward processing or a storage procedure, liability does not occur at the point when HMRC accepts the declaration, although liability may arise at a later date. The clause also makes further provisions governing these situations, including the consequences for liability purposes of the incorrect usage of the special procedures or their breach. The clause makes it clear when liability to import duty is incurred.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Goods not presented to Customs or Customs declaration not made
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 5 deals with cases where goods imported into the UK are either not presented or not declared to HMRC. Where that is the case, it provides for the goods to be liable for forfeiture. It is essential to have rules that cater for situations in which someone fails to meet their obligations when they import goods into the UK. The clause provides such a rule: it makes imported goods liable to forfeiture if they have not been presented or declared to HMRC. That simply mirrors the existing position in EU law that applies in such cases.
The clause also makes it clear that such goods remain liable to import duty at the same time that they are liable to forfeiture. It is essential that appropriate sanctions are in place to deal with failure to meet the requirements of the import duty regime. That is what clause 5 provides in cases where goods are not present or declared to HMRC.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Person liable to import duty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mel Stride
Clause 6 establishes who is liable to pay any import duty on goods imported into the United Kingdom. It is essential to establish who is obliged to actually pay import duty when it becomes due. The clause establishes the series of rules that do just that.
The rules set out by the clause illustrate a fundamental principle of the import duty regime, namely the link between the making of a customs declaration and the liability to pay an import duty that might be due. In cases where procedures have been followed correctly and the information provided is accurate, the liability for duty falls upon the person named on the declaration, or on whose behalf the goods have been declared. That could be the importer of the goods and/or an agent appointed to act for them. The basic rule is supplemented by other rules that apply in less straightforward circumstances: for instance, in cases where goods are not declared, the liability to pay duty falls on the person who is in possession or control of the goods when they arrive in the UK.
The clause also caters for other situations in which the rules have not been followed. They include cases where someone has provided false information when they make a declaration, or where they have not followed obligations imposed upon them, such as those that are imposed when goods are subject to a special customs procedure. In such cases, a person who has provided false information or who has breached the obligation can be liable for import duty. The clause also makes it clear that where the liability falls to two or more persons, the clause provides that they are jointly and severally liable for the import duty. It is essential to establish who is liable to pay import duty in all circumstances in which such liability arises. That includes making those who provide false information in connection with declarations liable for import duty.
Clause 7 contains no powers, but introduces the clauses in the Bill that will be used to set the amount of import duty applicable. The customs tariff will apply in all cases, but may be amended or adjusted to change the standard rate of duty in certain circumstances. The clauses referred to in this clause ensure that. The customs tariff will set out the rate of duty applicable to imports of goods into the United Kingdom. The tariff is made up of import duty rates for product categories. The standard customs tariff that the UK currently applies as a member of the EU is made up of more than 17,000 tariff lines.
The customs tariff established under clause 8 will contain the duty rates that apply to all imports from every country unless varied by another clause. The following clauses in the Bill enable the variation of the standard rate of import duty. For example, the UK will be able to reduce import duty when goods are imported under a preferential trade agreement, where preferential rates are granted unilaterally to developing countries. Parliament will also be able to reduce duty rates for applying a tariff suspension or relief, such as for items imported for educational, scientific or cultural purposes.
There are also circumstances where we may apply higher duties. For example, additional import duties can be applied when imports are causing injury to UK industry, as long as such additional duties are applied in line with our obligations as a member of the World Trade Organisation.
Clause 7 introduces the provisions under which we will establish our own tariff regime on leaving the EU. I suggest that clauses 6 and 7 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
The customs tariff
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 8, page 5, line 27, after “other”, insert “relevant”.
This amendment requires the Government to classify goods in regulations giving effect to the customs tariff only in relation to relevant factors.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 105, in clause 8, page 5, line 38, after first “the”, insert “number”.
This amendment clarifies that goods may be defined for the purposes of the import tariff simply by reference to their number.
Amendment 118, in clause 39, page 27, line 5, after second “to”, insert “number”.
This amendment clarifies that goods may be defined for the purposes of the export tariff simply by reference to their number.
Kirsty Blackman
I mentioned during Second Reading that the Law Society of Scotland had produced a paper on the Bill, and I offered to provide the Minister with a copy. If he does not yet have one, I am still happy to do that. The paper explains more fully the rationale behind these three amendments.
The amendments are not necessarily about changing the tack of the Bill; they are about making better law and ensuring that the law is clearer. I will quote a short extract from the paper submitted by the Law Society of Scotland. It states that,
“the power under clause 8(1)(a) to classify goods ‘according to their nature, origin or any other factor’ is a very broad one. At the very least, this should be limited to ‘any other relevant factor’ but it would be preferable to limit the scope of this provision by giving an indication of the types of factor which might be appropriate in this context.”
So, in our amendment, we have taken up the “very least” option suggested by the Law Society of Scotland. It seems a bit extreme for the Minister to be able to make changes or decisions on “any” factors, some of which may not be relevant. Adding the word “relevant” would ensure that, under the clause, the Minister was stuck to making changes or decisions in relation to relevant factors. It is simply a small technical change that would tighten up the way the law is written.
Similarly, amendments 105 and 118 are very small technical changes that the Law Society of Scotland suggests would be preferable or useful additions to the clause. It suggests that clause 8(3)(b) say, “the number, weight or volume of the goods or any other measure of their quantity or size.” Again, the aim is just to tighten up the language and ensure that the laws that we are starting off with in this wonderful Brexit Britain are as good and clear as possible and can be interpreted, if they need to be—by a court, for example—in the best possible way. As I said, they are very small technical changes, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider them.
Mel Stride
Clause 8 requires the Treasury to establish and maintain a customs tariff. The rates of duties set under this clause will apply to goods from every country, unless varied by another clause. It enables the implementation of a range of tariff options, so that the UK can respond to changes in the global trading environment, both now and in the future.
The UK currently applies duty to imports to the UK under the Union customs code. The standard duty rates of the UK, as a member of the EU, are contained in the common external tariff. When we leave the EU, this Bill will require the Treasury to establish and maintain a customs tariff that will, among other things, specify the rate of import duty applicable to goods. The UK is working with the WTO to establish the UK’s bound tariff schedule. That schedule sets the maximum rate of import duty that a country may apply to imports. The UK can then choose what rate to apply, provided it is at or below the bound rate. Import duty rates specified under this clause must be consistent with those international obligations.
Clause 8 sets out what must be contained in the customs—
The Chair
Order. May I remind the Minister that there will be an opportunity for a general debate on clause 8, but not necessarily at this point? He should be responding specifically to the amendment.
Mel Stride
I am sorry, Ms Buck. I assumed that we were also debating that clause 8 stand part. My apologies. I will turn specifically to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Although she may see them as clarifying matters, the Government’s view is that they are additional and unnecessary amendments to areas where no further clarification is required.
Kirsty Blackman
Just to be clear, it is not just me who sees them as necessary in terms of clarification; it is the Law Society of Scotland, which, I assume, knows quite a lot about the law, and therefore feels that these are appropriate changes that would be helpful in terms of the actual law.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I fully appreciate that she is taking up recommendations made by the Law Society of Scotland, but let me comment on the two fundamental points she has raised.
First, relating to the relevance—that relevant considerations should be taken into account. The relevance of having the word “relevant” in there, prompts the question whether anybody would ever take decisions based on things that were entirely irrelevant, or at least not relevant. If one went down the road suggested by the hon. Lady, the word “relevant” would probably be inserted in multiple places throughout all the legislation that we ever pass in this House. It is understood that rational Ministers and others would take relevant decisions, rather than irrelevant decisions.
Secondly, before I go too far down this tongue-twisting route—
Mel Stride
Will the hon. Lady indulge me for a second? Parliament—through secondary legislation and in many cases in this Bill—will have the opportunity to test whether any of these measures are being taken on the basis not only of relevant considerations, but of all sorts of other considerations that will be taken into account as to whether these measures that come forward should proceed.
As to the specific point about the amendment relating to the insertion of the numbers, that clause already refers to reference or consideration being made of the quantity of the goods concerned. I think the meaning of the word “number” is, in that context, subsumed by the meaning of the word “quantity”. The Government have received the opinion that the clause already does that which the hon. Lady would like to see it do, namely ensure that the number of goods is also relevant to the function of that particular clause in the legislation.
Anneliese Dodds
It is just a brief—the Minister may feel, facetious—comment, but in the Help-to-Save regulations that we recently discussed there is reference to sufficient proof of death from a GP being required. The Government apparently felt that the word “sufficient” was necessary in that context, but most people would think it was not necessary if there is proof of death. Therefore, if an expert body such as the Law Society of Scotland feels that a word such as “relevant” is required, perhaps I would take its word for it.
Mel Stride
I am not a legal expert. I obviously appreciate that different words have different meanings in different legal contexts, but from the Government’s point of view, we are satisfied that there is not a requirement to have the word “relevant” inserted. That would be superfluous—to throw in another term—as would be the insertion of the word “number”, for reasons I have given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, because it would not affect the functioning or meaning of that clause.
Kirsty Blackman
I am not going to press the Minister on the word “number”, but on the word “relevant”, I think the Minister dug a hole when he was talking about “rational” Chancellors or Ministers in the Treasury. We are looking at ensuring that this regulation is future-proof, ensuring that if a Minister is not as reasonable as the one standing here, we can ensure that they are held to making relevant regulation. The clause states:
“The Treasury must make regulations establishing, and maintaining in force, a system which…classifies goods according to their nature, origin or any other factor”.
The Government are asking for this House to give them a significant level of delegated authority. They are asking for us to trust the Government, or any future Government that come after, in relation to making these regulations. In this case they are asking us to trust the Treasury. I think the Government can understand why there may be a lack of trust at the moment, given that we have been promised things that have not been followed through on. It would not be too much to ask to insert the word “relevant” into that clause, so that in future, if we do not have as rational a Minister as this one, we can ensure that they have to make the regulations on the classification of goods on relevant factors, rather than on ones that may be irrelevant.
Mel Stride
I reiterate that the Government are not in the business of taking irrelevant factors into account when they make decisions. I give that assurance equally in respect of the Opposition and other parties when they are or have been in government.
The hon. Lady also raises the issue of delegated legislation. At the introduction of the tariff, delegated legislation will be in the form of an affirmative statutory instrument that will be fully considered by a Committee, passed or otherwise by it and agreed to or otherwise by the House. A higher level of delegated legislative scrutiny will also apply to every occasion on which a duty is increased, as opposed to decreased. There is provision in the Bill for a higher level of scrutiny for the introduction of the tariff and for elements of its operation thereafter.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister. I would like to press amendment 104, but not the other two in the group.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 6, line 1, at end insert—
“(aa) the interests of manufacturers in the United Kingdom,”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the interests of manufacturers in considering the rate of import duty.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, at end insert “and
(e) the impacts on sustainable development.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the impacts on sustainable development in considering the rate of import duty.
Amendment 106, in clause 8, page 6, line 6, at end insert “and—
(e) the public interest.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the public interest in considering the rate of customs tariff in its standard form.
Jonathan Reynolds
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to the interests of manufacturers in considering the rate of import duty. UK manufacturing makes a vital contribution to the British economy each year. According to House of Commons Library research published in 2017, it accounted for 8% of jobs in the UK, which is 2.7 million; £177 billion of economic output, which is 10% of the UK’s total; and 57% of UK imports, to the value of £243 billion. On a personal note, I remain one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on manufacturing. In my constituency, those figures are roughly double the national average.
Manufacturing industry is significantly exposed to Brexit in a number of ways, the first of which is the export relationship. The UK exported goods worth £134 billion to the EU in 2015. In other ways, manufacturing industry is more reliant on imports, as many goods are imported to be used in the manufacturing supply chain. It is well known that the UK has a negative balance of trade at present; in 2016, that deficit was £98.7 billion.
Secondly, keeping the supply chain flowing freely is essential and time-critical. For example, while giving evidence to the International Trade Committee in February 2017, Nissan said that its Sunderland plant—a place very close to my heart because that is where I grew up—holds only half a day’s stock and uses 5 million parts a day, 60% of which are imported. As such, Nissan has said that any disruption to its supply chains would be “a disaster”.
Thirdly, supply chain imports are also heavily exposed to movements in the price of sterling, which has become considerably more volatile since the referendum result, with the pound losing 15% of its value against the euro between June and October 2016. Sterling’s weakness against the euro continues, with the pound still 14% below its pre-referendum levels.
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree. Every member of the Committee will recognise my hon. Friend’s constituency interest and expertise in this area. I felt that the evidence that UK Steel gave us earlier in the week was particularly helpful in being prescriptive as to where it believes the Bill falls short. As an industry, it is especially susceptible to gaps in trade remedy legislation given the historic damage that dumping has done to the sector.
Jonathan Reynolds
That is absolutely the case. Gareth Stace from UK Steel told us last Tuesday:
“The Government can promise anything they like, but more than a third of all tariffs in place affect the steel sector and it hits us hard, therefore, if this system, when it comes out, is not appropriate for what it is trying to do.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 68-69, Q105.]
That will clearly result in huge problems for the sector.
UK Steel’s main reservation with the Bill is the lack of detail, as my hon. Friend has said, which is present on a number of fronts where it believes the industry needs more certainty. Secondary legislation is being relied upon to provide a huge amount of the practical information we need. One of UK Steel’s specific concerns is around investigations relating to the dumping of foreign subsidies that can cause injury to UK industry. As related by Dr Cohen in her testimony, to which I referred earlier, there is no information on how dumping margins are to be calculated.
UK Steel goes further and sets out a list of other considerations that should be taken into account, including how to assess whether a UK industry has been injured; how to determine if such injury has been caused by the dumped or subsidised imports; what principles may be used in defining the products covered by an investigation; how subsidies can be defined; what evidence an industry needs to produce to trigger an investigation; how to conduct an investigation, including any time limits; and how to require guarantees to cover possible future duties when provisional measures are required. It is a long list and I could go on, but in the interests of the Committee’s time I will not. However, it serves to illustrate the point that there are a number of multi-layered and complex considerations to take into account.
I also want to underline that this is not a matter of protectionism. As Gareth Stace also made clear in Tuesday’s evidence session:
“The steel sector thrives on free, liberalised trade. A third of all steel produced in the world is traded across borders.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 67, Q104.]
At present there are zero tariffs between developed nations for steel trade. It was his belief that, without trade remedies, there will be an increase in protectionism, as they are essential to allowing free trade to take place. I thoroughly endorse that message.
The upshot of such deputations is that manufacturers are not asking for special measures from the outset, but pointing out that we are on the cusp of a complex world post-Brexit and they need more detail. It has been the Government’s choice not to include such detail in the Bill and it is too late to make that change now. It is clear, however, that the lack of certainty that results has not been optimal for our manufacturing sector and has inhibited its ability to make plans and prepare for the future.
As UK Steel has highlighted, the legislation lays out the bare minimum needed, delegating all detail to secondary legislation. It is true that we are on a tight timeline for negotiations, but there is a wealth of global legislation that could have been drawn upon to help inform the Bill, such as the US Tariff Act of 1930, the Canadian Special Import Measures Act, the EU Regulations 2016/1036—
The Chair
Order. The Member is straying slightly outside the remit of the amendment and needs to bring it back.
Jonathan Reynolds
Well, Ms Buck, I am just pointing out that it was possible to put in detail. If that is not in the Bill, we have to have amendments that allow for the detail to be included.
Jonathan Reynolds
The Opposition are asking for the Government to offer reassurance to manufacturers by enshrining consultation into subsequent procedures. Clearly there are a great many things to consider, which may be made clear only by close consultation with the industries themselves. We are concerned that there is potential for an abuse of power by subjugating the process to secondary legislation, which is subject to considerably less parliamentary scrutiny. For the final time, I refer to UK Steel’s words:
“UK industry needs to be able to ascertain what its rights in domestic courts will be to challenge the decisions of the Trade Remedies Authority and the Secretary of State”—
The Chair
Order. I repeat that talking about the secondary legislation matter is not within the scope of the amendment. Please come back to the scope of the amendment.
Jonathan Reynolds
Okay. I will take your advice on that, Ms Buck.
Over the course of the Committee’s remaining days, given the amendments we are due to consider, I believe there will be a fuller debate about the issues I have mentioned. However, as things stand, we appear to be shackled to this process and it is therefore vital to enshrine a right of consultation for manufacturers to guarantee the future of UK industry and the 2.7 million jobs bound up within it. No one wants to see a Brexit underpinned by a race to the bottom, leaving the UK susceptible to a repeat of the events that punished Tata Steel in 2016. We cannot risk these being repeated in the rest of the UK manufacturing sector. Parliament must work with and listen to those on the front line, consider their input and let them guide us on what we need to succeed as a global economy in a post-Brexit world, drawing on existing best practice from around the world.
I call on the Committee to support the Opposition’s amendment, to enshrine the right to consultation, to protect British jobs and British manufacturing, and to guarantee that our post-Brexit economy does not leave British industry out in the cold.
Kirsty Blackman
This aspect of the clause is about
“considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods”,
and we have tabled amendments. The Government have chosen not to include in this provision a reference to “any other factor” or even the preferable “any other relevant factor”, but have laid down a number of factors that they are believe are relevant in this case. Both the Scottish National party and the official Opposition, with amendments 1, 78 and 106, are trying to increase the number of factors that will be considered when the rate of import duty that ought to apply is being considered. The clause already includes
“the interests of consumers…the desirability of maintaining and promoting…external trade…the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity…and…the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition.”
On amendment 1, I associate myself with many of the shadow Minister’s remarks about the importance of manufacturing. It has been concerning that the Government have not taken into account the interests of manufacturing in many of the actions that they have taken. Therefore, it would be useful for the House to have the comfort that the Government would have to consider the importance of manufacturing when they were making these decisions.
The Scottish Government are in a much better place in that, in relation to steel and Tata Steel specifically, we have saved the Lanarkshire plants, and we have worked with BiFab. If the UK Government had previously taken actions like that, we would be in the much better position of feeling that they would be likely to protect the interests of manufacturing. We are therefore happy to associate ourselves with the Labour amendment.
Amendment 78 has been suggested by Traidcraft. I will talk about exactly why Traidcraft says that it is important. The UK has signed up to the sustainable development goals. They are incredibly important for the future of the world—for our children and our children’s children—in ensuring that there is sustainable development. Traidcraft says:
“It is therefore vital that consideration of sustainable development is contained in primary legislation to avoid the potential for the UK to inadvertently contravene its global commitments…If sustainable development were added to this list it would ensure the Government were able to fulfil its global commitments.”
That is a strong message from Traidcraft about this aspect of the clause. Because, as I said, the Minister has not included in it “any other relevant factor”, we want to be clear that the Government are protecting the interests of manufacturers, but also the interests of the future of the planet.
Amendment 106 is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. Again, the factors that the Minister is required to consider when setting the rate of import duty are not wide enough. We suggest including a reference to the public interest generally, so that the Minister and the Treasury, in making these decisions, would be required to look at whether the public interest generally would be served by the rate of import duty that they were imposing.
All three proposals are relevant considerations for the long-term future of manufacturing which, given the not-very-good productivity in the UK, is hugely necessary and something that we need to protect. I do not know how anybody could argue with looking at sustainable development, given that the future of our planet is at stake. On the point about the public interest in general, we are all here to represent our constituents—we are here to ensure that their views are heard in this place—so it is completely reasonable that the Minister and the Treasury, in making any rules under this aspect of the clause, would consider the public interest generally, as well as the other four factors already mentioned.
Nic Dakin
In opening the debate, the Minister helpfully said that the intention was to introduce things in a way that did not disrupt things that were currently going on. The advantage of amendment 1 is that it would help to bring that about by adding in “the interests of manufacturers” as part of the test. It would give confidence to manufacturing areas.
I speak as somebody who represents a steel town. The confidence of manufacturers and the people who work there, who are also significant consumers in the local economy, is important because those manufacturing sectors desperately need investment in capital and in new ways of working to remain competitive in a competitive world.
The Minister and the Government would do well to consider that, because it would assist in delivering continuity—the outcome that the Minister set out at the beginning—and the confidence necessary for the investment we need. We cannot delay investment, although that might happen, because that would mean delayed opportunity. One of the Government’s overriding responsibilities is to put confidence into the system so that the risks of leaving the European Union are diminished and the opportunities are enhanced.
Anneliese Dodds
I shall speak to amendment 78, which has already been referred to. To be clear, we already have a list in the Bill of different considerations that ought to apply when calculating the rate of import duty for goods in a standard case, which includes,
“the interests of consumers…maintaining and promoting the external trade…maintaining and promoting productivity…the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition.”
That is why we suggest that we should have a holistic look at other matters that should be considered.
That is particularly important when it comes to the calculation of import duties with a view to environmental sustainability. When the current chief co-ordinator at the World Trade Organisation, Christiane Kraus, was at the World Bank, she spelled out reasons why environmental considerations might be relevant to the setting of trade parameters, in the absence of other mechanisms for promoting global environmental common goods. We may well be entering a period where it is very difficult to get international agreements on environmental matters, not least because of the direction of the American Administration, so it seems sensible to retain the possibility of so-called eco-tariffs in the Bill.
In addition, even inside the EU’s customs regime, there is evidence of illegal waste trading. Revelations from the Environmental Investigations Agency concerning the toxic trade in cathode ray tubes from the UK to Nigeria and Ghana make for very disturbing reading.
It is absolutely appropriate that we refer to sustainable development in relation to import duties, and to refer to it in this clause would rectify the fact that there is no mention in the rest of the Bill—I was very surprised by this—of the many factors relating to sustainable development that are otherwise covered by the EU customs regime. There is no mention of the environment, aside from the competitive environment; of forestry, aside from in relation to trading stamp schemes; or of chemicals, waste or wildlife. That is a significant departure from the EU customs regime.
The EU’s rules around authorised economic operators indicate that, for a company to become a member of that scheme, it needs to show that it does not have a record of serious infringements, including infringements against environmental legislation. EU legislation is clear that that status can be suspended if there is a threat to public safety, the protection of public health or the environment.
Many other areas in the customs regime that reference or have cross-connections with accompanying EU legislation are not picked up in the Bill. EU forest law enforcement, governance and trade—FLEGT—covers a licensing scheme for timber. That is relevant to import duty costs, because the importer is liable for the cost of the verification of any licences and of the translation of any paperwork related to its enforcement. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is strictly controlled through EU regulation. Trans-boundary shipments of waste must comply with the 2006 EU waste shipment regulation.
The CITES treaty applies to wildlife, so we would still be covered by that when we leave the EU, but the EU goes further—that is incorporated in the overall customs regime. For example, there are regulations about documentation and labelling and a longer list of species upon which import controls are applied for the EU compared with under CITES. Finally, when it comes to measures about trade in environmentally-damaging chemicals, we have EU-level quotas on ozone-depleting substances and carbon-producing F-gases, and a notification procedure for other potentially dangerous chemicals.
I accept that in all those areas we could be asking for lots of different amendments to try to rectify some of these problems—I am sure Members will try—but having that environmental sustainability criterion for assessing import duties in the Bill, and placing it near the start, will raise its profile, which the Government sadly seem not to have considered at all when putting the Bill together. That is worrying given the prominence of these matters within the EU’s existing customs regime.
Peter Dowd
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mrs Buck. I hope that, as in the sessions on the Finance Bill, we will have a major climbdown—the Minister and other members of the Committee will note that from that Bill.
The SNP amendment 106 would require the Government to have regard to the public interest in considering the rate of customs tariffs on our exit. It would add a public interest test to the four existing conditions that the Bill requires the Treasury to have regard to when deciding to apply customs tariffs to goods entering the United Kingdom. Those existing conditions in the Bill are the interests of consumers, the desirability of promoting external trade, the desirability of promoting productivity in the UK and the extent to which goods are subject to competition.
Members will note that, throughout the passage of the Bill, we have been seeking to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. We will continue to do so. In one of the evidence sessions, we heard from one witness, Kathleen Walker Shaw, the European officer of the GMB union, who said that she spent many evenings drafting her union’s response to the trade White Paper only to find eight hours later that the Bills had been published. I think that it is fair to say that that was not a particularly isolated view in the session.
The Opposition have concerns about the specifics of the SNP amendment, which means we take a slightly different approach. We believe that, in key sections of the Bill, the public interest is being used as a mechanism to widen the powers of the Secretary of State. That is perhaps most pronounced in schedule 4, which empowers the Secretary of State to reject a recommendation of the Trade Remedies Authority based upon a belief that it is not in the public interest. I respect people’s beliefs, but in this forum they have to be based on evidence, and I am not sure that we will get much of that. We have tabled a number of amendments of our own, and I want to dwell on them.
It is incumbent on me to point out that public interest is not defined in the Bill. That leaves a good deal of room for manoeuvre for the Secretary of State to determine the public interest, without appropriate parameters about precisely what it means. Precision is not one of the endearing features of the Bill. We are happy for the Government to have powers to take the public interest into account in certain circumstances, but only on the basis that it is concretely defined in primary legislation. That is yet another lacuna in the Bill, and a stubborn point that will be addressed time and again in these proceedings.
The Minister used the example of national security in the evidence session on Tuesday. That does seem a useful definition of public interest, and we believe that national security should provide an explicit limit to the definition of public interest in the Bill. We know, after all, that the Secretary of State has some novel ideas about what the public interest might be. They are views that ostensibly focus on the needs of the consumer over the producer. However, it has to be said that that is a one-dimensional approach taken by the Government, which was laid bare in the witness session. In response to the Financial Secretary’s question about consumers potentially being disadvantaged compared to producers, Ms Crawford responded:
“Consumers are also workers who are employed in some of these industries, and they will not benefit from having unfair trade practice disadvantage them and the quality of their goods. That is something we must bear in mind.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 42, Q53.]
That is a more sophisticated definitional approach than the Government’s.
Although we support the efforts of the Scottish National party to introduce checks and balances, we have concerns at this stage. In that regard, we cannot support the amendment. I hope the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will take our statement in good faith.
Mel Stride
We have had a wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments, much of which covers matters that we will come to later in the Bill. I will focus my remarks on the details of the amendments and the clause.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe rightly pointed out that I said earlier that the Government’s intention was to ensure that we had a minimum of change in the regime, for the obvious reason of providing familiarity and certainty to businesses. That is an important point and it is why clause 8(5) takes precedent from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is very much grounded in where we currently are, as opposed to venturing out to pastures new, some of which would be unfortunate or inappropriate, or so the Opposition would have us believe.
The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned authorised economic operators, which we will come to in clause 22, to make the general point that a number of things do not appear in the Bill, such as our habitats and various other things in existing EU legislation. On AEOs, the Bill introduces powers in clause 22 that will allow us to address exactly those elements when HMRC and the Treasury come to lay regulations as to, for example, what qualifications there might be to become registered as a certified AEO. Those kinds of issues can be picked up at that time and scrutinised further by the House.
The meat of clause 8 is in subsection (5), which states:
“In considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods in a standard case, the Treasury must have regard to…(a) the interests of consumers in the United Kingdom”
and
“(b) the desirability of maintaining and promoting the external trade of the United Kingdom”.
It is hard to see how that would not have to take into account the manufacturing element and the health of the manufacturing sector. Subsection (5)(c) states that the Treasury must have regard to
“the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity in the United Kingdom,”
It is very difficult to see how the manufacturing sector, which represents around 10% of the UK economy, could be entirely ignored or in any sense neglected. Subsection (5)(d) states that the Treasury must have regard to
“the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition.”
I suggest that manufacturing would be core to any decisions on the setting of duties made in that context.
Subsection (6) states:
“In considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods in a standard case, the Treasury must also have regard to any recommendation about the rate made to them by the Secretary of State.”
As the Committee will know, the term “Secretary of State” refers to any Secretary of State in any Department, so on concerns relating to sustainable development, the relevant Department—
Kirsty Blackman
Actually, subsection (7) goes on to say that the Secretary of State
“must have regard to the matters set out in subsection (5)(a) to (d)”,
and not to other factors such as sustainable development.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady has pre-empted my next point. Although subsection (7) does say that, it does not say that the Secretary of State cannot have regard to any other matter—it does not exclude. It would be strange if a Secretary of State was told that they had to have regard to those four aspects when considering an issue and they took that to mean that they could not consider any other aspect. I draw the Committee’s attention to that aspect of the Bill.
On the specific case of sustainable development, we will debate and scrutinise the provisions in the Bill that accommodate setting up our unilateral trade preferences, which are extremely important in the context of sustainable development. On those grounds, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
Kirsty Blackman
Specifically on what the Minister has said, it is clear from various evidence we have received that the Government have not chosen simply to replicate things such as the Union customs code. In some places they have chosen to replicate it, but in others they have chosen not to. The concern is that the Government’s judgment has not been great in choosing which parts to replicate and which parts not to replicate. The measure has clearly been drafted in a hurry. From the Minister’s argument in relation to what the Secretary of State would have regard to, it is clear that this section of the legislation has not been particularly well thought through.
Opposition Members are not asking for unreasonable things. Having regard to sustainable development is completely reasonable. If the Minister is clear that that will be looked at anyway, or if the Secretary of State decides to get involved in any decision, it does not cost anything to add that into the Bill. If the Minister is clear that the Government will consider the interests of manufacturers because they are integral, it does not cost anything to add that into the Bill. It would be useful and helpful to businesses and would be a nice sign of confidence in businesses. It would be great for the Government to not just talk about increasing productivity, but to say to manufacturers, “We will support you and ensure that your interests are protected.” If the Minister is clear that such things are going to happen anyway, it would not cost the Government anything and they would lose nothing, but it would ensure that people feel more positively about the Bill.
Mel Stride
I will be brief because the Committee is anxious to make progress and move on to some important clauses. I will not repeat the earlier comments that I made other than the overarching comment, which is that the provisions in the Bill as drawn are very broad and will pick up on the concerns that the hon. Lady has raised.
Jonathan Reynolds
I appreciate the Minister’s response and his words of reassurance, but if he were being fair-minded he would acknowledge that there is still significant uncertainty and concern in UK industry, particularly in the manufacturing sector. As the evidence session showed the other day, there are more known unknowns than anything else in this area, and amendments that seek to mitigate that and provide more reassurance are reasonable and prudent, so we would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 8, page 6, line 9, at end insert—
“(b) by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons, or
(c) contained in a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to recommendations of any relevant select committee of the House of Commons or contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering the rate of import duty.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 11, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
“(b) by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons, or
(c) contained in a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to recommendations of any relevant select committee of the House of Commons or contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering the rate of import duty.
Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 8, line 40, at end insert—
“(b) by a relevant select committee of the House of Commons, or
(c) contained in a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to have regard to recommendations of any relevant select committee of the House of Commons or contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering whether to exercise the power to set lower rates of import duty.
Jonathan Reynolds
I will endeavour to take a little less time on amendment 2, Ms Buck. My enthusiasm and enjoyment of a Bill Committee perhaps gets the better of me at times.
The amendment would require the Treasury to have regard to the recommendations of any relevant Select Committee or those contained in a resolution of the House of Commons in considering the rate of import duty. This goes to the heart of how the Bill is constructed and how we will seek to scrutinise it. For reasons we have already covered, the Bill is very much an outline framework Bill, the details of which must be added at a later date. That relates to the way in which the negotiations have progressed. We must think about how to ensure that there is no democratic deficit in how the detail of the Bill is filled in, and that the core objective of Brexit—greater democratic control for the House of Commons—is achieved.
The Opposition recognise the need for the Government to make the necessary preparations to create the UK’s customs and tariff regimes post-Brexit, but we do not accept that that means allowing the Government to concentrate all those powers in the Executive. It is the Opposition’s view that, in this instance, the Conservative interpretation of taking back control has simply meant moving it from Brussels to Whitehall. That is true not just of this Bill but of many parts of the Brexit legislation. In our view, tariffs should undergo the same parliamentary process as taxation, with similar levels of parliamentary scrutiny.
In the evidence sessions on Tuesday, we heard about the sheer diversity of areas that could be affected and that will need input into the detail of the Bill. We believe that Select Committees could play a crucial parliamentary role in providing some of that detail. If the Select Committees were allowed to engage with a wide range of stakeholders to contribute to the Government’s evidence base, we believe that it would widen the debate. It would also provide for a critical role in holding the Government to account. Select Committees’ ability to compel witnesses to appear to give evidence would allow them to interrogate Ministers about the consequences of some of the details of the secondary legislation and process as it unfolds, which could be invaluable. It could also help build political consensus by identifying common ground between different groups of politicians, which is especially important given how divisive Brexit has been thus far.
Lastly, Select Committees could engage with the media and public, which would be a key contribution to the transparency of the process, accountability and scrutiny. Where there is potential in the Bill for trade decisions to be made seemingly unilaterally by the Secretary of State, having public and transparent debates through parliamentary Select Committees could be critical. I therefore urge the Committee to vote in favour of the amendment, which would be a significant step towards ensuring that we make every effort to handle this once-in-a-generation event with the parliamentary scrutiny, accountability and checks and balances that it demands.
Kirsty Blackman
I have previously complained about the composition of Public Bill Committees, given the UK Government’s gerrymandering so that they can have a majority in Bill Committees despite not having a majority in the House. The change would mean that scrutiny would be done effectively, and not just by Committees with a majority of Government representatives who will win every vote by 10 to nine. The amendment is incredibly important and would ensure effective and appropriate scrutiny, and make for better legislation.
Mel Stride
Amendment 2 would require the Treasury to consider recommendations made by a relevant Select Committee or a resolution of the House of Commons when considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply in the standard case.
The Treasury will listen closely to recommendations from a range of interested parties, including relevant Select Committees and, of course, Members of the House. In addition, Select Committees already have the power to question Ministers on policy within their departmental remit, and the Treasury will answer any questions from relevant Select Committees. Therefore, the Government believe that it is not necessary to include that in the Bill.
Amendment 3 would place the same obligation on the Treasury when considering what provisions to include in regulations related to quotas, such as determining the rate of import duty applicable to goods that are subject to quotas, and amendment 4 would introduce that requirement when making regulations concerning tariff suspensions. For the same reasons that I set out in relation to amendment 2, the Government do not believe that it is necessary to include such provisions in the Bill.
I have one final point in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about scrutiny and needing provisions in the Bill. This Bill will, of course, have Report stage, which will be an opportunity for scrutiny by a far wider group than a Committee on which the Government might typically have a majority of one. Every Member of the House will have an opportunity to participate in that debate and consideration of further amendments.
Peter Dowd
The amendments seek to ensure that the Treasury must have regard to any Select Committee recommendations or House of Commons resolutions in two circumstances: first, when setting the rate of import duty on a specified good; and secondly, when lowering the rate of import duty on specific goods. Through the amendments, we seek to improve the mechanisms of accountability and ensure that any decision taken by the Treasury on duties and tariffs is taken on the basis of a democratic approach to the management of our economy, with a full and proper place for Parliament and its constituent parts.
We want the UK to have a full and functioning customs system in place when we leave the European Union. The powers transferred in the Bill give the Chancellor, the Secretary of State or others the ability to restructure the entire economy at a few strokes of a pen, without any consultation with those affected by changes to our customs regime. That is deeply concerning for anybody.
Since the Government failed to win a majority at the recent general election, we have seen numerous attempts to centralise power within ministerial portfolios, reducing the role of Parliament and the scrutiny of Government decisions, as has been alluded to on a number of occasions today. The Bill is yet another example of that trend. As the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made clear, the current trend is towards a “massive transfer of power” to the Executive and away from Parliament. Every parliamentarian in this room should be deeply concerned about that because, at the end of the day, we get £75,000 a year to come here and scrutinise the Government and we are not being allowed to. We are therefore seeking to introduce the checks and balances necessary to ensure that a future customs framework and its operation continue to have proper democratic scrutiny and oversight. Stakeholders should be brought into the process.
The amendments would introduce an advisory capacity for Select Committees or the House in the process of determining import duties. That would broaden the number of those who have a democratic role in supporting and informing decision-making. That is what we are here for. Currently, as the Lords Committee made clear, the Bill provides 150 separate powers to make tax law. We are merely suggesting that widening the number of parliamentarians who can influence those decisions is a matter of building a genuinely rigorous democratic process.
Crucially, as hon. Members are aware, Select Committees are made up of Members from across the House. That cross-party approach can only support a proper decision-making process on the important issue of customs tariffs. We hope therefore that Members will consider the benefits of including the expertise of a Committee or the House in general within the vital process of examining evidence and providing independent advice— the Government may not wish to hear that advice, but it should nevertheless be given to them. Ultimately, that can only help to support the work of the Treasury in achieving the best outcome, regardless of party concerned.
It is reasonable in distillation to assert that Mr Blackwell from the Hansard Society said that there is a problem that
“the balance between Parliament and the Executive...has always been on the side of the Executive”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 51, Q71.]
This is a chance to rebalance that. Given the extent of delegation to Ministers set up in this Bill and other Brexit Bills, the role of Parliament is being downgraded. The Government know that; Members in this room know that; consumers know that; and producers know that and the public know that. The Government should think on that. Frankly, they should come clean, have the courage of their convictions, acknowledge it publicly and, in so doing, stop hiding behind what for many people are the vagaries of procedure—negative, affirmative and so on. We ask the Committee to support our amendments today in the interests of democratic scrutiny.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Trade Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 25th January 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Trade Bill 2017-19 View all Trade Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 January 2018 - (25 Jan 2018)
The Chair
I welcome our witnesses. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order. We therefore have until 12.15 pm for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Gary Stephenson: I am Gary Stephenson. I am the global regulatory affairs director for Devro, which is a collagen casing manufacturing company based in Scotland that exports to more than 100 markets. I am also chair of the Food and Drink Federation Scotland, which is a member-funded organisation that looks after manufacturers in Scotland. Its main focus is EU and UK regulatory influencing.
Sarah Dickson: I am Sarah Dickson. I am the international director at the Scotch Whisky Association. We represent 68 Scotch whisky manufacturers, producers and bottlers. Whisky is the UK’s largest food and drink export: whisky exports were worth £4 billion in 2016, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures coming out soon should show an increase in that. We export to 180 different markets, and have done so for the past 150 years.
The Chair
We only need brief introductions. We do not need the full life story of every company.
Elspeth Macdonald: I am Elspeth Macdonald. I am the deputy chief executive of Food Standards Scotland.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Davies. May I wish everyone a very happy Burns day? So that our Welsh colleagues do not feel left out, I understand that it is also St Dwynwen’s day—I hope I pronounced that correctly—so let me say a very happy St Dwynwen’s day, too.
Barry Gardiner
Q
Sarah Dickson: For us, transparent and participative trade policy is really important. As an exporting organisation, we have been dealing with trade policy decisions in countries around the world for many years. We find that the best way to make trade policy is to involve people, consult them in that process and gather views, because you will find that some people will do better out of an agreement than others, and decisions will need to be made. Only by having a wide consultation on that and involving people in the process do you really get to a good outcome that it is then possible to implement and pass.
The Trade Bill as written at the moment—we do not know if there is more legislation to come—does not really cover that point in a statutory way. Of course, you do not have to consult and use statute to do that, but it concerns us that trade policy has been with the EU for many years and the UK has not done it. When it comes to having confidence—it is about confidence, rather than trust—in what the process is and when you would get input into that to have your say, we would be encouraged if we had more detail in a statutory instrument.
Barry Gardiner
Q
Sarah Dickson: Not at the moment.
Gary Stephenson: I see the Bill as a sort of framework for future implementation of more specific regulations. I think the challenge is in the detail. If we look at key sectors such as animal-derived products, which represent 70% of the food exports from Scotland, there are some specifics there that will be required, on, say, animal health, protection and regulations in regard to which countries are permitted to export to different markets. There is registration for different markets. There are export health certificates and border inspection posts for imports of those materials. All that is fairly complex and detailed. We would hope that we would be consulted on any more specific legislation. It is difficult at this stage to say whether it is heading in the right direction or not. It depends on that ability to consult. There will need to be consultation in the devolved Governments, as well as with the UK.
Barry Gardiner
Q
Gary Stephenson: I am an optimist, so I would like to think that I have confidence that we would be engaged in consultation, yes.
Elspeth Macdonald: From Food Standards Scotland’s perspective, the part of the Bill that engages most with us relates to implementation of trade agreements going forward. If current trade agreements between the EU and third countries are carried over in their current form, that may not change matters significantly. If those trade agreements down the road start to change, or there is a desire or a wish to start to change them, the transparency on how that would happen is not yet evident. Overriding all of that, of course, in the devolved context, is the issue about the constraints in competence that the Bill would bring on Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament, and therefore on ourselves, to be able to provide assurances to consumers in Scotland about standards, and assurance in relation to international trade.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Q
Gary Stephenson: It is difficult to tell with the Bill as it stands, because the devil is in the detail. There are 40-plus EU free trade agreements. Some are very small—economically they are not too important—but there are some very big free trade agreements within those. Clearly, we cannot do them all at once, and the key bit will be whether there is some sort of Government prioritisation of those agreements, perhaps from the standpoint of size of markets. There are some very big ones in there: Japan, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Ukraine, Turkey and Egypt are very large markets that are certainly important for UK-Scottish producers.
Craig Whittaker
Q
Gary Stephenson: There is uncertainty, because of the transitional phase within those discussions. If we are in a transitional phase, we are out of the EU but we are still controlled by the customs requirements. It very much depends. If there is good will on both sides, then things should progress acceptably. If any of these markets want to change the agreement with the UK, that puts us in a difficult position, because we have certainly got a fairly weak position during the transition period, where we are bound not to agree any future agreement but are still tied to the European requirements, though we are outside the EU. I am not sure how that will be resolved, and it is not detailed in the legislation.
Sarah Dickson: We are probably in a slightly different position, in that we think this Bill has the basics that you would need to carry over existing agreements. Also, because of the time pressure, we could understand that with existing agreements there may not be time for the sort of consultation and other discussion that you would want with new agreements, or if these agreements were to be changed. For an existing agreement, where the terms are to all intents and purposes similar, we can see that this Bill has the basics to do that.
For new agreements, or agreements that were changing, as Gary has mentioned, you would need a much more detailed consultation process, with scrutiny, and that is probably the bit of the legislation that it feels like the Trade Bill is missing. What happens with future deals or if deals change? How would that process work?
Craig Whittaker
Q
Elspeth Macdonald: No. As I understand it, this Bill provides for the carry-over of those existing trade deals between the EU and other countries. I think there is also—
The Chair
Could you speak up, please?
Elspeth Macdonald: Yes. This Bill provides for carry-over from existing trade agreements between the EU and third countries. I think that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has some influence on this process, too.
Bill Esterson
Q
“the proposed new international trading arrangements…may be on disadvantageous terms compared to the current conditions.”
Could you say what your concerns are about the trade agreements covered in this Bill, and where you see the possibility of them being included on disadvantageous terms?
Gary Stephenson: I assume that refers more to the EU situation, in that in Scotland, a large proportion of our exports are to the EU, and we are clearly looking potentially at more challenging conditions from the standpoint of, “Will the UK be added to the EU list of approved countries?”, and registration of approved establishments. At the moment, it is probably the sheer volume of materials having to pass through customs and border inspection posts and so on that is likely to cause increased trading challenges, unless we get that right, and that is a critical piece.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gary Stephenson: For the EU free trade agreements, I do not necessarily see them being as challenging. The only issue would be—take Korea. We used to export to Korea before the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement came in and basically removed the tariff, so the only difference, hopefully, would be that we are back to a tariff situation, which we did not have during the free trade agreement.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gary Stephenson: I think the issue here is that the EU will still have a say in this. To what extent do we want to negotiate bilateral agreements with these free trade association countries? Or do we want a trilateral-type agreement, which would be a sort of joint EU-UK-third country negotiation?
Bill Esterson
Q
Gary Stephenson: My view would be that a trilateral would be a better option, because you are not looking at changing anything.
Bill Esterson
Q
Elspeth Macdonald: Certainly, in relation to regulatory standards—technical standards—for food, industry and consumers are generally fairly confident and satisfied with the standards in the current EU regulatory framework. Certainly, when we talk to businesses and the public about the regulatory standards governing the food that they eat, and the food that they buy and use in their businesses, in Scotland, there is a generally high degree of satisfaction with EU standards. Any changes in future that began to change those regulatory standards away from those that currently provide a high degree of public health protection and consumer protection would be of some concern.
Bill Esterson
Q
Elspeth Macdonald: My organisation’s perspective on this is probably more around the non-tariff side. Certainly, businesses that we regulate in Scotland will be concerned to ensure that they have as little disruption as possible to their access to markets.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gary Stephenson: That is probably more in the food manufacturers’ area, because how the tariff rate quota is divided up is obviously for negotiation between the UK and the EU. I know that the World Trade Organisation has some influence on how it is divided up. This is where the specific industry sector should be consulted on what it believes would be the fair quota. Any of us is probably not in a position to set out a position on any specific quota. Take lamb as an example: what is a suitable quota that the UK would take back from the EU? It is a complex area, and I think it is best to ask that question of the sector responsible.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Q
Gary Stephenson: Wow, that is a big one. There are a number of elements to this. My company is in a fairly unique position in the food industry, in that we already import product into the EU, so we understand the complexities of that process. It is about whether the region you are from is authorised on the EU legislation side. Is your business registered within the EU as a registered business to produce that product? Other countries have similar issues. The US has similar legislation, which requires overseas suppliers to be registered with the Food and Drug Administration.
There is an additional piece: the export health certificates, which are not needed for the EU at present, but will be. Each one of those costs the business. It is not just the cost of the certificates—the vet must come to inspect. Have we got enough vets in the UK to provide that service? That is an additional challenge.
Hannah Bardell
Q
Gary Stephenson: Yes. Every single shipment requires a certificate, which we get from Carlisle, from the Animal and Plant Health Agency. You would have an official vet come in to sign that certificate. For example, in our case, if we need four times more certificates after Brexit than we are currently using, that is four times the cost. I am not saying that the vet would come four times more often, but he would certainly be in there twice as often, so you would be looking at twice the cost. Some businesses have not yet been exporting and will need an export health certificate. All this is going to be new for them. They are going to need a new certificate, and they are going to need to pay the vet to come and sign that certificate.
The additional piece involves shipping agents and border inspection posts. If you are using a shipping agent to export your product, in order to get all the paperwork right and so on, that is going to cost you. As you mentioned, most businesses have not exported in a way that requires customs declarations and so on, so that is an additional cost to businesses that they are probably not very aware of. I cannot give an exact figure for how much more, but it is an extra cost.
Hannah Bardell
Q
The Chair
I remind witnesses to speak up. Some of those at the back are finding it difficult to hear. Please speak up as best you can.
Elspeth Macdonald: Gary makes some really valid points about the increased burdens and bureaucracy for business, but it is also important to be reminded that the additional level of checking and assurance that may be required in future is also likely to have a significant impact on local authorities, for example. They have an important function in providing assurance about standards and compliance with legislation in food businesses that export to other countries. There is absolutely the potential for a significant impact of a new requirement for veterinary checks and so on, but also, should more checks be needed in future than now, there could be significant impacts on local authorities.
Sarah Dickson: From a Scotch whisky perspective, we may not need the vets, but we benefit from the tariff reductions, the intellectual property protection and the non-tariff barriers given to us by the agreements. About 10% of our exports go to a country covered by an EU free trade agreement. One thing that we have been talking to Department for International Trade officials about is how business can help. We would be more than happy to see if there is any contribution we can make to make sure these agreements are carried over.
Gary Stephenson: There is an additional piece from Elspeth’s comments. Currently, importing countries’ manufacturing sites are visited by an EU vet to assess their suitability and whether they are meeting European standards. When we are outside the EU, that will become a UK responsibility. We do not have the resources available today to conduct those checks.
Hannah Bardell
Q
Sarah Dickson: I am working on the basis that, because we will have the carrying over of all EU legislation into the UK, we will not lose the GI and an intellectual property system will be there to protect protected names such as Scotch whisky. We use it in all markets all over the world to make sure that people do not copy our product and produce lookey-likey fakes and that kind of thing. That is very important to our industry. We are working on the basis that that comes across lock, stock and barrel.
The Chair
We have a maximum of 20 minutes left and at least six people still wanting to ask questions. If we have short questions and concise answers, we can get as many people in to ask a question as is possible.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Before I ask my question, can I just point out an important error in some of the official documents? Whisky is spelled with an “e” on some of the documents, and that is a very different product from Scotch whisky. On Burns night, I thought it was appropriate to point that out.
Iain Stewart
Q
Sarah Dickson: For us, 10% of our exports go to those countries and benefit from them. I cannot give you an overall figure, but obviously, if you are not paying the tariff, you are not paying the tariff and you do not have that cost. It would make a difference to about 10% of our exports, and our exports were £4 billion in 2016.
Elspeth Macdonald: I do not have figures in front of me, but I think the document the Scottish Government published recently, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, about business, jobs and the economy, touched on exactly those issues and put some economic analysis around some of that in terms of trade.
Gary Stephenson: All I can say is that I think about 37% of exports of food from Scotland are to non-EU countries, but we have not quantified exactly what the impact would be and how much of that is going to countries with a free trade agreement. I cannot give an exact answer, but it will have an impact.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Q
Gary Stephenson: There has to be deep consultation. The people with the expertise are the ones shipping the products, so they need to be consulted in detail on those provisions, which are very specific. You mentioned phytosanitary; obviously seed potatoes are a big product for Scotland, and they are highly dependent on phytosanitary requirements.
Matt Western
Potatoes are?
Gary Stephenson: Yes.
Sarah Dickson: Our experience is that we are often the ones working with the EU to draft the provisions on whatever it might be—labelling, or other requirements that would be needed for a mutual recognition—so we currently work closely with the EU negotiators to provide them with the advice and support that they need.
Elspeth Macdonald: There is a more fundamental issue from my perspective. There are specific exemptions from reservation through the Scotland Act that make it a devolved function for technical standards to be set in relation to food. There is a fundamental question above: it is about not just the Government, but Governments having those discussions with businesses.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Q
Gary Stephenson: I think it is critical, particularly looking at some sectors, that the devolved Governments consult with sectors, and that there is a unified approach. This is too important to get parochial about. It is an important issue for the whole UK, but there is a higher impact in some sectors, particularly in Scotland and Wales; I am thinking of hill farming products and that type of thing.
Alan Brown
Q
Gary Stephenson: It would help.
Alan Brown
Q
Elspeth Macdonald: The principal issue with the Bill that causes us great difficulties is the way in which it constrains the ability of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and consequently our ability, to act and regulate in ways that are considered appropriate for businesses and the public in Scotland. The fundamental issue is essentially the same as in the case of the constraints imposed through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill; it is a similar matter of high principle that overarches the Bills.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Q
Sarah Dickson: When the EU negotiates a trade agreement, it always looks to protect geographical indications. It does that in different ways. Not every agreement has exactly the same provisions, but it is always what they call an offensive interest of the EU to make sure that geographical names are protected. Where we think that an agreement with that intellectual property protection—that is basically what a geographical indication gives us—does not exist anymore, we will have to find other means, which means spending time and resources trying to work the country’s system. All countries, via their TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—agreement, should have intellectual property; it is just that the easiest, clearest way to do this is through a free trade agreement.
We have already started work, in countries where there is an EU trade agreement, on making sure that we double up, so to speak, and work through the Government system to try to make sure that there is no intellectual property gap.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Sarah Dickson: Looking at future trade agreements, I would hope not, because I would assume that the UK Government would give the same priority to protecting its geographical indications, like Scotch whisky.
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
Q
Sarah Dickson: I think the engagement with the UK Government is the missing piece of the puzzle, but we assume that it will happen at some point, and that we will have more detail on it. The market access advisory committee is a great way for us, the industry, to feed in our views formally to all the member states. We regularly attend it. It has a spirit-specific working group that we are able to contribute to. It feels very much like a partnership. We explain the problems we face in markets around the world and the EU then works out how it can respond to that. It has to prioritise, but because you have all the sectors contributing in that way and it is quite an open, transparent process, you know that you are at least being listened to and included in its strategies.
Faisal Rashid
Q
Sarah Dickson: We would feel more confident at the moment to have that laid out formally by the Government, in terms of what they are planning to do and how it will work. Ad hoc can work where you have developed personal relationships. We used to know everybody who did trade policy in the British Government, but that is not true anymore. Now there are 500, 600 or 700 people across Government doing it. When there used to be 40, it was much easier. As that grows and changes, having a very clear structure, so we know how to feed in and when and how, would be very helpful for us.
Faisal Rashid
Q
Elspeth Macdonald: I do not think I am equipped to answer that question. It is almost more of a legal question, in terms of how the Bill would apply.
Faisal Rashid
Q
Elspeth Macdonald: Certainly, in terms of being able to provide the public with assurances that the trading relationships that the UK will have in future when it leaves the EU will provide the same degree of public confidence and public health protection, scrutiny is critically important.
Faisal Rashid
Mr Stephenson, can you comment on that?
Gary Stephenson: I was going to jump in there anyway. It is an optimistic view that it is just a lift and shift. If you go for trilateralism, you are more likely to get there; if you go for bilateral agreements, you are more likely to get some differences.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Q
Sarah Dickson: It would be very similar to what the US does. It has cleared advisers. When you are into a negotiation, I know one thing that this House has talked about before is how you talk about a negotiation while it is ongoing and how you consult on those provisions without revealing what is a moving target. What the US does is to have cleared advisors in statute; they are people it is able to talk to to work out how to make a success of a provision within a negotiation. We can see that there might be a role for legislation in this area, where you want to be able to talk to people on a formal basis about what is essentially a Government-to-Government discussion.
Judith Cummins
Q
Sarah Dickson: We believe that the more open and transparent trade policy is, the better. That means wide consultation. So we are not just talking about business in this—you need a wide range of stakeholders involved. We think you will need to define what that looks like, because there are going to be time limits and speed limits in doing the negotiations when you are trying to get something achieved. The wider and more comprehensive you can make that, the easier it will then be to pass and implement afterwards. We think it is very important that those principles are part of UK trade policy going forward.
Judith Cummins
Q
Elspeth Macdonald: Our interests in terms of geographical indications are that consumers know what they are buying and that, whatever system is in place—the Government’s stated intention is that things will be the same after exit—people can have confidence that products are not being misdescribed in terms of their geographic origin. There is confidence in the current system because it is a robust and well-regulated system that is set out in statute. Our particular interests are ensuring that, when businesses trade and when people buy products that are advertised and described in a particular way, those claims, whether they are about origin or anything else, are accurate.
Barry Gardiner
Q
I want to marry that up with what you said, Ms Dickson, about the roll-over of terms. When you were asked about South Korea, you did not actually narrate the history of your association’s difficulty with South Korea, which of course was very resistant to the geographical indicator when you presented it on behalf of the Scotch Whisky Association. Do you think there is a possibility that South Korea might use this opportunity to reverse the progress that was made? There is one question for each of you.
Sarah Dickson: I would love to be in the head of the South Korean Government and to know quite where they will take this process. The conversation between the EU, the UK and the South Korean Government will have to be for them. Is it impossible that third countries might try to use this opportunity to reopen agreements? It is not impossible, but I hope that is not the case. When the UK has left the EU and is having its own bilateral trade policy conversations with third countries, we will undoubtedly get into these conversations about what they might want to change.
Barry Gardiner
Q
Sarah Dickson: The flipside is what South Korean businesses are saying to them about the benefits they gain from the trade deal. That is the judgment in all trade deals: who is benefiting, how much they are benefiting, and whether the things they do not benefit from outweigh the benefits they get. As I said, that is really a judgment for the South Korean Government. That is partly why we are trying to protect our GIs as best we can in addition to agreements.
Gary Stephenson: I will build on that. You are exactly right: there is an opportunity for them to renegotiate, and the UK, given the set-up it will be in, will be in a weaker position to defend against that. It would be ideal if the transition were just an extension of article 50, but we know it will not be. We will be out of the EU and trying to negotiate in a transitional period in which we are not supposed to be negotiating and are not supposed to have a final agreement, we want to get things delivered on time, and we do not have all the necessary resources. How do we prioritise everything? I think there are a lot of things rolled into your scepticism, but I share that scepticism.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time for questions. May I thank the witnesses, on behalf of the Committee, for your evidence? We are very grateful.
Examination of Witnesses
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, Jonathan Hindle and David Scott gave evidence.
The Chair
I remind everyone that we have until 1 o’clock at the latest for this session.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary furniture industry group, for which the British Furniture Confederation provides the secretariat.
The Chair
Thank you. Would the witnesses introduce themselves for the record, starting from our left?
David Scott: I am David Scott, senior director of Tepnel Pharma Services.
Jonathan Hindle: I am Jonathan Hindle, chairman of the British Furniture Confederation—coming from the industry.
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: I am Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, chief executive of Business for Scotland.
The Chair
Can I also ask the witnesses to speak up? We seem a long way away back here. I invite Barry Gardiner to begin.
Barry Gardiner
Q
Jonathan Hindle: I certainly do not feel qualified to be commenting on devolved Administrations—it is not part of my remit or where our industry is particularly clustered, so I do not feel qualified to answer that. I defer to the two gentlemen beside me, who probably know more.
David Scott: I am not convinced I am able to answer either, but the consultation is definitely a good thing. There is a voice that needs to be heard and various parties look for representation, not necessarily to veto anything, but certainly to ensure that the best interests of all parts of the UK are represented.
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Business for Scotland was founded in 1996 to campaign for devolution and to set up the Scottish Parliament, so protecting the powers of devolution is one of our key remits. It is an area we have been investigating. This is one part of the whole Brexit process. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill centralises about 100 Europe-influenced powers in Whitehall after Brexit, even though many of those cross over with the responsibilities of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. The deadline to amend clause 11 of the withdrawal Bill was missed, and that means we are sitting here without proper protections in place. The Trade Bill seems to suggest that it puts the power to act almost unilaterally in the hands of a single Minister—a single Minister who has what has been labelled a “hard Brexit agenda”—without clear protections on the public right to consult, scrutinise or stop trade deals.
At best, that means that a great deal of confusion remains over how trade negotiations will be handled where they overlap with the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, and that is damaging to business. At worst, it looks like a deliberate attempt to delay the transfer of EU-held powers in particular to the devolved Parliaments until after the UK Government has had free rein to agree deals that you could say run roughshod over the devolution agreements that currently exist in these islands.
To give a key example, if we are going to do an instant trade deal, which we want to do with the Americans and which has to be the highest priority, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a great guide to what we can do with them. It is quite progressed; the key reason that TTIP did not make progress in the EU was that the EU wanted to put in protections to allow Governments to maintain public services such as the NHS, and our NHS is something that the United States is very likely to want to have access to.
I do not know much about trade negotiations, but I was trained in negotiation by a FTSE 100 company and by an American top 500 company, and the very first rule of negotiation is, “Make sure the person you’re negotiating with has the ability to say yes to the deal you’re presenting.” If we have devolved Parliaments who have control over the NHS, the Americans will look at that and say, “Well, you don’t have the ability to agree a trade deal with us,” so devolution is ipso facto incompatible with rapid trade deals, especially done under a World Trade Organisation agreement. I see that as being a problem and potentially creating constitutional issues not just in Scotland, but particularly in Northern Ireland.
Barry Gardiner
Thank you. That was an extremely interesting response, and I am sure one that will help our deliberations this afternoon, when we come to the first set of amendments. You have raised a number of very serious constitutional questions. It may be that the Minister has clear answers to them, but I think we will all be keen to hear what they are.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Q
“the government is committed to maintaining the existing trade relationships, effectively preserving the status quo.”
You go on to say:
“It therefore seems that there is the potential to spend a significant amount of time, effort and expense to deconstruct the current processes”
and introduce a new process to bring us back to the same place. The way I read them, those two statements are somewhat contradictory. Surely what we are looking at in the Bill is the provision to ease that transition to provide the status quo?
David Scott: From my perspective—I speak for my company, which has 60 individuals in Scotland working in the pharma services sector—there are established regulations and ways in which we currently work with the European Union and with global pharmaceutical companies. The Bill would suggest that, while we seek to maintain those, we reserve the right to deconstruct them and come back to the same position. That is how I read it; I may be wrong, and I do apologise if I have misconstrued that. It is important, from my business perspective, that we maintain our relationship as it currently is, because that is a major way in which we trade with European countries on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.
Martin Vickers
Q
David Scott: I appreciate that, but I do not believe that we can. I think the current system works in the best interests of the UK. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is regarded as a powerhouse within the regulatory sphere. If we tried to set up a secondary or different regulatory system, it would not be to the benefit of the UK in terms of how we operate in the global marketplace for some pharma services.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes, and I think there is a great deal of confusion around it. I do not believe that there is sufficient clarity in the Bill about what is defined as a free trade agreement, for instance. If you do a deal with a nation that has multiple elements including an element of free trade, does that mean that the Minister would have full powers to do a deal that runs contrary to or overruns devolved powers? What is a specific trade deal? That needs to be defined, so as to limit the scope of the regulatory powers being granted by the Bill. A lot more clarity needs to come through in terms of the legal writing of it.
Bill Esterson
Q
David Scott: From my perspective, it would be good to engage with Life Sciences Scotland, the industry leadership group there, to understand the concerns and any wishes likely to be put forward. There is also the Scottish Lifesciences Association. There are a number of bodies in Scotland that should be spoken to and asked to come provide evidence from that perspective, so you can get a wider perspective on how Scotland’s life sciences community feels, not just in pharma and chemical but in animal health and across the broad remit of research and all these sorts of things, and get some information from the whole body of Scotland that is representative of the wishes of industry and business from that perspective.
Jonathan Hindle: I do not have a particular Scottish perspective on this. Generally speaking, the furnishing and furniture industry is keen to achieve what I am hearing from a lot of other industries: stability and consistency, equivalence and mutual recognition across the process. We are keen to advocate dialogue wherever we can have it to achieve that transition as smoothly as possible.
Bill Esterson
Q
Jonathan Hindle: I cannot say that our industry is concerned at the moment that there will not be consistency; in everything that we are reading, we are told that attempts are being made to make that transition as smooth as possible. We do not currently endure any significant issues. There are some issues with policing and surveillance of some of the standards that we have mutually agreed; that is a current scenario and a problem now. I am hoping that the formation of the Trade Remedies Authority will allow for some more robust investment in policing and surveillance of the standards where we currently endure problems, but I would not say that we are suffering from dumping in the fullest sense of its description in this context, although we are a very substantial net importer. There is a big trade gap that we as a nation endure in our industry.
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: You have raised an important point. Business for Scotland represents mainly small and medium-sized enterprises in Scotland. We surveyed 758 businesses and asked for their opinions on how the trade deals in Brexit have been processed and handled. There were 199,000 employees, half of the companies exported, and 41% had at least one non-UK-born EU national on their staff. We found that only 8% of Scottish business owners trusted the UK Government to deliver a deal that works best for Scottish business. Interestingly enough, 76.81% to 77% thought that calling a halt to Brexit would be beneficial to the Scottish economy. I think you have got an issue there: business does not really understand what is going on and there is a great deal of uncertainty. There is more uncertainty and more negativity towards Brexit in Scotland because Scotland voted to remain, and therefore there is less confidence in business as a direct result of that; so you will see that follow through.
I think the period between the point where we are still talking about deals and the point where we can actually start looking at trade deals has to be used for a massive consultation exercise with all the sorts of bodies that David mentioned before, but right across the UK. If we are going to do that we need to be preparing for it now. We need to be talking about it now. We need to be saying, “How are we actually going to deliver this?” Business for Scotland will be able to help, from a Scottish perspective, as much as we possibly can.
Bill Esterson
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes.
David Scott: Can I echo that? I think uncertainty is a killer at this point, specifically for my customers, whom I trade with on a global basis. They have a global supply chain and have to make contingency plans to ensure that whatever medicines they make are available to patients. Those contingency plans cannot wait until the eleventh hour or the last minute of any negotiations of any sort. I can tell you that they are starting to put those contingency plans in place now, and that they will have a massive effect on companies such as mine, and companies across the UK that support pharmaceutical R&D and the development and release of products on to the European market.
Hannah Bardell
Q
Perhaps I can start with you, David, and pick up on what has been said about confusion. The way I read your comments was that you were talking about concerns about legislative change under the Bill, and the ability to make changes in primary legislation. As we know, the Law Society of Scotland has raised issues concerning the timescale that that might mean for your organisation and sector. Could you talk about that a bit? Also, I notice from your photograph that you are MHRA and Food and Drug Administration approved. On the impact of leaving, and potential disjoint—we have already lost the European Medicines Agency to Amsterdam—can you talk about the impact on your sector and company?
David Scott: Yes, the potential impact is massive. The whole of the medicines regulation is about harmonisation and working under one single set of standards, which are beneficial and mean that the speed to market of life-saving medicines is reduced. If we try to come up with a different set of regulations or way of working, and have duplication of effort, which is what would happen under the current proposal if we became a third country outside the EEA, pharma will look at us and think, “Is the market big enough?”
We are now a net exporter of pharmaceuticals into the European Union and have a trade surplus. We want to avoid anything that puts us into a deficit. If we cannot get some harmonisation and cannot stick with the current harmonisation, I am concerned that we will lose our reputation—or not our reputation, because the MHRA is one of the best in the world, as far as I am concerned, but the ability to get joined-up connectedness. That would have a massive impact on my industry and my company, without question. I would then be forced, contingency-wise, to say “What do I do? I can’t serve some of my customers’ needs in a different regulatory system.” It is a massive thing for us.
Hannah Bardell
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: For sure. In the survey we did, we did not just want to survey our members; we surveyed companies across Scotland. The feedback was surprising to us as an organisation. We had sensed that Scottish business was not happy with how this was being handled, but we have some quotes from non-members of Business for Scotland. A director of a FTSE 100 company said:
“When the virtually inevitable car crash happens the Scottish end of the business will most probably be moved to Europe which is a crying shame as the expertise at home is unsurpassed in our market segment. However with no likelihood of stability it will be a logical step to move.”
A director of a New York stock exchange limited company with 800 employees in Scotland said:
“Stop now and ask the people, do they want to continue with this process, knowing what they know now?”
A director of a UK bank left a pithy statement. He just said: “Absolute bloody shambles.” That was the sort of feedback we were getting. Some 79% want a second EU referendum after the deal is done.
In terms of the Trade Bill itself, what I am finding is that Scottish business is not engaging with the detail of Bills such as this. The information they are being asked to understand is so confusing that the only answer they have psychologically is to keep their heads down and hope that it will all be okay. That is why I suggested that through the whole process there has to be a lot more consultation.
In terms of fisheries, food standards and health, which I mentioned before, there are lots of areas where promises have been made. There are issues around tariffs and protections. For instance, I was told during one debate that it is far better to do a trade deal with India because it is so big and so on, but the wages in manufacturing in India are about 79p an hour, and we are approaching £8 an hour here. If a trade deal is done that opens up markets without the right level of consent from devolved Parliaments and industry groups, that will not be a trade deal but a bonfire of manufacturing in the United Kingdom. There have to be checks and balances in that. Multiple sectors will have to feed that in, because if we do not know that, we are going to be signing trade deals that will have unforeseen consequences, and I think that will be very damaging to the UK economy.
Hannah Bardell
Q
Jonathan Hindle: We have made recommendations to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for some updating of and amendments to the flammability regulations in particular. On a more broad basis, I understand that the British Standards Institution is looking to remain a member of the European Committee for Standardisation and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation, for example, to keep that continuity. That is what the industry is looking for. By and large, those standards, if they remain in place, are adequate. It is our ability to police, surveil and properly address transgressions that has much more been the issue for the industry. A plethora of products are making their way into the country that do not meet our stringent standards.
Hannah Bardell
Q
Jonathan Hindle: That would be a big concern for the industry. It already is under the current regime, and we are looking for improvements.
David Scott: To Gordon’s point specifically, there is a complexity here that we do not really understand. As you said, my company knew nothing about the Trade Bill or these sorts of things until we were asked to look into this. We focus on our bits. I think that Gordon is absolutely right: if we put in a trade Bill, there will be unforeseen consequences for certain sectors that you cannot foresee at this point in time.
Part of that is the safety element. Regulated drugs are there for a reason. If we start to loosen those regulations to make trade easier, then we open ourselves up to all sorts of problems, in terms of the fitness for purpose of the products that are brought into this country for use by patients.
Craig Whittaker
Q
David Scott: We would always want to comply with the highest standards of good manufacturing practices—GMP—for the pharmaceutical industry. What we do not want is to see any easing-up of the requirements of that to make trade easier with other parties. That is what I was trying to say. We need to be part of a harmonised system that works on a global basis, because if we have our own system then it becomes much more—not difficult to trade with us or to get things regulated, but we would set up an extra set of barriers. Currently, 60% of all medicines that are used in Europe are released from the UK.
Craig Whittaker
Q
David Scott: No, absolutely—it is not a trade issue. We would continue to work to the highest standards, but I would be concerned that things being imported into the UK might not meet the same standards as we would look to use ourselves.
Craig Whittaker
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: The Bill itself does not supply sufficient detail to be safe to pass, in my view. The evidence that I am offering is not based on any nationalistic principles; in fact, I think Brexit is also a nationalistic principle, but that is not what we are here to talk about, as you say.
There is one particular thing about standards, in that it is not really defined which ethics and standards will constrain trade Bills. You talked about pharmacy. I worked for Scottish Enterprise for many years and led a mission out to the States to look at poultry processing over there, and chlorine-washed chicken is one of the issues. Everyone was focusing on the fact that there was going to be chlorine-washed chicken as though that is a bad thing. Actually, it is not that bad a thing; it is just that their process is completely different.
If you wash chicken at the end of the process with chlorine, then you do not actually have to have all the high standards in every single process right through, until you get to the point that you have finished. You have then got a product that is a lot less expensive to create. If that is allowed to be imported into the United Kingdom, it will destroy poultry jobs, and therefore we have to think about this question: “Does this Bill actually have sufficient protections to mean that the unforeseen consequences will stop the loss of jobs in the UK as a result of the free hand that has been given?” I do not think it will.
Craig Whittaker
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Except the wording of one of the points—I am sorry, but I do not have it in front of me—is that the Minister and the devolved Administrations will have the ability to act, where appropriate. That gives a huge free hand without the right level of scrutiny and professional input. That in itself is the danger of the Bill. That is very specific to this Bill, and the point is about what it allows and how it can be read.
Craig Whittaker
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: I understand that this is largely about rewriting—or, if you like, cutting and pasting—from European rules into British law, but elements of the Bill are ill-defined and could, like the Henry VIII powers, direct too much power—
Craig Whittaker
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Inasmuch as I have read about them and have written newspaper articles about them, but I am not a lawyer, if that is what you are getting at. Am I able to give you a complete legal run-down of them? No, but I do not think you would have the time if I were able to.
Craig Whittaker
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes, I do.
Faisal Rashid
Q
Jonathan Hindle: A very quick answer from the furniture industry point of view is that we would want to see as much scrutiny as possible. You referred to parliamentary scrutiny; whether that is the most effective form of scrutiny is another matter. We would certainly want the TRA to be made up of appropriate individuals to provide good-quality scrutiny.
Faisal Rashid
Q
David Scott: As I said at the start, consultation is absolutely essential. You have to start with the industries and then bring it to yourselves from that point of view. If it being in the Bill would force that to happen, I would certainly say that that is a good thing from my perspective. I guess that what we do not want is one or two people making a decision for the populous.
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Very quickly, that was my point in response to Mr Esterson’s question. Yes, it should be in the Bill.
Faisal Rashid
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: I am not an expert on other nations. For almost all my life, we have been in the EU. We did not need to study what other people did. We are just making it hard for ourselves now.
Mike Wood
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: You are talking specifically about it not allowing anyone to do a deal to do with chicken, but I was using that as an example to point out that the actual wording of the Bill seems to allow a significant amount of power in one particular place and to not have sufficient levels of consultation. Basically, afterwards, it would indeed be applicable across many different sectors, food being one of them.
Mike Wood
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: In my opinion, what it allows is too free a hand post-Brexit to do deals without the right level of consultation. Sorry if that has not been clear, but I have said it four or five times.
Mike Wood
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Right. I understand what you mean now.
Alan Brown
Q
David Scott: Absolutely. I would refer you to the Industry Leadership Group position paper written by Dave Tudor, the chair of the Industry Leadership Group for Life Sciences Scotland. There are four key points. One is regulation, which we have talked about already: maintenance of regulation on a harmonised basis. There is trade and supply, which we are obviously talking about today. Access to talent is a key thing. In Scotland, we are a diverse community. Research and development are best done using a diverse set of people, so that freedom of movement and the ability to attract people not just into Scotland but into the UK is fundamental for us. That is not to downplay our abilities, but a mix of different people helps us bring the best ideas to the table.
Again, from a Scottish point of view, we have a heritage of innovation in the medical sciences that we are very proud of, and we want to continue to use our talent base and other talent to help us achieve that.
Alan Brown
Q
David Scott: In my opinion, we are too late. People are starting to put processes in place and to make contingencies. We need some clarity on the issue as soon as possible.
Alan Brown
Q
David Scott: Again, as much clarity as possible on that is good. I have some European nationals who work for me. They are concerned about their position and whether or not they will continue to work for me as we go forward. As soon as we can get clarity on that, an agreement would be fantastic. If that were within the powers of the Scottish Government, I would welcome it, but it is about understanding as quickly as possible how to get clarity so that we can allay the fears of our own people and go out to our customer base to allay their fears and stop any potential actions before they happen.
Alan Brown
Does anyone else want to add to that?
Jonathan Hindle: The furniture industry has a similar exposure to migrant workers. We have a high degree of Polish migrant workers in the industry, particularly with sewing and upholstery skills. The unknown quantities about all of this have meant that some of them are leaving, so there is concern in the industry to provide some clarity, once again, about how we would deal with migrant issues for industry.
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Again, some of our members have expressed concerns. In particular, highland hotels are saying that 65% to 70% of their staff during the summer are EU nationals and so on. There are significant issues in Scotland. I think that this shows, in terms of the overall remain vote, that immigration is seen radically differently in Scotland in terms of an opportunity to engineer the age of our society and bring skills to Scotland.
Matt Western
Q
“Make provision about the implementation of international trade agreements”.
To elaborate on the point you were making earlier, what do you understand that to mean?
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: What do I understand the “international trade agreements” to be?
Matt Western
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Sorry. What do I understand “international trade agreements” to mean? They are basically agreements between countries that facilitate trade, such as TTIP and CETA and so on, and they have significant impacts on the different sectors, in terms of what sectors are opened up to particular trade deals. Now, regarding the EU, it already has trade deals with South Korea, Canada and so on. I think that is kind of basic.
However, there could be difficulties if there is not an exact definition in the Bill of what a trade deal is; I refer to evidence from legal experts on this issue, as well. It could mean that deals that are not specifically seen as trade deals can come under the remit of the Bill.
Matt Western
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: More open than it possibly should be; not as restrictive as it—
Matt Western
It could be open?
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes. It could be seen that way. I am just asking for it to be tightened up a little bit.
Matt Western
Q
Jonathan Hindle: Fairly limited, inasmuch as when most people look for certificates of origin in tendering processes and evidence of supply chain in that regard, they ask for either an EU reference or a UK reference. If we were to devolve to a UK reference as a source of origin, it would carry equal weight in the minds of those in the particular markets that I am familiar with who often require that evidence.
Regarding the quantities coming out of the EU versus the UK, normally we are asked to make a judgment on a split and err towards the country of origin being where the majority of the material originates or where the bulk of the manufacture occurs. There are some guidelines that we tend to follow, along those lines. I am not hearing any concerns from our industry that that will present any problems. We continue to adhere to the current remit for declaring origin.
Matt Western
Q
Jonathan Hindle: Offhand, I cannot see it impacting the ability to trade effectively, or our competitiveness, or how we are perceived in any way; no, I cannot see that and I am not getting anything from our industry, as we poll it, to suggest any specific concerns on that particular point.
Of course, we have all the problems that we have had with a weak currency and all the inflationary impact that that has had, because most of our industry relies for a large part of its materials on continental Europe and elsewhere in the world. Weak sterling has had an impact and countered, if you like, the benefits that we might otherwise have enjoyed as an exporter from having a weaker currency on the other hand. It has been a double-edged sword in that regard.
Matt Western
Q
Jonathan Hindle: Very much so, yes. We would certainly welcome having someone on that TRA that understands our sector and all the nuances and complexities that have been alluded to—absolutely.
Barry Gardiner
Q
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: Yes, exactly, and as food safety is a devolved issue in Scotland—
The Chair
Order. I apologise to the hon. Member, but we have come to the end of the time allotted to the Committee for questions. May I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee for your evidence today? The Committee will meet again at 2 o’clock this afternoon in Committee Room 12.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Trade Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 25th January 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Trade Bill 2017-19 View all Trade Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 January 2018 - (25 Jan 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Grouped amendments generally deal with the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debate; decisions will be taken when we come to the clause an amendment affects.
I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following debates on relevant amendments, but it will certainly help if right hon. and hon. Members, including Ministers and shadow Ministers, stand if they wish to speak on clause stand part.
Clause 1
Implementation of the Agreement on Government Procurement
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1), unless the Scottish Ministers consent.
(1B) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1), unless the Welsh Ministers consent.”
This amendment would ensure that the consent of the Scottish Ministers or Welsh Ministers is required for any regulations that deal with matters within the competence of devolved authorities in Scotland and Wales.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 34, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert—
“(7A) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1), unless the Scottish Ministers consent.
(7B) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1), unless the Welsh Ministers consent.”
This amendment would ensure that the consent of the Scottish Ministers or Welsh Ministers is required for any regulations that deal with matters within the competence of devolved authorities in Scotland and Wales.
Amendment 36, in schedule 1, page 7, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under section 1(1) or 2(1) by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment would give the Scottish and Welsh Ministers power, by regulation, to amend direct EU legislation that forms part of domestic law on and after exit day in devolved areas.
Amendment 37, in schedule 1, page 8, line 5, at end insert—
“(4) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under section 1(1) or 2(1) by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.
Requirement for consultation in certain circumstances
3A (1) No regulations may be made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers acting alone under section 1(1) or 2(1) so far as the regulations are to come into force before exit day unless the regulations are, to that extent, made after consulting with a Minister of the Crown.
(2) No regulations may be made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers acting alone under section 2(1) so far as the regulations make provision about any quota arrangements or are incompatible with any such arrangements unless the regulations are, to that extent, made after consulting with a Minister of the Crown.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) ‘quota arrangements’ has the same meaning as in paragraph 3.”
This amendment would replace the requirement for the Scottish and Welsh Ministers to obtain the consent of the UK Government when acting alone under section 1(1) or 2(1) with the need to consult before making such regulations.
Hannah Bardell
It is a pleasure to kick off what I think we all agree is a hugely important debate. We are pleased that the amendments were selected.
It is important to say at the outset that our amendments to clauses 1 and 2 would ensure that the principles of devolution are safeguarded in the Bill as the UK leaves the EU. Just over 20 years have passed since devolution, and it is important to pause for thought. There has been a lot of discussion—on Second Reading and in the public discourse—about how the cross-party agreement that brought us devolution and the Parliaments and Assemblies of the devolved nations of the UK all those years ago is threatened. Much in the Bill drives a coach and horses through the cross-party agreements that brought huge changes to the devolved nations of the UK. I say to fervent defenders of the United Kingdom that by threatening devolution and devolved powers—the Scottish National party has set out 111 areas in which they are under threat—the Bill threatens to undermine the Union.
We agree with the provision in clause 1 that aims to ensure continued access to Government procurement markets after the UK leaves the EU, but we believe that UK Ministers should have to seek consent, not just to consult. During our debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the Prime Minister promised that the devolved nations of the UK would be consulted. As we know, it has not been possible to seek proper consultation in Northern Ireland because of the situation there; we look forward to seeing what happens in Northern Ireland and what threat that poses. However, I think it is fair to say that the devolved nations do not really feel that consultation has happened. For us, consultation and consent are absolutely the bottom line.
Amendment 33 would ensure that the consent of the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers is required for any regulations made under clause 1 that deal with matters within the competence of devolved authorities in Scotland or Wales. The Library briefing for the Bill states:
“If responsibilities for much of procurement law move from the EU to the UK with Brexit, there are questions about who takes on these responsibilities. At present, responsibilities for procurement are generally either devolved or set at the EU level.”
The devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales implement EU directives directly.
Let me draw on a specific example. Procurement is probably quite a dry and technical subject to many people, but it is very important. Back in 2008, we had a big challenge with superbugs and sickness in hospitals in Scotland, as did much of the UK. Through Government procurement measures, we were able to take contracts with private firms back under Government control. That was absolutely vital. If our amendments are not agreed to and we are unable to guarantee our procurement rights, there is a risk that they will be lost in the 111 areas I mentioned.
My Labour colleagues should think very carefully, given that it was their party that was instrumental in devolution. Labour should be congratulated on that. Labour Members must reflect on the impact of the Bill and the opportunity presented by the amendments, which have been laid with a degree of cross-party consensus and support. If we choose to push the amendment to a vote—obviously we will listen to the full debate—it would be excellent to have their support, and perhaps that of some Government Members. They might deem the promises made to Scotland in the past to lead not leave the UK, to be an equal partner—all those words and rhetoric—to be not rhetoric, but something that Members actually stand by.
On amendment 34, we agree with the provision in clause 2 that aims to provide continuity to existing trade deals that the UK is part of by virtue of its EU membership. There are about 40 trade deals, with more than 60 countries. We have heard a huge amount of evidence from a number of different organisations, including today from Devro, a company that makes sausage skins—we might argue that there will be no breakfast after Brexit if Devro is not able to produce the skins for sausages. We also heard from Hologic, a company I visited some time ago that operates in my Livingston constituency. Its representative spoke about the importance of consultation and consent and the involvement of the devolved nations.
We believe that UK Ministers ought to seek the consent of devolved Ministers when amending the law in devolved areas. The amendment would assure that the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers is required for any regulations made under the provisions of clause 2 that deal with matters within the competence of devolved authorities in Scotland and Wales.
I ask colleagues on both sides of the Committee to think about when trade deals are being negotiated. I know the Bill is about transferring current deals across, but it is also about what happens beyond that; it is about the framework that is put in place and ensuring that that framework is good and robust for everybody in the UK, wherever their business is and wherever they live. It is incredible to think that we would not get support, particularly from our Labour colleagues, on ensuring that the devolved Administration in Wales, whoever that may be, would have a say and would be able to give consent on the decisions that are made for those businesses.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Let us say a major treaty was going forward that was in the interests of Scottish whisky, for example. Is it the hon. Lady’s position that Welsh Ministers should be able to veto that?
Hannah Bardell
Those are things that can be discussed. I am not going to draw on particular areas—if it were Welsh lamb, for example, should we have a veto?—and say that we should be interfering. I would like to think that if it came to that situation, the Welsh Government—whoever was in power in Wales—would take a sensible approach and realise it was the right thing that the Government in Scotland, whichever colour they may be, should be able to consent and be consulted on the products of their nation. We should have an even hand across the UK.
Mr Prisk
I note that the hon. Lady said no to that. In other words, as it stands, what she is saying about consent means that the treaty in question could not go forward. I put the question to her again: what if there was a major interest in Scotland that, under her amendment, was vetoed by Welsh Ministers? Is that what she intends?
Hannah Bardell
No, that absolutely is not the intention. We all live in a world at the moment where we can put scenarios forward and say this or that might happen.
Hannah Bardell
And the point of the amendments is that in relation to goods coming from whichever part of the UK, we do not create a democratic deficit. That is what the Bill creates. The amendment rectifies that.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am proud of the Labour Government’s role in delivering devolution to Scotland and Wales, and I appreciate the hon. Lady mentioning that role. Can she set out when she sees there is a need for the consent of the devolved Administrations and when there is a need to consult them? Perhaps she could give some examples to demonstrate the difference.
Hannah Bardell
To be honest, the point is that we have the powers and we can have that discussion on an issue-by-issue basis. We have many examples of where we have worked well with the UK Government on trade and on rights, but we can consider other things—workers’ rights, for example. I know that when the Bill that became the Trade Union Act 2016 came to Parliament, many Members in the hon. Gentleman’s party and in other parties had huge problems with it, and it was hotly debated and discussed. Unfortunately, what we have seen is a rolling-back, despite the fact that there was opposition.
If we turn that on its head and say, “Could there be vetoes from other parts of the UK?” or, “Could we be in a position where one country is blocking a trade deal on a particular product over another within the United Kingdom?”, I would like to think that people will not use those powers in the way that the UK Government have often used their powers to impose legislation on devolved nations against their will. The whole point is that the rights, protections and opportunities, the access to and membership of the single market and the customs union are so vital to Wales, Scotland and the rest of the UK that we must not row back on those things and not give the devolved nations the opportunity to consent and be consulted. We could pick any particular issue and we could all have a discussion about whether there should be consent or consultation. The point is that we have the powers and they are powers for a purpose, and we should not have powers taken away.
Amendment 36 would amend schedule 1, which provides that Scottish and Welsh Ministers have
“No power to modify retained direct EU legislation etc.”,
such as EU regulations, or to make regulations that would create inconsistencies with any modifications to retained law that the UK Government have made, even in devolved areas. However, those restrictions are not being placed on UK Ministers. We believe that, as a matter of principle, devolved Ministers should have the same power in respect of matters falling within devolved competence as UK Ministers are being given. That is not is an unreasonable request. We are in a Union and we have devolved powers and devolved Governments; Ministers in each of those countries should have the same power as any UK Minister. Amendment 36 would remove the restrictions placed on the Scottish and Welsh Ministers’ ability to amend directly applicable EU law incorporated into UK law, bringing the powers into line with those being given to UK Ministers.
Amendment 37 would replace requirements imposed on Scottish and Welsh Ministers to seek UK Ministers’ consent when
“acting alone under section 1(1) or 2(1)”
with a requirement to consult UK Ministers before making those provisions. We have heard from stakeholders on this matter. I am sorry I was not here at the earlier evidence sessions; I was at the Council of Europe, but I have watched and read the contributions that were made. As we know, stakeholders were invited to give evidence and discuss their concerns. Chris Southworth from the International Chamber of Commerce UK said,
“Overall...I would be concerned if I were in the devolved Administrations. There is specifically no opportunity for the devolved Administrations—or the regions, I have to say—to feed into decisions on trade. I would be very concerned about that, particularly in the devolved Administrations, where there are vulnerabilities on a whole range of different industries.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 35, Q80.]
That is not SNP Members or Members of other parties just making political points; it is what we have heard in the Committee.
Today, we heard Elspeth Macdonald from Food Standards Scotland say that one of the reasons her organisation is supporting the Scottish Government on withholding a legislative consent motion is that it feels there could be a lowering of food and drink standards. Given that Scotland’s food and drink industry has grown at twice the rate of that of the rest of the UK and is a leading light of our exports, that is something.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will make a few remarks on the principle of devolution and the amendment that has been tabled.
During one of the evidence sessions the hon. Member for Corby threw out the proposition that Opposition Members should not have voted against Second Reading of the Bill, even though we believed it to be flawed. He suggested that we should have voted for it and tabled amendments in Committee. Well, the proof will be in the pudding now. How many amendments will the Government back? Will we be back at square one and left with a flawed Bill?
The blunt reality is that both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have said they will withhold their legislative consent motions if the Bill remains as it stands, so it certainly needs amending if it is to get buy-in from the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Our amendments were drafted in agreement with the two devolved Administrations. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, it is slightly disappointing that Labour MPs have not backed an amendment that was drafted by the Welsh Government.
We also heard in the evidence sessions a number of witnesses agree that the Bill in its current format excludes input from the devolved Administrations. As a result, agreements could be forced on devolved Administrations. The UK Government can legislate and make regulations that affect devolved competences. During the witness sessions we heard about tariff rates and quotas, which could be an issue; the subdivision of quotas within the UK will need to be considered, as will rules on origin. That is why it is critical, in the spirit of co-operation, that the devolved Administrations have to give consent to agreements or regulations that the UK Government put forward.
We are constantly told that the Scottish Parliament is the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, but that is incorrect. We heard during our evidence sessions about the devolved Government of Wallonia in Belgium, which was able to veto the entire comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada. That is a devolved Parliament with real power. It is vital that we hold on to and do not allow any erosion of the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
We were promised that clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill would be amended to protect the devolved nations. That did not happen. That is why we need to amend this Bill and to get agreement from the UK Government that they are willing to work with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. It is essential that their competences are protected.
I think that is all I need to say in support of the amendments. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
It is good to have you back in the Chair, Mr Davies. I look forward to the Committee making progress under your guidance.
The Labour party brought forward and delivered the devolution settlements when it was in government, so we absolutely support the rights and powers that are conferred on the devolved Administrations by their respective devolution settlements. Matters of devolved competence must not be subject to overreach by Ministers of the Crown who seek to amend or overrule the will of the people, as expressed through their devolved Governments. For Labour, that is absolutely the starting point of this debate. We believe that the powers of those devolved Governments must be enforced and, indeed, reinforced where appropriate.
That said, we have real concerns about some of the implications of this group of amendments in the context of implementing our legally binding obligations under international law. The amendments might, in effect, create a veto power, which in turn might result in the UK failing to deliver on its binding obligations under a treaty. We have a conundrum. Often in Committees like this we have what are, in effect, set-piece debates, but this is a real debate about a profoundly complex constitutional issue, which I do not think will be easily resolved. Let me try to set out what I think is at the heart of it.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, whose question went to the heart of the matter. Interestingly, the spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Livingston, used the words consult and consent in the same sentence as if they were interchangeable. The difficulty is that, in law and in effect, they are not.
Barry Gardiner
I will happily give way after I have made a little more progress. I do not seek a point-scoring debate, because we have to get to the heart of some extremely technical and complicated issues, but I will of course give way in due course if the hon. Lady wishes me to.
In respect of the devolution settlements, trade agreements and the negotiation thereof remain exclusively reserved to the UK Government. International treaties are also the exclusive reserve of the UK Government. I have no doubt that the devolved Governments recognise that and supported that approach when the relevant devolution Acts were passed. Our membership of the European Union has meant that the competence for trade has been exercised by the EU under the common commercial policy—in effect, it has been taken up a level from the UK Government to the EU. That relationship has meant that no devolved Government—nor, indeed, the national UK Government—has been able to legislate in any way that contravenes EU law. In respect of trade agreements, that has meant that we have amended our domestic legislation where required to align it with the terms of agreements concluded on our behalf by the European Union. No devolved Government therefore has any effective veto on the implementation of those agreements, nor have they ever had such a veto.
Of course, the Bill prepares us for life outside the European Union, when that common commercial policy will no longer apply and the competence for trade will be returned to the United Kingdom. Similarly, the obligation on the devolved authorities to ensure compliance with EU law may also no longer apply. That, in effect is the crux of the issue.
The amendments would, in some respects, extend upwards powers of devolved Governments that they might not currently have in respect of international trade agreements. It was telling to hear from the gentleman from Business for Scotland this morning—I am delighted that you managed to squeeze me in to ask my question at the last minute, Mr Davies. In his response to whether the Scottish Government or a devolved Assembly should, in effect, have the right to consent regarding the content of the trade agreement, with reference to his chlorine-washed chicken example, he said that, yes, he thought there should be a consent power at that level.
Whether the Bill is about an agreement with America is completely by the bye. That was a thought experiment to show the sort of situation that could arise. If we want to bring it slightly closer to home, we could talk specifically about one of the agreements the Minister proposes to have a corresponding agreement with through the good offices of the Bill: CETA. Of course, one of Canada’s main objectives when negotiating with the European Union was to be able to get chlorine-washed beef and chicken into the European market. It failed in that endeavour, because that was not agreed to by the European Union in the eventual treaty. However, it is not beyond the wit of any of us—we heard this on many occasions from our witnesses—to construct a situation in which Canada might do what other countries at such a juncture might do, which is seek to reopen the negotiations in a particular way to its advantage, to try specifically to achieve with the European Union that which previously it had not been able to.
That brings the example much closer to home, and to the Bill in particular. The key point is that, as was said by Business for Scotland’s witness, the Scottish Government’s view is that they should have the power of consent to the substantive measures of the international treaty. We recognise that there are clear implications for what might be set out in the international trade agreements on matters of devolved competence. Agricultural policy, food safety, fisheries, the environment and so on are all areas that are touched upon by modern trade agreements. They are all areas where trade agreements will of course have an impact.
Hannah Bardell
I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point. The notion of consent is an interesting one. Let me just expand a little on my take on it. The idea of consent—not just consultation—for us is that we cannot have certain aspects of our regulatory framework, or deals done, that go against the principle of devolution.
The memorandum of understanding concordat from devolution was binding
“in law, but promises cooperation on exchanging information, formulating UK foreign policy, negotiating treaties and implementing treaty obligations.”
In our view, the Bill goes across that.
For the sake of argument, say that Scotland or Wales could not give consent to a trade agreement. That would force the UK Government to go back and look at why consent could not be given, and hopefully bring something forward. If we only have the power of consultation—we could argue that consultation is not really a power—we are at the mercy of whatever the UK Government of the day do. It could be argued that the power of consent is absolutely vital in negotiating trade deals.
Barry Gardiner
It is not that I do not understand the force of the position the hon. Lady is taking and the way in which she is trying to express it, but of course those powers are powers that the devolved Administrations do not currently possess vis-à-vis the European Union. That is why, as I said, the levels at which we consider this, and the change in those levels, are absolutely material to the discussion we have today.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that if the substance of a trade agreement or any of the corresponding agreements that the Minister is seeking to roll over from our existing EU trade agreement is substantively changed, it may well have an impact on areas that are devolved competences. But that is the substance of what is agreed at the international level. Trade is a reserved matter. Treaties are a reserved matter. Therefore, the question of the implementation comes in two ways. I do not want to depart from my notes too much, but I am seeking to respond to the hon. Lady’s intervention in the spirit in which she made it.
The difficulty is that our legislative language is poor. We talk about implementing an international agreement in UK law and we also talk about implementing the terms of the agreement within the devolved competence. It is very easy to have a confusion about which implementation we are talking about. I will progress the argument, because it seems to me that it is not cut and dried. There are serious issues here that we need to consider as a Committee.
I cannot say that I normally say this, but I very much look forward to listening to what the Minister says on this occasion, because I trust he has had the benefit not only of parliamentary counsel, but of constitutional legislators, who will have looked at the matter very carefully when they saw the amendments. I look to what the Minister is going to say in the Committee to guide us on these matters.
Picking up from where I left off talking about the substantive changes, new institutions may be required—institutions that might otherwise be within the devolved competence of the Scottish and Welsh Governments. That simply arises from the changes that will be made to the free trade agreements, because they might specify the European Food Safety Authority and that would need to be changed. New institutions may have to be established to fulfil the competences that the European Food Safety Authority or any other such agency had, and they would have to be designated in the roll-over Bill.
Of course, it may be that the Minister specifies the Food Standards Agency in England as the body that will now make the specifications. It might be better to use Food Standards Scotland, which we heard from earlier today. It is absolutely right that there is a process of consultation between the devolved Administrations and the Minister at that point to say, “You’re proposing to specify that body, but actually there are far more relevant skills in this other body.” Consultation is absolutely essential to try to ensure that they get this right.
Barry Gardiner
In one moment. I hope the hon. Lady will intervene in a moment, because this is the question I think she may wish to respond to. Imagine a situation where Wales said, “We believe our agency should be the certification body,” Scotland said, “No, it should be our agency,” and because both had the power of consent and not simply the right to consultation, the Minister and the UK were unable to fulfil our international obligations under an international treaty.
The hon. Lady may say, “Surely no devolved Ministers would be so pig-headed as to say, ‘It’s got to be ours.’” The Westminster Minister may well be the one who is being pig-headed—who knows? However, I cannot imagine that it is right for the Committee to pass an amendment that could give rise to a situation in which we were unable to fulfil our international treaty obligations.
Hannah Bardell
I guess the simple answer is that they would have to consult each other. I argue that what is proposed drives a coach and horses through many aspects of devolution, and others also have serious concerns. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is an overreach in the amendments, what answers does he propose? Given the supposed “consultation” that was part of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill process, does he really have faith in that aspect of today’s legislation? I know that I do not.
Barry Gardiner
I said at the beginning that I was not going to engage in point scoring, so I will not take up the hon. Lady’s invitation to beat the Minister over the head about the lack of consultation. The witnesses have amply displayed their dissatisfaction with the consultation process, but she has, in effect, made my point for me. She said, “Well, they would have to consult.” Of course they would; that is why I believe that it is vital that consultation with the devolved Administrations is statutorily required, in a way that is not transparent on the face of the Bill. Consent, however, which could bring about the sort of impasse I referred to, should not be built into the legislation.
It is one thing to imagine legislation working in a benign, perfect scenario where people have good will, are engaging with each other and want to come to an agreement. Sadly, that is not always the case, and we must make our legislation such that it survives not only when things go right, but when things go wrong and a way through an impasse is necessary. The danger in the amendments is the reaching upwards into what would currently be seen as the competence and the rights of the European Union to negotiate the substance of those trade agreements. That is why I am fearful of the route down which the amendments would take us.
Alan Brown
Has the hon. Gentleman discussed this with the Welsh Government, and explained that his concerns about the devolved Administrations “reaching upwards”, in his description, outweigh his concerns about the UK Government being able to impose regulations on them?
Barry Gardiner
Yes, of course I have. I went down to Cardiff just last Friday to meet the Minister there and some political advisers. We talked through precisely these issues, and I have done the same with Welsh colleagues here. On Monday, I even met the special adviser from the Scottish National party group here. I have also spoken with my own Scots colleagues. I think that there is a recognition that we are dealing with genuinely difficult constitutional matters. That is why we have a difficult job as a Committee.
Barry Gardiner
I will give both scenarios, and then the hon. Lady can choose.
Our fictional country, Xanadu, has very relaxed laws about the rearing and sale of chicken for consumption. In Xanadu, chickens may be hormone-fed, genetically modified or chlorine-washed prior to slaughter for consumption. In the UK, one of the devolved Governments may have a particularly robust animal framework code, coupled with robust agriculture and food standards regulations, which would not allow for the production or consumption of such chickens. What happens if the UK agrees terms with this country that ultimately liberalise trade in chickens between our nations, such that hormone-fed, genetically modified, chlorine-washed chicken is allowed to be imported into the UK and sold on the shelves of our supermarkets for consumption by British citizens?
The devolved Government would argue, “These are matters of devolved competence, and we have right of consent regarding the implementation of the agreement, especially as it conflicts greatly with our standards.” They might also think, “There is no way we are allowing these products on to our shelves, and we will not give our consent.” In that example, I would probably be cheering and saying, “Good for them. We don’t want those chickens on our supermarket shelves.” However, the point is that if the agreement had been made, we would be bound by the obligations under it, whichever way they went—whichever example we use.
Failure to implement would result in remedial action being pursued by Xanadu. Indeed, many such countries might not even come to the negotiating table if they had significant concerns about potential consent reserve functions distorting their access to the market on terms that had been agreed at state-to-state level. When we heard from the witnesses this morning, the example of Canada was used. We have already seen that the provinces in Canada are brought in at the beginning of the process precisely to get round countries’ reluctance to engage in trade agreement negotiations without certainty that devolved Administrations cannot veto what is agreed.
The hon. Member for Livingston asked me whether I had spoken to my Welsh counterparts and I explained that I had, as well as to two of my Scottish counterparts. We have also spoken with the House of Commons constitutional law experts. They explained to us that they cannot answer the question. They do not know. They have recognised that this is a problem, and that neither the Bill nor the amendment address the issue in a way that would prevent our reaching the situation that I have tried to articulate.
We have spoken with House of Commons trade experts, and have similarly drawn a blank. They advised us that the matter has not been considered because it was not an issue before. They said they had just not come across it. What everyone has recognised is that there must absolutely be consultation in advance, to ensure that no trade agreements come unstuck if a veto is exercisable at a later stage. Also, how will the UK Government ensure that the provisions of a concluded trade agreement are implemented across the United Kingdom, as they are bound to by their obligations under international treaties?
The Bill fails to set out how the Government intend to resolve the issues. It does not define what implementation frameworks will be constructed to mitigate the extent of conflicts between the powers of the UK Government and the devolved competence of the devolved authorities. It does not differentiate between the incorporation of the terms of the agreement into UK law and how that might be considered to be separate from implementation at a devolved level. It does not set out what consultation processes will be instituted to address those issues early on, and to ensure that the interests and experience of the devolved Administrations are represented at the negotiation stage to avoid any conflict at implementation stage.
Of course the devolved Governments must have a say in the process. They must have the capacity to scrutinise it to ensure that it is compatible. The Government’s approach to consultation has not been what it should. Ad-hoc meetings between the Secretary of State and representatives of the devolved Governments cannot be considered a formal consultation process, even if the Secretary of State donned his President of the Board of Trade hat for them.
It is our view that a formal consultation role must be established for each of the devolved authorities and, indeed, for a much wider group of stakeholders with an interest in the outcomes of any trade agreement. Their views are essential in ensuring not only that any future implementation issues are addressed up front, but that their constituent interests, be they commercial or public, are properly considered before negotiations begin and as negotiations progress. It is our view that the Government must be obliged formally to consider and respond to representations made through that stakeholder engagement process, whatever those might look like.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
Let me start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The UK Government have made clear their commitment to working closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver an approach to future trade agreements that works for the whole UK and reflects the needs and individual circumstances of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have been clear that we will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations as we transition our current agreements, and that we will work together to prevent disruption to UK business and consumers. The Department for International Trade engages regularly with the devolved Administrations: DIT Ministers and senior officials visit the devolved nations frequently and engage devolved Governments and stakeholders right across the UK.
Let me turn to amendments 33 and 34. The concurrent powers in the Bill that allow either devolved Administrations or the UK Government to implement in areas of devolved competence will ensure that, where it makes practical sense, it is possible for regulations to be made once for the whole UK.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
What does the Minister think are the best examples of things under the government procurement agreement that would be matters of devolved competence?
Greg Hands
If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she asks about signing up to the GPA and the schedules to the GPA. I might add that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Brent North said, the UK’s joining the GPA will actually be subject to a separate process in Parliament. There might be a question about which authority within these islands has a right to administer a particular part of the GPA. For example, the relevant Scottish body might be the right body in Scotland, the relevant UK body in England, the relevant Welsh body in Wales, and so on.
The approach I described is essential for providing continuity to UK businesses, workers and consumers. As set out in our recent trade White Paper—this is the nub of the argument—we will not normally use these powers to amend legislation in devolved areas without the consent of the relevant devolved Administration, and we will certainly never do so without first consulting them. It is crucial to understand that.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State made the point that there is nothing in the Bill about a formal consultation. Does the Minister accept that point, and does he accept the need for such a formal process in the Bill?
Greg Hands
It is crucial to draw out what we are talking about. This is about transitioning existing agreements that are already in effect right across the United Kingdom. As I have already laid out, the Secretary of State and I have met the devolved Administrations in different capacities and in different ways. Our officials have certainly exchanged a lot of views on that.
I will come on to where we are with future trade agreements in a moment. Our intention is to involve fully devolved Administrations, devolved Parliaments and so on in that process.
Bill Esterson
On Second Reading, the Minister acknowledged that there may well be changes to those existing agreements. In the case of Norway and Turkey, can he confirm that that would almost certainly have to happen? Otherwise, they would cross the Government’s red lines. What consultation does he anticipate in those situations?
Greg Hands
As you know, Mr Davies, perhaps better than anyone, it certainly it is not for me to suggest what may or may not happen as part of the ongoing negotiations with the European Union. Clearly, aspects of the European economic area agreement will be dependent on those. It is our intention for there to be no substantive changes in those agreements as we go forward and transition. It is very important to understand that.
Hannah Bardell
Is that not at the heart of the issue? The Minister does not know what may happen in the future, or what may have to be traded off so that we can tread water and stay where we are. The power of consent is, in some ways, a negative power and a threat, but it means that a negotiation and an agreement have to be reached by all the devolved Administrations. Until now, consultation has not been a very positive experience for Scotland and the other devolved Administrations.
Greg Hands
We made a commitment in the trade White Paper to not normally use these powers in areas of devolved competence without consultation. I repeat that commitment to continuing that consultative process as we go forward. That commitment can be heard loud and clear.
Hannah Bardell
I try to speak on behalf of my constituents and others in Scotland. “Not normally” is, quite frankly, not good enough. The Minister might be as good as his word, but what about future Governments and future Ministers?
Greg Hands
I know that the hon. Lady takes up issues for her constituents—she and I have meetings about particular issues in her constituency. I repeat that we would not normally use these powers, and we would never do so without consultation. I will refer to some of the other reasons, which have been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, and by the hon. Member for Brent North, why we will not go down the road of requiring consent. We would not normally use the powers, but it is very important that we do not require consent to use them. That is a very serious commitment, which should offer the hon. Lady reassurance.
Amendment 36 seeks to remove the restriction on devolved Administrations amending direct retained EU law. Some EU law applies directly and uniformly across all EU member states without needing to be implemented in domestic legislation. On the day that we exit the EU, that type of EU law will be converted into what will be called retained direct EU law.
As the Government’s guiding principle is that no new barriers to living and doing business in our own Union should be created on exiting the EU, it is right that there should be only a co-ordinated set of changes made to that type of law, in order to maximise continuity and certainty for businesses and consumers. We are committed to consulting the devolved Administrations on the most appropriate way to legislate in areas of retained direct EU law that have effect in otherwise devolved areas.
Regarding amendment 37, we also consider it right that where measures affect the whole UK, such as quota arrangements or the use of powers in clauses 1 and 2, before we exit the EU, decisions are taken at UK level before the devolved Administration can take the measures.
Let me turn to some of the individual points raised. The hon. Member for Livingston asked whether a proper consultation could not be sought in Northern Ireland. It is important to recognise that, for reasons of arithmetic, there is not a Northern Irish Member on the Committee, but I will try to answer her point. We are working hard, as she will know—I think she will agree—to restore devolved Government in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. We are committed to working to ensure that Northern Ireland’s interests are represented in the meantime. The Department for International Trade engages with officials in Northern Ireland on a regular basis.
The hon. Lady also asked whether the GPA allows Governments to nationalise or privatise anything, whether for procurement or any other purposes. The UK Government will be bound to open up procurement markets only to the extent they have committed to do so in the new schedule to the government procurement agreement as lodged with the WTO. That will preserve the present position in relation to procurement in areas such as the NHS.
I think the hon. Lady asserted that procurement is devolved. This is a complicated area. The UK Government accept that some procurement is devolved, and the Scottish Government have made some regulations about procurement. However, the UK Government’s position is that procurement is an activity for devolution purposes rather than a subject matter. In other words, whether a procurement is devolved or reserved depends on the functions of the public body carrying it out. I think the saying is that if the public body answers to part of the Scottish Government, it might be devolved, but if it is a UK body of Her Majesty’s Government that operates in Scotland, it is likely not to be devolved.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun referenced the power that Wallonia has. I am familiar with such arguments: I think the hon. Member for Brent North debated that at some length in relation to CETA in February last year. To be clear, I expect he knows that the UK and Belgium have very different constitutional arrangements. Foreign relations are the responsibility of the UK Government under each of the devolution settlements.
The hon. Member for Brent North made some interesting points. For the first third or so of his speech, I thought I was coming close to being in complete agreement with him—at least in his thrust that the proposal in the amendment to have in effect a veto power for the devolved Administrations would make the whole endeavour unworkable. He is right. He made reference, as I will, to the short, succinct intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford about the potential for a Welsh Government veto over something that was felt to be particularly important in Scotland. That, or vice versa, is a very real example. Our approach is best: not normally to use the powers to amend legislation in devolved areas without consent, and never without consultation with the devolved Administration.
I was surprised by the approach taken by the hon. Member for Brent North. It was my impression that the amendments were drafted by the Scottish and Welsh Governments together. Therefore, much as I welcome him saying that he will not vote for the amendment, it surprised me a little that he seems to be at odds with the Welsh Government viewpoint. Anyway, I am glad that he may be joining us on this occasion.
In terms of the GPA and rolling over the existing schedule, yes, that is the intention, but—I repeat—the terms on which the UK enters the GPA in our own right will be subject to a separate vote in Parliament. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 applies to the terms of the UK’s new membership of the GPA —in other words, it is possible to bring a vote in Parliament on the terms under which the UK will join the GPA.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister just assured the Committee that there will be a vote on accession to the GPA. I am surprised that he says he can assure the Committee of that, because the procedure of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 does not ensure that there will be a vote at all. CRAGA procedure is precisely the statutory instantiation of the Ponsonby rule of 1924, which means that all the Government need to do is lay the text of the agreement before Parliament for 21 days. Unless Her Majesty’s official Opposition, or any of the Opposition parties, raise that as an objection in an Opposition day debate, it goes through—that is if they are granted an Opposition day motion within that 21 sitting days, which is by no means guaranteed. You will recall, Mr Davies, that between 27 January and September 2017, the Government did not grant the Opposition a single Opposition day debate. Even if they were to object through an Opposition day, the Minister would simply have to acknowledge it, re-table the text, and it would lie on the Table for another 21 days. Unless we went through the same process, there is no process for the Opposition to amend or vote unless we are given an Opposition day debate.
Greg Hands
I know the hon. Gentleman has a particular fascination with the Ponsonby rule of 1924, but I remind him that that rule was made otiose by his own party’s legislation—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. I went back and checked. Mr Davies, you and I were in Parliament at that time as Members of the Opposition—
Greg Hands
In 2010. The hon. Gentleman supported that Act. That is why I was careful to clarify that it is possible to bring forward a vote on the UK’s terms of entry into the GPA. For all those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Livingston to withdraw her amendment.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The UK Government must have meaningful engagement with devolved Administrations about the shape of the UK’s future customs and tariff regime post-Brexit. That has not been the case so far. Just like the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, the Trade Bill puts restrictions on the Executive capacity of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, while placing no restrictions on the capacity of the UK Government.
Essentially, under the Bill, UK Ministers will be able to legislate in devolved areas without consent from Welsh or Scottish Ministers. That is an overt power grab and a rolling back of devolution. I am proud to have played a part in bringing devolution about in Wales 20 years ago. It is vital that we maintain what devolution was set up to deliver: a proud and confident nation.
It is also disappointing that there is no provision for the Trade Remedies Authority to have any input from devolved nations. It is important for it to be an independent and impartial body, separate from the Government, but it must also represent all parts of the UK, including Wales and Scotland.
It is important to remember that in the trade White Paper, the UK Government stated that the Bill would have provisions for UK Ministers to seek consent from Welsh and Scottish Ministers when making secondary legislation under the Bill, but that has now disappeared.
In 2016, First Minister Carwyn Jones told the Welsh Assembly’s External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee that it was “hugely important” for devolved Administrations and legislatures to have a say in the negotiation of future agreements that would have an impact on Wales. He gave the specific example of a free trade agreement with New Zealand:
“The impact of that might be to remove the current controls that exist on the import of New Zealand lamb. If they were to go, that would clearly be a great difficulty for Welsh lamb producers. That issue might not be as apparent in Whitehall as it is in Wales, and that’s one example there of why it’s important that the views of the devolved Governments are understood and the interests of the devolved nations are respected.”
It is not new. We are not advocating new devolved powers. It is not even about extending devolution. It is about preserving devolution. It is important to remember that there are restrictions on competence. The devolved settlements of both Wales and Scotland ensure that both Welsh and Scottish Ministers cannot legislate in ways that interfere with UK international obligations. That comes under the Government of Wales Act 2006, specifically sections 82 and 114. It simply cannot legislate to interfere.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and highlighting the importance of the devolution journey we have travelled. Particularly on the devolution settlement, does she agree that there might be challenges if this amendment passes—it is about consent? As she says, it is written into the devolution settlements and that agreement would have to be reached to ensure that that legislation is passed. Does she agree that it would be absolutely in the interests of devolution, and in the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, that those amendments pass today?
Anna McMorrin
It is absolutely about consent, agreement and consultation. Essentially it is about not rolling back on the devolution settlement. Amending the Bill to explicitly ask for the consent of devolved Administrations for secondary legislation under the Bill would therefore not interfere with that, nor would it amount to a veto power.
As I already said, what was already drafted in the UK Government’s White Paper should be in the Bill. Consent and consultation are at the very heart of devolution. If there is secondary legislation being made within an area that is currently within devolved competence, the devolved Administrations and Welsh Ministers must give consent and ensure the democratically elected Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament is able to debate it. That is why I agree with the principle underlying the amendments, as agreed by both the Welsh and Scottish Governments.
Professor Jones, a Welsh political expert, told the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs:
“We see the UK Government in effect reintroducing a kind of conferred powers model where it will decide which bits of the powers returning from Brussels will be conferred on the Welsh Government… That—in the context of this constant churn and change—looks one-sided and objectionable.”
The most disappointing aspect of this Bill’s disregard for devolution is that the UK Government know it is completely unacceptable.
Mr Prisk
It is excellent to have a Member from Wales speaking. Naturally we have heard from the hon. Member for Livingston, the Scottish Member who is moving this amendment. Do I take it from what the hon. Member for Cardiff North is saying that she supports the principle and therefore will be supporting the hon. Lady’s amendment?
Anna McMorrin
As I said, I absolutely support this principle, which has been agreed jointly with the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government.
Ministers, Conservative MPs and civil servants privately acknowledge how extremely ill-advised it is to remove the power of devolved Governments over devolved areas. Clearly the issue is one of trust: trust to exercise devolved powers responsibly; trust to carry out measures that represent the people of Wales and Scotland; and trust to provide meaningful scrutiny of legislation. As it stands, under this Bill, and after Brexit, the devolved Governments will be at the mercy of Whitehall, which will have complete control of all areas, including those which are currently devolved. That is called rolling back devolution. As set out in the Government’s White Paper, devolved Governments must have the right to give consent to secondary legislation in areas of devolved competence.
Hannah Bardell
I have listened carefully to hon. Members. I am not saying that there are not areas of concern, and I understand that we are in unchartered territory. I am sure when we look back, when the history books are written, how we have handled this matter will probably not reflect well on politicians, but we have had a good and detailed discussion.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff North. She has been extremely brave in standing up to say what she has said. She has stood up for her country and for the devolution settlement and the devolved nations. I commend her for that, and for her point about conferred powers and the evidence given in the Brexit Committee. That is really about protecting and preserving devolution.
I understand that the UK Government might have concerns about losing their grip on power, but they have to understand that for generations the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have had power wielded over them at times by the UK Government, and devolution sought to move forward from that to create a more consensual approach across the UK. That has been absolutely vital in the development of our society and of how we see ourselves as nations and as the UK. As a result, internationally, we have been looked on as a world-leading model for how different nations in a union can share power.
I believe in Scottish independence and that we could sort all this out if Scotland had all the powers of a fully devolved nation. I appreciate that that is not necessarily going to happen straightaway. However, if the UK Government and the Conservatives continue on this road by stopping and encroaching on the devolved powers of Scotland and the other nations, Scottish independence is increasingly likely. They should bear in mind as we leave the EU the creation of a situation in which consent is required.
I understand the point made by the Labour spokes- person, the hon. Member for Brent North, about Xanadu, chickens and so on. I would make a point in return that UK Ministers will have power that Scottish Ministers and those from other devolved Administrations do not. Why should they be allowed to wield those powers and encroach on the powers of devolution? If we have the power of consent and there is a concern that something may not be agreed to, surely instead of being concerned about not adhering to our international obligations, it would not be beyond the wit of those Ministers and that Government to go back to the devolved nations to ask, “What will it take for you to give your consent and reach an agreement?” I am sure that that is entirely plausible.
I appreciate that we are in uncharted territory, but unfortunately those in government have got too used to having power over the other nations. If they are not willing to listen to and concede the points being made not just by us politicians but by people outside—organisations, trade bodies, law societies—who say that that is encroaching on the powers of devolution, that will be at their peril. That is absolutely something that will befall them. I will not withdraw my amendment and will press it to a vote.
Barry Gardiner
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out “subsections (3) to (5)” and insert “subsections (2A) and (5).”
This is consequential upon Amendment 3.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) to make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement may only be made if—
(a) the provisions of section [Parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements before signature] were complied with before the United Kingdom had ratified the agreement;
(b) the requirements under subsection (3) and under paragraph 2A of Schedule 2 have been met;
(c) the requirements under subsection (4) have been met; or
(d) the requirements under subparagraph 2(1A) of Schedule 2 have been met.”
This would expand Clause 2 to include international trade agreements that do not correspond to a prior or existing EU trade agreement. Sub-paragraph (d) would link to Amendment 20.
New clause 4—Parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements before signature—
“(1) The United Kingdom may not become a signatory to a free trade agreement which does not meet the criteria under section 2(3) unless—
(a) before entering negotiations on the proposed agreement, the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a sustainability impact assessment carried out following consultation as prescribed by section [Sustainability impact assessments];
(b) both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution authorising the Secretary of State to enter negotiations on the proposed agreement as prescribed by section [Parliamentary consent to launch of trade negotiations];
(c) during the course of negotiations, the text of the agreement as so far agreed or consolidated has been made available as prescribed by section [Availability of agreement texts];
(d) the Secretary of State has, within ten sitting days of the close of each round of negotiations on the proposed agreement, laid before Parliament a statement detailing the progress made in each area of the negotiations and the obstacles still remaining at the close of that round;
(e) the text of the agreement in the form to which it is proposed that the United Kingdom should become a signatory has been made available to Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days; and
(f) a resolution has been passed by the House of Commons approving the Secretary of State’s intention to sign the agreement.”
This would establish a procedure for parliamentary scrutiny before signature of free trade agreements that do not correspond to a prior or existing EU free trade agreement.
New clause 5—Sustainability impact assessments—
“(1) A sustainability impact assessment laid before Parliament under section [Parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements before signature](1)(a) shall be carried out following consultation.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) shall—
(a) be carried out in line with any guidance or code of practice on consultations issued by Her Majesty’s Government, and
(b) actively seek the views of—
(i) Scottish Ministers,
(ii) Welsh Ministers,
(iii) a Northern Ireland devolved authority,
(iv) representatives of businesses and trade unions in sectors which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are likely to be affected by the proposed international trade agreement, and
(v) any other person or organisation which appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of interests affected by the proposed international trade agreement.
(3) The Secretary of State shall ensure that public bodies, non-governmental organisations and the public may be made aware of the consultation by circulating and publishing details of it prominently on relevant government websites.
(4) A sustainability impact assessment under subsection (1) shall be conducted by a credible body independent of government and shall include both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the potential impacts of the proposed trade agreement, including as a minimum—
(a) the economic impacts on individual sectors of the economy, including, but not restricted to—
(i) the impacts on the quantity and quality of employment,
(ii) the various regional impacts across the different parts of the UK,
(iii) the impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises, and
(iv) the impacts on vulnerable economic groups;
(b) the social impacts, including but not restricted to—
(i) the impacts on public services, wages, labour standards, social dialogue, health and safety at work, public health, food safety, social protection, consumer protection and information, and
(ii) the government’s duties under the Equality Act 2010;
(c) the impacts on human rights, including but not restricted to—
(i) workers’ rights,
(ii) women’s rights,
(iii) cultural rights and
(iv) all UK obligations under international human rights law;
(d) the impacts on the environment, including but not restricted to—
(i) the need to protect and preserve the oceans,
(ii) biodiversity,
(iii) the rural environment and air quality, and
(iv) the need to meet the UK’s international obligations to combat climate change;
(e) the impacts on animal welfare, including but not restricted to the impacts on animal welfare in food production, both as it relates to food produced in the UK and as it relates to food imported into the UK from other countries; and
(f) the economic, social, cultural, food security and environmental interests of those countries considered to be developing countries for the purposes of clause 10 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, as defined in Schedule 3 to that Act and as amended by regulations.
(5) The elements of the sustainability impact assessment to be undertaken under (4)(f) must be sufficiently disaggregated so as to capture the full range of impacts on different groups of developing countries, and must include both direct and indirect impacts, such as loss of market share through trade diversion or preference erosion.
(6) A sustainability impact assessment under subsection (1) shall include recommendations for possible action to maximise any positive impacts and to prevent or offset any negative impacts foreseen, including the possible limitation of the negotiating mandate so as to exclude those sectors most at risk from the proposed trade agreement.”
This would establish the process of consultation for, and the required content of, sustainability impact assessments for free trade agreements that do not correspond to a prior or existing EU free trade agreement.
New clause 6—Parliamentary consent to launch of trade negotiations—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall not commence negotiations relating to a free trade agreement which does not meet the criteria under section 2(3) unless all provisions of this section have been satisfied.
(2) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before Parliament a draft of a negotiating mandate relating to the proposed international trade agreement.
(3) The draft mandate under subsection (2) shall set out—
(a) all fields and sectors to be included in the proposed negotiations;
(b) the principles to underpin the proposed negotiations;
(c) any limits on the proposed negotiations, including sectors to be excluded from the proposed negotiations; and
(d) the desired outcomes from the proposed negotiations.
(4) No sooner than 21 sitting days after the draft of the negotiating mandate has been laid under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons in respect of the draft, setting out the elements listed in subsection (3).
(5) A motion for a resolution under subsection (4) shall be made in such a way as to permit amendment of any of the elements prescribed under subsection (3).
(6) A motion to enable consideration of the negotiating mandate shall be laid before the House of Lords.
(7) The terms of any negotiating mandate authorised by a resolution under subsection (4) shall be binding upon the Secretary of State and anyone acting on his or her behalf in the course of negotiation.”
This would establish the procedure by which Parliament would agree a negotiating mandate for free trade agreements that do not correspond to a prior or existing EU free trade agreement.
New clause 7—Availability of agreement texts—
“(1) The text of any proposed international trade agreement which is being negotiated shall, so far as it is agreed or consolidated, be made publicly available within ten days of the close of each round of negotiations.
(2) Every—
(a) document submitted formally by the United Kingdom government to the negotiations, and
(b) agenda for each new round of negotiations
shall be made publicly available by the Secretary of State.
(3) All other documents relating to the negotiations and not falling within the descriptions provided in subsections (1) and (2) shall be made publicly available by the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (4).
(4) The Secretary of State may withhold from publication any document of a kind falling within the description in subsection (3) but must publish a statement of the reasons for doing so.
(5) In the case of any document withheld under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall provide full and unfettered access to that document to—
(a) any select committee of either House of Parliament to which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the proposed agreement is relevant, and
(b) any other person or body which the Secretary of State may authorise.
(6) In the case of a document to which access is provided under subsection (5), the Secretary of State may specify conditions under which the text shall be made available.
(7) The Secretary of State shall maintain an online public register of all documents published under subsections (1), (2) and (3) or withheld under subsection (4).”
This would establish the procedure by which the agreed or consolidated texts of, and other documents relating to, international trade agreements would be made available during the process of negotiation.
Barry Gardiner
Earlier today, Members of the Committee may have tapped into their emails. If they are like me, they would have received 1,700 emails in less than 24 hours, because we are members of this Bill Committee.
The email was clearly a standard email. The subject heading was, “Amend the Trade Bill to protect democracy”, and it began, “Dear Trade Bill Committee Member…”, which is why I assume that most hon. Members in the Committee have received it. It has probably taken us all a great deal of time to sift through, perhaps from some of the child protection cases that have been brought before us and need urgent attention. That in itself is a concern. However, the fact that 1,700 people have emailed each one of us about this Bill shows the level of public concern that exists about its failings.
The Member’s explanatory statements make clear that these two amendments together have the effect of expanding the remit of clause 2, to include those international trade agreements that do not correspond to a prior or existing EU trade agreement. That means that they would have the effect of expanding the remit of the Bill itself, to include all the trade agreements that the UK will negotiate with its trading partners or, as we would see it, they would have the effect of restoring the Bill to its proper proportions.
On Second Reading, I mentioned that we believe the Bill to be highly negligent in restricting its focus only to those future UK international trade agreements where a corresponding EU trade agreement already exists. The Government repeatedly told us that the Bill would provide the basis for this country’s future trade policy once we had left the EU. The background notes to the Queen’s Speech of last June were unequivocal in stating:
“The Bill will put in place the essential and necessary legislative framework to allow the UK to operate its own independent trade policy upon exit from the European Union.”
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a key piece of legislation? As he has been articulating, the amount of public interest in it—not just simply through the democratic process—shows that the public are seeking far greater scrutiny and visibility of the trading negotiations and legislation to be formulated and widened through the Bill. There is an expectation that it should be, and there is a void in the Bill. As was mentioned by the witness from the CBI, this is such an important opportunity and there is an expectation that scrutiny and consultation should be included.
Barry Gardiner
Yes, I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. That is precisely what those of our constituents who wrote to us earlier today were getting at. The gentleman from the CBI who gave evidence only two days ago posed a very pertinent question to the Minister on two occasions—at the beginning and the very end of his remarks. He pointed out that the Minister and the Government have said repeatedly that they will bring forward legislation in the future to put in place what we now think should be here. They give no assurances of that though. What the CBI, supported by the International Chambers of Commerce, said was: if not now, then when?
The Minister is keen to suggest the importance of passing this Bill is that we are pressed for time, and we are. But if we are pressed for time on the need to have trade agreements that correspond to existing agreements in place by the time we leave the European Union, surely we are also pressed for time if we are to have, as the Government have suggested they could have on day one, new trade agreements in place ready to go. Where is the legislation to facilitate that? This should be that legislation and it is not.
By choosing to focus solely on providing continuity with pre-existing EU trade agreements, the Bill has gone back on the promise that the Government made in the Queen’s Speech, and in other places on other occasions. The opening words of the Bill identify its scope perfectly clearly:
“A Bill to make provision about the implementation of international trade agreements”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central tried to elicit comment on that point from the witnesses this morning. The Bill bears no qualification to suggest that we should be focusing only on a subset of the broader whole. The issue before us is explicitly the implementation of the UK’s future international trade agreements, which is why we consider the two amendments to be essential to restoring the Bill to its correct proportions right from the outset.
It was highly revealing that several witnesses from the business community voiced their concern at the failure of the Bill to address so many essential aspects of our future trade policy, which are precisely the aspects on which their members desperately want clarity, so that they can start making the necessary investments and operational decisions on how to take on board the new realities. Was it not depressing to hear business leader after business leader in our witness sessions saying that, because there is not that clarity, businesses are now having to execute their plan B? They are being precipitated into taking decisions to make investments abroad in order to safeguard their trading future. That is not good for this country, yet in this Bill we could set out clearly how we will achieve that.
I was concerned and taken aback to hear how angry some businesses are about the Government’s mishandling of the whole process of informing them what the Bill is about and the Government’s abject failure to take on board any of the business community’s input into the official consultation. It came up time and again. It is hardly surprising when we consider that the Bill was already printed before the consultation on the White Paper informing it had run its course. The consultation closed on 6 November, and when we went into the Table Office on the morning of 7 November, copies of the Bill were available.
Hannah Bardell
I absolutely agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he share my concern that when it comes to involving businesses, trade bodies and organisations in trade agreements, the Government have huge lessons to learn from the mishandling of the process and the anger? The British Retail Consortium was absolutely infuriated by how the process had been done. Businesses, individuals and trade bodies had been asked to spend staff time, effort and money feeding into a consultation, but there was no space. As he said, the Bill was printed before the consultation had even finished. That is an appalling way to treat businesses and trade bodies, and an appalling way to govern.
Barry Gardiner
I absolutely agree. It was shameful. The Cabinet Office circulates principles of Government consultation that make it clear that, when they consult, they should take notice of the responses. Nobody can persuade me that between 12 midnight on 6 November last year and 8 o’clock the following morning, all the consultation responses had been sifted, considered, documented and incorporated into the ministerial view that emerged in the Bill as printed. That is not consultation.
In that regard, we should all commend the representative of the CBI who spoke to us and gave the understatement of the year in his answer to my question during the second witness session on the Government’s mishandling of the consultation process. When he ventured his verdict, he said after much thought and deliberation that
“the optics were not ideal.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 34, Q79.]
They really were not.
I confess that I was not prepared for the level of anger from business in our oral evidence sessions, as industry representatives lined up alongside trade unions, civil society, legislators and academics to announce—to denounce, actually—the Government’s failure on every aspect of this Bill.
Matt Western
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not simply the failure to consult that has frustrated and angered so many in the business community? As we heard earlier, many businesses are so worried and uncertain about the future that they are having to take out extensive warehousing facilities. We have seen that across the southern part of the UK, where warehousing is now at a super-premium because they do not know what is happening, what is going on or what is around the corner. That is coming at a great cost to UK businesses.
Barry Gardiner
Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As was stressed this morning in our latest evidence session, in what I think were the witness’s words, businesses say, “We want clarity.” At every turn, that is what the Government have denied them. We see the reports that businesses, industry and sectoral organisations are producing. We have read of the disconnect between the Administration and the business community. Many individuals have made the same point to me in private meetings, but it was quite remarkable to hear in this public forum just how deeply business feels betrayed as a result of the Government’s determination to do it their way and go it alone.
Government Ministers have promised, in the least convincing way, that the UK’s future trade agreements will remain to be talked about at some unspecified point in the future. I think the Scotch Whisky Association said that the “missing piece of the puzzle” was when that would happen. It was instructive to hear the evidence from the representative of the International Chamber of Commerce UK, who pointed out just how inadequate the Government’s commitments in that regard have been. He noted that the Government have given no indication of whether this mythical debate over our future trade policy will be a random chat, a formal consultation or a second piece of legislation. We do not know what it will be, and we do not know when—or if—it will be.
Given the Government’s record leading up to the publication of this Bill, it is small wonder that no one is prepared to give Ministers the benefit of the doubt. Since the consultation here was so bad, why should people trust that the Minister will do what he has suggested—I would not say promised—he will do? That is why we need to talk about the implementation of all the UK’s international trade agreements now, when we have the Trade Bill in front of us, not in some future world that the Secretary of State might imagine—
Barry Gardiner
I will give way to the Minister if he can give a promise or commitment from the Government to this Committee, and a date by which such legislation will be introduced.
Greg Hands
I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but does he not agree that if we were to agree to these amendments and new clauses today, we would be effectively pre-empting the ongoing consultation on what Britain will do on future trade agreements? That is the key thing to understand. On future trade agreements, we would wish to consult further; passing these new clauses and amendments today would be cutting that process short.
Barry Gardiner
Mr Davies, I have long admired this Minister’s chutzpah. The chutzpah of somebody to say, “Although I, as the Government, have completely abrogated my responsibility to get this Bill right, and you the Opposition have decided to fulfil my role for me, to try to put it right and get the stuff in place, if we passed your amendments we would not have consulted on them”! What complete, spurious nonsense. Let us have a grown-up debate, because that is not one; it really is not. It trivialises the work of this Committee and the important work that Government must do in scrutinising our future framework for trade negotiations. Mr Davies, I will calm down and try to get back to the essence of what we are doing here.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to lower my blood pressure after the Minister’s intervention.
Mr Prisk
I will do my best, but he may not take that view when he calms down and the blood pressure starts to ebb. My understanding on Second Reading and in earlier debates was that the crux of Labour Members’ worries—on this Committee and in the House generally—was that the Bill’s problem is that it reaches far too wide. Why, then, propose amendments that extend its remit even further? Do the Opposition want a narrow or a wide Bill, and if it is too wide, why extend it?
Barry Gardiner
A plausible case. Elements of the Bill go far too wide, including the Henry VIII powers, which we will come on to later. We believe that the way in which the Government have sought to use Henry VIII powers in this legislation is too wide and unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman is right: that was one of the subjects of debate in our Second Reading deliberations. One other key criticism made by many Labour Members in that debate was that the Bill not only did the few things that it did badly, but failed entirely to do the one thing that it should have done properly. That is, to quote the Queen’s Speech policy paper, to
“put in place the essential and necessary legislative framework to allow the UK to operate its own independent trade policy upon exit from the European Union.”
There are many deficiencies in the Bill. Some relate to the widening of powers that it gives to Government, whereas others relate to the narrowness of the Bill.
Matt Western
Are we not simply taking the opportunity to ensure that this important legislation is comprehensive? It is about widening the remit of the Bill as regards the coverage of trade agreements without widening the powers of a select few.
Barry Gardiner
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for saying incisively what I was trying to convey to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. My hon. Friend is entirely right. We want a comprehensive Bill that is fit for purpose and does the job that business expects it to do. This Bill does not do that. We want it to do what the Queen’s Speech promised it would, but we do not want the Government to use the Bill to abuse their powers and widen the powers available to them.
Let me speak first to amendment 3, so that what we seek to achieve through it is clear. The amendment expands the Bill through paragraphs (a) to (d) to include new trade agreements that do not correspond to any prior or existing EU agreement. Paragraph (a) relates to free trade agreements as defined in the Bill under clause 2(7): namely, agreements that are notifiable under the relevant articles of the principal WTO goods and services agreements—that is, article XXIV of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and article V of the general agreement on trade in services. Paragraph (d) relates to international trade agreements that the Bill leaves undefined as being
“other than a free trade agreement.”
Dr Lorand Bartels, a witness on the first day of the Committee, noted in his oral evidence the Bill’s failure to define that second category. We will certainly endeavour to address that failure through a subsequent amendment to the Bill. For both categories of trade agreement, our amendments point ahead to the requirements of parliamentary scrutiny that will pertain to them. Let me say at this juncture that we consider the two types of trade agreement to be materially different in that regard.
As we heard from numerous witnesses, the modern generation of free trade agreements are comprehensive in scope. They range far beyond the narrow focus on mutual tariff reduction that characterised the multilateral trade agreements negotiated under the auspices of GATT in the 40 years after the second world war. They reach behind the border to address regulatory issues at the heart of our society, including issues of public health, social standards, labour rights and environmental standards, among many others. Those were precisely the reasons why we had such a comprehensive debate on the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Livingston.
These are international treaties that introduce binding obligations on future generations and thus cannot be repealed as domestic legislation can be repealed. That is why in all our interventions we have proceeded according to the principle that there must be maximum parliamentary scrutiny and democratic oversight of free trade agreements to ensure that we get them right, rather than storing up the prospect of irreparable harm at a later date.
The other international trade agreements covered by the Bill, to use its phrase—that is, the ones that are not free trade agreements—include such ancillary agreements as mutual recognition agreements, according to the explanatory notes. There are many more such agreements, and they tend to be far more narrowly focused than free trade agreements, so we have proceeded on the assumption that they will not require the same level of parliamentary scrutiny. That is a deliberately pragmatic approach I have adopted to ensure that future Administrations can make progress in agreeing such deals where necessary, but we will ensure that there is sufficient potential for scrutiny in all cases to guard against any potential harm from those other agreements.
As well as drawing in the new UK trade agreements that do not correspond to a prior or existing EU trade agreement, amendment 3 speaks to the new UK trade agreements that correspond to a prior or existing EU trade agreement—that is, the ones that the Government would like to restrict us to in this Bill. Again, let us agree from the outset that they will be new trade agreements, even if they correspond to agreements that the EU had previously negotiated with the third country in question. Ministers have done their level best to suggest that the new UK agreements will just be rolled over or grandfathered from the pre-existing EU deals. The delegated powers memorandum issued alongside the Bill by the Department for International Trade is unequivocal: these will be new agreements, on two counts. First, the agreements will be legally distinct from any pre-existing trade deals the EU may have negotiated—that was underlined by witnesses to the Committee, such as Dr Holger Hestermeyer—and secondly, and even more important, these new trade agreements may include
“substantial amendments, including new obligations.”
It is vital to read the Bill on this point. To qualify for the waiving of scrutiny foreseen in the Bill, a UK trade agreement need bear no resemblance whatever to the EU agreement it seeks to replace. Do I think the Government are likely to waive that scrutiny? No. Is the legislation effective in allowing the Government to do that? Yes. Under clause 2(3) and (4), there is no requirement for the UK agreement to match or mirror the EU’s existing agreement in any way, shape or form. It can be a wholly new departure with wholly new obligations, since all the Bill requires is that the other signatory and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement—not a corresponding one or a similar one, but “a free trade agreement”—before Brexit takes effect.
Matt Western
If I recall correctly, Dr Holger Hestermeyer talked about not only scrutiny, but the importance of having impact assessments alongside the consultation, as these are, as my hon. Friend was explaining, essentially new agreements being put in place.
Barry Gardiner
Again, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. We heard from our witnesses about the importance of understanding what we are doing before we rush out and do it. My remarks on this afternoon’s legislation have been extremely cautious in many respects, because I think that legislation is important. It is particularly important in this area, because we are talking about internationally binding obligations that are extremely difficult for us, as a country, to reverse. That is precisely why my hon. Friend’s point is so essential. We need proper impact assessments before we have our mandates established and before negotiations are concluded.
We heard in the first evidence session that there is every likelihood that the UK’s trading partners will regard the negotiation of new trade agreements as an opportunity to re-open the provisions that they had previously negotiated with the EU. Those agreements were designed to meet the interests of all 28 member states of the European Union, and the relative weight of the EU in the negotiations that informed them means that the third country in question would have been pressed into making sacrifices that it might not choose to make when acting alone in forming a bilateral relationship with the UK.
Discussions on those countries’ new agreements with the UK are taking place now. I know that the Government are respectful of the EU treaties and are not trying to negotiate at the moment, but they are having fairly detailed discussions. The Minister, in his sedentary position, remains immobile but a smirk is creeping across his face. Those discussions are taking place behind closed doors, so we do not know what the Government have already said, and what they have said they would be prepared to trade away. Make no mistake: the Government are keen to ensure that they get deals done. This whole endeavour is a different way of approaching our trading future, and the credibility of the Government’s position politically relies on being able to conclude deals swiftly. We must be very wary of negotiations done in secret in order to achieve quick results for political convenience to save the Government’s blushes.
We know that we are talking about new agreements, which could well include substantial new obligations on the part of the UK. That is why the Government’s suggestion that they should be granted the powers to smuggle the implementing regulations past Parliament with no provision for scrutiny is so outrageous. The need for a proper parliamentary oversight process for such agreements was alluded to by our witnesses, Jude Kirton-Darling, the rapporteur on the EU Trade Committee, and Dr Brigid Fowler from the Hansard Society. They stressed that point repeatedly in their oral evidence to the Committee, as did so many other witnesses. To that end, paragraph (b) in amendment 3 looks ahead to the enhanced scrutiny procedures that we will propose under schedule 2 to replace the negative resolution procedure envisaged by the Bill as it currently stands.
Amendment 4 is consequential on amendment 3 and would require any regulations made under clause 2(1) of the Bill to be subject to the provisions not of subsections (3) to (5), as at present, but of subsection (2A), which would be introduced via amendment 3, and subsection (5), which speaks across to the Treasury’s powers to set tariffs under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill currently going through Committee in parallel with this Bill.
Together with amendments 3 and 4, I would like to speak to the four new clauses that they bring into play, namely new clauses 4 to 7. New clause 4 is the top-line clause, because it outlines the stages of what we consider to be a proper parliamentary procedure for scrutiny and oversight of free trade agreements before signature. Once again, let me underline that the procedure is designed to apply to free trade agreements, not to other international trade agreements referred to in the Bill under clause 2(2)(b).
Equally, let me emphasise the importance of the words “before signature” in the title of the new clause. We have deliberately designed a procedure so that Parliament has the opportunity to debate and direct trade negotiations in the early stages, rather than protesting once it is too late. We will surely be supported by the Government in that, given how publicly the Secretary of State has rued the loss of legitimacy that led to the failure of the TTIP negotiations between the EU and the USA. Nick Dearden from Global Justice Now touched on exactly that point in our first evidence session.
Our aim in bringing forward the maximum possible scrutiny and oversight before signing is to ensure that Parliament can amend and improve free trade agreements where they are found to be wanting. That is infinitely preferable to a system whereby Members are presented with negotiated agreements on a “take it or leave it” basis, thus risking the loss of an entire agreement and all the vital export opportunities that go with it simply because there was no possibility of excising or amending one or two of the offending provisions.
In oral evidence, Dr Hestermeyer referred to the system in Germany, where Parliament is involved early on in the proceedings precisely so that it can direct the federal Government in respect of trade negotiations, even though their negotiations are carried out by the European Commission. We want a constructive procedure that focuses on the best possible outcomes for our future trade agreements, not one where the whole ship is spoiled for a ha’p’orth of tar.
I will run through, in plain English, the six stages we have set out and then expand on them as necessary as they have been placed in the amendments, as subsequent new clauses hang off the overview clause. The first is the need for a sustainability impact assessment before the launch of negotiations towards a free trade agreement. The second is the need for Parliament to be involved in setting the mandate for the objectives of the negotiations. The third is the need for transparency—and, in particular, access to negotiating texts—while the negotiations are being conducted. The fourth is the need for regular progress reports to Parliament after each round of negotiations. The fifth is the submission to Parliament of the full text of the agreement as negotiated before its signing. The sixth is a resolution from the House of Commons to give the Secretary of State the green light to sign the agreement.
The first step in any proper procedure towards negotiating a free trade agreement is to undertake a sustainability impact assessment to identify the opportunities and risks that the agreement might present. Nick Ashton-Hart spoke of the importance of that in his oral evidence to the Committee. Carrying out a sustainability impact assessment is already a standard requirement for every new set of EU trade negotiations, and the methodology for conducting such assessments has been developed considerably over the years. Our new clause 5 provides basic instructions as to what a sustainability impact assessment should include at a minimum. For those who want to take the methodological issue further, the European Commission published in 2016 the second edition of its “Handbook for trade sustainability impact assessment”, which I refer the Minister to and is freely available online.
Crucially, our blueprint for what a sustainability impact assessment should include relates not only to the content of the assessment, but to the process that lies behind it. Any impact assessment must incorporate consultation with the devolved Administrations and with representatives of all those businesses and trade unions that are likely to be affected, as well as offering the opportunity for all other bodies to contribute to it.
We have also written into the new clause that the consultation must be in line with the existing code of practice for Whitehall consultations—something that we might usually consider unnecessary to include in legislation. Given the extraordinary mishandling of the consultation prior to this Bill, there obviously needs to be a reminder that every consultation should follow the rules.
The assessment needs to cover the economic impacts of any trade agreement, and importantly those impacts need to be disaggregated both geographically and by sector. The consequences for jobs, small and medium-sized enterprises and vulnerable economic groups are particularly significant, as free trade agreements have sometimes been to the disadvantage of all but the most powerful economic actors.
Alan Brown
Apologies, but I just want to take the hon. Gentleman back slightly. I agree with his suggestion that sustainability impact assessments should be carried out and should seek the views of the devolved Governments. What does he suggest happens if a sustainability impact assessment shows a negative impact on one of the devolved Administrations? Given that there is no requirement for consent, how would that be resolved?
Barry Gardiner
I am very happy to take that comment on board, but I do not want to get sucked back into our previous debate—I know that you would not let me anyway, Mr Davies.
That is precisely what an economic impact assessment is there to do: to show up those areas of the economy that might benefit and those that might be losers from an international trade agreement. It is then a matter for the Government, and a responsible Government should be trying to balance the interests around all of the United Kingdom to spread wealth and prosperity throughout all of the parts of these islands.
The other day, I was deeply affected to see a graph that I had not seen before and is specifically relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s point. In the top right-hand quadrant were those countries where both GDP and average income are growing. In the bottom left-hand quadrant were those countries where both GDP and average income are declining. In the top left-hand quadrant were those countries where GDP is declining but average income is growing. In the bottom right-hand quadrant were those countries where GDP is increasing but average income is declining. There was only one country in that bottom right-hand quadrant: the United Kingdom. That is a disgrace. That is a shame. It shows precisely why we need economic impact assessments. As many trade agreements have shown over the years, it is possible to increase the GDP of a country through a trade agreement while the people of the country become poorer. That is why we must take these deliberations so seriously. That is why putting these strictures in place is a vital part of what a responsible Government must do in relation to our future trade policy.
Greg Hands
I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is very satisfied with the current system of EU scrutiny in relation to EU trade agreements.
Barry Gardiner
I am pointing out to the Minister, in response to his earlier remarks, the reason I voted for CRAGA then. I think I am right in saying that while his party voted against CRAGA, which it is now relying upon so heavily—there is an irony there—he did not turn up for the vote. I turned up for the vote and I voted for it, but because it was subject to all the scrutiny procedures that were already in place from the EU. The situation has changed.
Mr Prisk
I have listened very carefully to the six stages of assessment. I do not have a problem with the principle that there should be a thorough process, but the amendments and new clauses ignore one tiny detail: next March, we leave the European Union. All business representatives, particularly of businesses in my constituency, have said that they need to know what happens on 1 April. How will it be possible for any of these existing trade agreements, which is what the Bill is about, to be transferred across under his proposal? How many years will businesses have to wait?
Barry Gardiner
In fact, they would not have to wait. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and I know he speaks with real experience in these matters, having been a trade Minister. I ask him to look at what we have proposed: we have tried to introduce the bifurcation at a high level in the legislation. We have put the proposals in at that point. Of course, they would have an impact on all the new free trade agreements. We are trying to ensure that for new free trade agreements, this is the proper process of scrutiny that will come into place. On the corresponding agreements—where the EU already has an agreement—there will be a streamlined procedure, but one that is still subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where those agreements have been substantially amended.
Let me conclude this section of my remarks by repeating that we have tabled the amendments and new clauses to establish a procedure for new free trade agreements that do not correspond to any prior EU agreement—that is the point I just made to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. I was struck by how forcefully the representatives of business made the case to the Committee in our final oral evidence session on 23 January that there needs to be substantially greater consultation on the new trade agreements that the Government are negotiating, which correspond to prior EU agreements. Wherever those EU agreements are modified to incorporate new obligations, those obligations must be highlighted and presented to Parliament, to business and to the country as a whole, for proper debate, proper scrutiny and proper accountability. We will precisely return to the issue of scrutiny for these new replacement UK agreements as we go through the rest of the Bill.
Greg Hands
The Government have been clear that we do not seek to renegotiate existing trade agreements. In leaving the EU, we seek to maintain continuity in our existing trade and investment relationships. As such, we seek no change in the effects of our existing agreements as we leave the European Union. Therefore, special review procedures, as proposed in new clause 8, for example, are unnecessary.
The powers in the Bill will be used only to transition the existing trade agreements that the EU has signed up to prior to exit day. The Bill does not relate to the negotiation, signature or implementation of future free trade agreements. We have taken that approach for a specific reason: we want Parliament to play a vital role in the scrutiny of future trade agreements, as it always has done. In the trade White Paper, we made it clear that our future trade policy must be transparent and inclusive, and that Parliament will be engaged throughout the process. We will continue to respect the role of Parliament when agreeing the terms of future trade agreements.
Bill Esterson
Is the Minister giving us an undertaking that there will be an affirmative or super-affirmative scrutiny process in Parliament on the new trade agreements?
Greg Hands
All that will be considered in due course. We will bring forward proposals in the coming months on how Parliament will interact with future trade agreements.
Hannah Bardell
Will the Minister give a definition of “due course” and say what his vision is? Many external organisations and hon. Members have expressed about the structures in this place and Delegated Legislation Committees. I have sat on those Committees and I know they are not sufficient to allow proper scrutiny of the thousands of statutory instruments and regulations that will have to be dealt with, or to allow Parliament and its Members to have a say on them and be confident that they will be able to scrutinise what has been decided.
Greg Hands
We want a clear and significant role for Parliament in the scrutiny of future trade agreements. Returning to my intervention on the hon. Member for Brent North, the amendments and new clauses would pre-empt those arrangements before we have been able to consider properly what we are doing and to consult on that.
On 5 January, the Government published a response to the trade White Paper, which covered a number of things—of course, not everything that was in the White Paper is in the Bill. We will consider the views expressed in that consultation as we develop proposals regarding the role of Parliament in respect of future trade negotiations.
Hannah Bardell
A number of deficiencies have been highlighted. Does the Minister think that some of the deficiencies in the Bill, and the fact that he is having to tell us that some things will come later—I appreciate that he has great integrity and the best intentions—relate to the fact that the Bill was published before the consultation period ended? Is that the reason why some aspects of the Bill are so deficient?
Greg Hands
As I have stressed, consultation on future trade policy is ongoing. It is not dependent solely on the trade White Paper. We are consulting by speaking with partners, businesses, the devolved Administrations and other stakeholders constantly as we seek to bring forward proposals on our future trade policy. However, as I have explained, we consciously decided to make this Bill about our current trading arrangements and ensuring that they can be transitioned properly into UK law.
Therefore, these amendments pre-empt the full consideration of the 7,429 responses received during that consultation and of the views expressed inside and outside the House. It is right that we take the appropriate amount of time to develop a range of proposals that ensures that Parliament, the devolved Administrations, devolved legislatures and a wide range of stakeholders, including business and civil society, are engaged throughout the negotiating process.
The hon. Member for Brent North made a fascinating speech on what the UK’s future trade policy might look like, but that is not what we are deciding today. He said that Government can smuggle new trade agreements through Parliament without a vote. No. The implementation powers in clause 2 are exercisable by negative procedure statutory instruments. These are subject to a vote in either House of Parliament, if the regulations are objected to by parliamentarians. Parliament has the right to vote on the implementation of transitionally adopted trade agreements, if it so desires.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister must be more straight- forward with the Committee. We have already been over this ground. He knows that the negative procedure does not make provision for anything but the grace and favour of the Government in giving Her Majesty’s Opposition an opportunity to object. There is no necessity at all for a debate or vote on the Floor of the House. He must be straightforward about that.
Greg Hands
Again, I stress that Parliament has the right to vote on the implementation, but we also must remember that these will be agreements that are substantively the same as the current agreements. The reason I intervened on the hon. Gentleman—when I think he confirmed he was quite content with the existing EU scrutiny procedures—is that of course all of those agreements have been through the existing EU scrutiny procedures. I was not necessarily with him in the Chamber or upstairs each time one of those EU trade agreements went through, I think he was satisfied with those procedures at the time.
Bill Esterson
Is the Minister categorically saying that there will be no changes to the agreements that we are describing as corresponding agreements before they come through?
Greg Hands
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the evidence of the International Trade Committee, if that is in order. We had a good round about this at the Select Committee yesterday—some of the members of the Select Committee are here or are at least members of the Bill Committee—and we are quite clear that 70-plus partners have been engaged in this process. All 70-plus have agreed in principle; none has raised objections in principle to doing this. There is no reason that they necessarily would want to change the substance. They need continuity in their trading arrangements in the same way that we do.
The hon. Member for Brent North claimed that a wide range of stakeholders provided oral evidence calling for greater scrutiny mechanisms for future approved trade agreements. I think that was a fair comment. There were a number of views on how our future scrutiny arrangements might be, but I think the evidence session showed just how varied and complex the views on this matter are. It is right that we take the time to think through our options carefully. Let us not rush ahead and put in place arrangements that may not be fit for purpose. That is why we will be returning to future trade agreements in the future.
We will return to Parliament with proposals on future free trade agreements, on which we will seek views in due course. Accepting these amendments and new clauses would frustrate our ability to fully consider all of the issues and options in the round. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brent North to withdraw the amendment.
Barry Gardiner
I will try to extract the crumbs of comfort from the Minister’s remarks. He has said that he recognises that there is a role for greater parliamentary scrutiny of our trade arrangements and that these are matters to which we should return in due course. He has also suggested that we should be able to have a proper consultation on the future trading arrangements. Those are things that I take as good will on the part of the Minister.
I propose not to press these amendments, but I make it clear to the Minister that, at a later stage in the passage of this legislation, he should table his own amendments to do what the Bill says it is about and what Her Majesty in the Gracious Speech to Parliament said it was going to be about. If he does that, I will be very happy. I will see him as a man of his word, and will be looking forward to going through what I assume will be a very similar text to the one I have tried to present to the Committee today.
I will not press these amendments today, but I put the Government on notice that it is time for them to act and to come forward with their own proposals. If they do not, these Opposition measures will return at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
It is quite warm in the room, so if any right hon. and hon. Members would like to remove their jackets, please feel free.
Clause 8
The customs tariff
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, in clause 32, page 19, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 8, in clause 32, page 19, line 31, leave out
‘other than regulations to which subsection (2) applies’.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
New clause 1—Setting the customs tariff: enhanced parliamentary procedure—
(1) This section applies to—
(a) the first regulations to be made under section 8, and
(b) any other regulations to be made under that section the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty payable under the customs tariff in a standard case (within the meaning of that section).
(2) No regulations to which this section applies may be made by the Treasury in exercise of the duty in section 8(1) except in accordance with the steps set out in this section.
(3) The first step is that a Minister of the Crown must lay before the House of Commons a draft of the regulations that it is proposed be made
(4) The second step is that a Minister of the Crown must make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons setting out, in respect of proposed regulations of which a draft has been laid in accordance with subsection (3)—
(a) the rate of import duty applicable to goods falling within a code given in regulations previously made under section 8 or in the draft of the regulations laid in accordance with subsection (3);
(b) anything of a kind mentioned in section 8(3)(a) or (b) by reference to which the amount of any import duty applicable to any goods is proposed to be determined; and
(c) the meaning of any relevant expression used in the motion.
(5) The third step is that the House of Commons passes a resolution arising from the motion made in the form specified in subsection (4) (whether in the form of that motion or as amended).
(6) The fourth step is that the regulations that may then be made must, in respect of any matters specified in subsection (4)(a) to (c), give effect to the terms of the resolution referred to in subsection (5).
This new clause establishes a system of enhanced parliamentary procedure for regulations setting the customs tariff, with a requirement for the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the rate of import duty on particular goods.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main.
The new clause establishes a system of enhanced parliamentary procedure for regulations setting the customs tariff, with a requirement for the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the rate of import duty on particular goods. It requires a vote in the House of Commons to authorise the rate of import duty on particular goods through enhanced parliamentary procedure. The details are set out in the new clause—it is indeed quite detailed.
I do not consider asking for normal parliamentary oversight to be a controversial request, as shocking as that might seem to the Government. They have made it clear that this is a money Bill and will therefore avoid proper scrutiny in the House of Lords. I sound like a stuck record, but Parliament’s ability to scrutinise has been a theme since the general election.
That concession highlights a key point, however: this is Parliament’s power of the purse. That convention dates back to Charles II and ensures that taxes cannot be collected without the consent of the Commons. We should be deeply concerned about this Bill getting through because we were not alert to or cognisant of the significant issues that face us. In all the melée of Brexit, the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, this Bill, the Trade Bill and the other Bills that will come through, we must assert our right as parliamentarians to hold the Government to account, particularly when it comes to taxes.
The raising and lowering of tariffs is effectively the taxation of goods coming into the country. It will bring revenue to the Exchequer that will have a significant impact on public finances and departmental budgets, not to mention the economy as a whole. I could push further on the £350 million a week for the NHS, but I will not on this occasion—I know the Minister will be pleased.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
Thank you for not mentioning it.
Peter Dowd
The Opposition believe that, just as changes to tax are brought in in the form of a money Bill, so should changes to tariffs and customs duty. That is practical, reasonable and very responsible, if I may say so. We are not suggesting that there should be a vote every time that a tariff is raised or lowered; instead we envisage the Government regularly introducing to Parliament a list of changes for Members to scrutinise and vote on.
The alternative to a democratic and open process is the hoarding of power in the Treasury or the Department for International Trade, which alone will set the UK’s future customs tariffs. The workings and logic behind their decisions will be largely unknown, and hidden from the scrutiny of the House. That is the theme of our amendments with regard to the Select Committees. The Minister says that Select Committees will be able to bring the Minister in, question them and have a chat with them, but I am afraid that is not strong enough.
This is the biggest constitutional change we have had for as long as anyone can remember, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that when we have major shifts in power between the Executive and the Commons, we can challenge them. I think a confident Government would acknowledge that. I would not use the word “concede”, but I think a Government, who were confident in their own abilities—
Peter Dowd
I refuse to use the phrase “strong and stable”, but if the Government had confidence in their policies, they would not shy away, in any way, from the proposals that we have set out. I am interested to hear what the Minister says about them. In the oral evidence sessions, several witnesses expressed concern, and were reluctant to agree that the lines of communication between businesses, between organisations, between agencies and so on were conducive to getting a proper hearing. I think Members most probably got that message from the witnesses. Communication lines are there, but in a sense no one is at home; that is certainly the perception that I got.
Customs tariffs will be unamendable and unchangeable except, in effect, at the whims of the Chancellor and a Trade Secretary. It may well be that those individual Ministers are very open to dialogue and persuasion, and are in listening mode. Then again, they might not be, and this Parliament has always challenged the whim of whoever might be in power. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I am sure the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) knows where the off switch is. Perhaps he would like to find it?
Peter Dowd
The Government have done precisely the same thing in relation to scrutiny—they have turned it off.
As I said, we cannot allow this to be left to the whims of a Minister, because as has been suggested in the last day or two, the amount of Ministers coming and going has been vast, and it is causing a certain amount of dissonance in the operation of Government from what I can gather, and from what the report says. So, we cannot have a system that is at the whim of this dissonance, so to speak, in two or three years’ time—whichever party is in power.
Ultimately, this comes back to the phrase by James Otis, which must have been quoted millions of times in the House in the three or four centuries since it was spoken: “No taxation without representation”, because that leads to tyranny.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be here and to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Main. We support new clause 1, which has been tabled by the Opposition, and we would be happy to support it if they decide to put it to the vote.
I have concerns about clause 8 because of the deficiencies that we discussed earlier. I hope that, by Report, the Government will have come back to some of the suggestions that the official Opposition and the Scottish National party have made, and given them some level of consideration. Although clause 8 has deficiencies, it is my working assumption that even if we were in a customs union—which would be my preferred option—we would still need to set our tariffs and to lodge those schedules with the World Trade Organisation, so, even in the event of the UK being in a customs union with the EU, I imagine that there would still be a requirement for the Government to have the power to set tariffs.
On that basis, clause 8 is necessary whether or not the Government decide to come out of the customs union or to pursue a customs union. So, although it is deficient, we need to do something. It would be useful if the Minister was to say that he might consider coming back on Report to some of our amendments—even if he said he would consider it, that would be incredibly helpful—but as I said, we will support Labour’s new clause.
Mel Stride
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank the hon. Member for Bootle for his remarks. His usual brilliance was enhanced by an unknown quality of being able to summon dramatic music to enhance his comments. He gets better and better, the longer we hear from him.
The hon. Gentleman raised various general points, including the fact that this is, in effect, a Finance Bill and therefore will not be amended in the House of Lords. There are good reasons for that. There is a very, very long tradition for Bills that relate substantially to tax and the rating of charges to be handled in that way—both by this Government and by Labour, when it was in government.
Mel Stride
The Government of course listen to everybody who has an opinion—or, should I say, a relevant opinion; a rational opinion, even—on the matter in hand, and we will continue to do so.
The hon. Member for Bootle raised the obvious and important point that with Brexit in the round, we are looking at a big constitutional change—I think that was the expression he used—which is undoubtedly true. However, he seized on that known fact to suggest that in the narrow case of the change in the duties on specific goods, we should therefore have a highly augmented level of scrutiny. I do not think that the two things are linked. The Bill deals narrowly with duties, and more robust scrutiny is suggested through the affirmative statutory instruments for the first introduction of the tariff and for all duties that are changed in an upward direction afterwards. He stated that there will be a huge change, but the Bill’s purpose is to narrow down that change wherever we can, not least regarding our tariff arrangements.
Peter Dowd
I understand exactly where the Financial Secretary is coming from. Given the level of change and the surety that we must give people that these matters are being carefully and assiduously considered, the parts are in a way greater than the sum. Does he therefore agree that it is important to send a message that Parliament—appropriately, through a proper mechanism, and not through ministerial diktat—should be able to consider these matters in more detail than it can under the mechanisms and frameworks being provided by the Government?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman has eloquently revisited the points that he made in his opening remarks. We have a narrow scope for the tariff’s introduction, with all the thousands and thousands of different categories, duties, goods and so on that will be contained within it. It allows for provision to vary those duties. As I mentioned, we have said that when the tariff and all the duties that are under it are introduced—and indeed, when the duties are increased, or the Government seek to increase them—the affirmative procedure will be in place. Given the narrowness of the scope of the regulations and the fact that enhanced scrutiny will be in place through the affirmative procedure, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that that will be enough under the circumstances.
Before I deal with the specifics of clause 8 and the new clause, I will respond to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. She exhorted me to consider her pleas carefully—how could I possibly not, under those circumstances? I can reassure her. As we were discussing earlier, I had haggis for lunch, with some mashed potato and swede, and I now have the “Braveheart” spirit—although that did not end all that well, did it? However, fortified with that spirit I will do my utmost, as I would in any case, and consider the amendments very carefully. I am sure that the hon. Lady will return to the matters on Report.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 9, page 6, line 24, leave out “may make regulations” and insert
“must make regulations following consultation with relevant stakeholders”.
This amendment requires the Treasury to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations giving effect to an arrangement for a preferential tariff.
To explain the reasoning behind our amendment I need to mention a couple of things in the clause. It is headed, “Preferential rates: arrangements with countries or territories outside UK” and the explanatory note explains more about those:
“This clause broadly covers any arrangements, international agreements or memoranda of understanding”.
Therefore it relates to whenever there is a move away from a most favoured nation tariff into a free trade agreement, or some other form of preferential tariff rate.
This short amendment would make two changes to the Government’s intentions around the clause. First, it would leave out “may make regulations” and insert “must make regulations”. In subsection (1), the Bill states that,
“the Treasury may make regulations to give effect to the provision made by the arrangements”.
If there has been an international agreement, surely the Treasury must make regulations, because that would be sensible. That is the first change we suggest.
The second change we suggest is on consultation. It is clear that there has not been the right level of consultation. The Government have said that if they are varying the rate of import duty downwards rather than upwards, there should be a less rigorous procedure, but if the rate of import duty is varied downwards, that may have a greater effect on our local producers and manufacturers. The amendment asks for there to be “consultation with relevant stakeholders” in advance of not just international agreements, but any of these changes.
When the Government are deciding to make international regulations, it would be useful if they first consulted the House using the existing processes. I understand that most Governments across the world make trade regulations with the authority of the House, rather than simply by the authority of the Executive. In the absence of those kinds of changes, which are outside the scope of the Bill, we are asking for the Government to definitely make the regulations—if they are bound by an international treaty or agreement, it would be sensible to do so—but to consult with relevant stakeholders. We want to put that duty of consultation on the Government.
Peter Dowd
The points that the hon. Lady makes hit the nail on the head in relation to engaging with those who will be affected by the legislation. I fully understand where she is coming from.
The clause allows the Government to introduce through regulations a lower preferential rate of duty applying to goods originating from specific territories. It also covers a broad range of situations, including arrangements between the UK and a British overseas territory, free trade agreements negotiated with Britain and other countries, and a possible customs arrangement with a large economic regional organisation such as the European Union. Preferential trade agreements comprise a variety of arrangements that favour member parties over non-members by extending tariff and non-tariff preferences. PTAs, particularly free trade agreements, have proliferated in recent years. In the post-war period, the EU has developed the largest network of PTAs in the world. The explanatory notes state:
“The ability to use a preferential rate under an arrangement may be subject to any conditions specified in the arrangement, including…quotas, rules of origin or safeguard measures.”
Given that context, it is important that stakeholders are taken into account, as the hon. Lady says. There could be a wide range of stakeholders, and the proposal suggested by the Minister did not go far enough. He almost seemed to suggest that everybody is included, but everybody is not included if the Secretary of State does not want to include them. The clause presents another example of the litany of delegated powers found throughout the Bill. The Treasury takes immense powers without proper consultation right across the board.
Clause 9 is beyond vague when it comes to explaining what consideration the Treasury will make when introducing regulations that will pave the way for offering preferential rates. The clause leaves a range of questions unanswered, particularly around the test that the Treasury will put in place before preferential rates can be included.
I am sure that all members of the Committee agree that reciprocal preferential rates are the foundation of free trade agreements. Again, that goes to the heart of who is to be consulted on this one, and the clause gives a free hand to introduce regulations that will create preferential rates and seem to open the door to the Treasury to—
The Chair
Order. This is a narrow debate on amendment 107. There will be a debate on clause stand part later. I ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the amendment proposed.
Peter Dowd
I will, Mrs Main, and I will come back to the clause later if that is appropriate. I am just trying to support the contention made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that stakeholders are crucial to making the measure work. Having tried to set out the context, I am happy to sit down and to come back later to talk about the clause more generally. However, I support the hon. Lady’s contention.
Mel Stride
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has said, the amendment seeks to do two things. It would require the Treasury to consult before giving effect to a trade arrangement that has been agreed with another territory or country, and to make regulations in such circumstances.
To take the first of the points, any consultation on regulations made under clause 9 would not be meaningful as the Government would not be in a position to take account of the views received without withdrawing or renegotiating the agreement reached. As set out in the trade White Paper, the Government have committed to engaging stakeholders throughout the process of negotiating new trade arrangements.
On the proposed requirement for the Treasury to make regulations, it goes without saying that the Government are required to meet their international obligations in the trade agreements that they have entered into. The word “may” is used, however, because there might be unforeseen circumstances that make it inappropriate for the Treasury to be obliged to lay regulations. As I say, however, the Government will of course be bound their international obligations.
On that basis, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider:
New clause 2—Preferential rates under arrangements: enhanced parliamentary procedure—
(1) This section applies to—
(a) the first regulations to be made under section 9 in respect of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and
(b) any other regulations under that section the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty applicable to any goods set by any regulations to which paragraph (a) applies.
(2) No regulations to which this section applies may be made by the Treasury in exercise of the power in section 9(1) except in accordance with the steps set out in this section.
(3) The first step is that a Minister of the Crown must lay before the House of Commons—
(a) a statement of the terms of the arrangements made with the government of the country or territory outside the United Kingdom; and
(b) a draft of the regulations that it is proposed be made.
(4) The second step is that a Minister of the Crown must make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons setting out, in respect of proposed regulations of which a draft has been laid in accordance with subsection (3)(b), the rate of import duty applicable to goods, or any description of goods, originating from the country or territory.
(5) The third step is that the House of Commons passes a resolution arising from the motion made in the form specified in subsection (4) (whether in the form of that motion or as amended).
(6) The fourth step is that the regulations that may then be made must, in respect of any matters specified in subsection (4), give effect to the terms of the resolution referred to in subsection (5).
This new clause establishes a system of enhanced parliamentary procedure for regulations setting lower import duties as a result of an arrangement made with the government of another country or territory, with a requirement for the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the rate of import duty on particular goods.
Peter Dowd
My new clause 2 would require a vote in the House on regulations that lower import duties as a result of an arrangement between the Government and another country. I will wrap that up with speaking to the clause in general, with your permission, Mrs Main.
The powers the Government have given themselves under the Bill to offer preferential rates to other countries through free trade agreements, and with no regard to the House of Commons, should concern us all. I will return time after time to the theme of parliamentary accountability. The lowering of import duties, if done carelessly and without consultation of key industries, can have disastrous economic consequences that can destroy whole sectors and cost jobs and livelihoods. The Government have made it clear that this is a money Bill, as I said earlier, and will therefore not be subject to further scrutiny.
In that regard, the raising and lowering of tariffs are in effect the taxation of goods coming into the country. As far as I am concerned, it is crucial that we maintain frictionless negotiation of free trade agreements, instead of risking the scenario that I am afraid the Bill will almost inevitably enable or provide for. It appears that the powers outlined in the clause, as in other clauses, comprise a huge accretion of power to the Treasury, which will give it a hegemony in Parliament, notwithstanding the issue of negative or affirmative resolutions. Ministers will be left to their own devices to introduce regulations where they see fit, with no parliamentary oversight of any significance, and no requirement to consult industry or the relevant stakeholders that the changes will affect. Similarly, there is no inkling about what considerations or conditions the Treasury will agree to when it comes to entering into preferential rate agreements, particularly whether industries will be protected by the use of quotas or rules of origin.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is a danger that we are walking into this with a bit of a fuzz around us. We just do not know the impact this will have on us. If the Government do not get it right, as in spot-on, it is potentially very dangerous for our industries. That is why we are concerned, which is another of our themes in relation to the Bill: one is about democratic accountability, and the other is about how the Bill will protect our vital industries, from manufacturing right the way through the whole ream.
The scenario I referred to earlier is far from absurd and reflects the reality that, when it comes to negotiating and signing free trade agreements, there are always winners and losers, particularly when negotiating with countries that are larger both in population and economic size.
The free trade agreement negotiated between Australia and the United States in 2004 was negotiated in a relatively quick period, and it was so bad that officials refused to recommend it to the Australian Parliament. John Howard, the then Prime Minister, was forced into signing it by President George W. Bush, who essentially reminded him of the close security collaboration between the two countries. After signing, John Howard was often and repeatedly chided by political opponents who would shout, “Where’s the beef?”—a reference to the failure of the free trade agreement to stimulate beef exports for Australia.
We do not want to be in that situation. The UK could easily find itself in a similar scenario whereby we will offer preferential rates to the USA or China, with little in return. In November, we had Wilbur Ross, the US Commerce Secretary, saying that the UK retaining EU regulations on chemicals, genetically modified crops and food safety would represent “landmines” for a potential deal. The Secretary of State for International Trade is reported to have given him private assurances that this would not be a problem.
Stakeholders could find themselves shut out of the process. The Opposition’s concerns are not scaremongering, particularly when we have a Secretary of State who has already made it clear that he supports a race to the bottom, with cheaper consumer goods and weaker regulations and standards. Again, our witnesses spoke about how it is not consumer against producer—the two are almost interchangeable. If we look at the trade remedies outlined in the Bill, we see the Government have ensured there is a clear economic interest test for the Treasury to follow that does not consider the interests of UK manufacturers or key industries, which is unique among most World Trade Organisation countries.
If this Bill and the Trade Bill remain unamended, the Treasury will have to take the advice only of the Secretary of State in that regard, but it will receive a recommendation from a Trade Remedies Authority that will be appointed by the Secretary of State and no doubt made up only of people he trusts—that does not mean that anyone else does—unless its composition is amended in the Trade Bill. We saw that only yesterday, with a vote in the House of Commons in relation to the Electoral Commission. Parliament is entitled to express a view on such appointments, but in this case I do not think we will get that capacity. It certainly does not seem to be in the Bill. Key stakeholders will therefore bear the brunt of any changes to tariffs and again effectively be shut out of the process.
Those key stakeholders will be at the mercy of a Secretary of State who appears to be desperately attempting to negotiate free trade agreements at any cost and potentially to pay a price that most of us would not be prepared to pay. If hon. Members do not have the ability to challenge it, the Treasury will also have a free hand to introduce regulations that will set the framework for the lowering of tariffs which, if we are not careful, will change the UK economy as we know it. I exhort the Committee to think carefully on the proposals in the Bill and to take into account what we say in our new clause.
Kirsty Blackman
New clause 2 is, for a variety of reasons, one of the most important measures we will discuss in the three days of debate we will have on the Bill. The clause is very important. I mentioned earlier that reducing tariff rates could have a significant impact on manufacturers in the United Kingdom as well as on agricultural producers, which is a major concern, particularly in more rural parts of the UK.
This measure looks at preferential rates under conditions specified in an arrangement including, for example, quotas, rules of origin and safeguard measures. It is about not just reducing tariff rates for the total number of goods coming in from one country, but reducing the number of those under a certain quota or having a differential rate, depending on the amount of goods coming in—it is a bit more complicated than it may look.
The UK Government will go away and negotiate trade deals with other countries, and the Bill will allow the Treasury to put regulations into place. The UK Government would be more likely to negotiate better trade deals if they knew that they had to justify them to Parliament, get its approval and go through a more rigorous approval process after that. Given the concerns that the Scottish National party has raised consistently about changes that this and previous Governments have made in different areas that we feel have negatively affected either our constituents or manufacturers, producers and companies who work in the United Kingdom, and in Scotland specifically, we do not trust the Government to go away and negotiate trade deals that will be good for outlying parts of the UK, particularly those not in the south-east of England.
If Ministers had to justify themselves to Parliament more—if they had to convince us that they had struck a good deal—it may be that when they were sitting round the negotiating table, they would come up with a better deal because Parliament would be more likely to approve it. That is why new clause 2 is important. Any move by any country away from most-favoured-nation tariffs could have an impact on companies that work in our country as well as on consumers. As parliamentarians, we want to provide a level of protection for them, which is why we will support new clause 2.
Mel Stride
Clause 9 allows the Treasury to implement preferential trade arrangements on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. That will enable the rate of import duty applied to goods originating from a territory covered by a preferential arrangement to be lower than the standard rate.
The clause ensures that the tariff-related part of any new or existing free trade agreement can be implemented and enables the UK to continue the treatment that the British overseas territories currently receive. The Bill does not give the Government powers to sign such agreements but to implement the tariff parts of them.
The clause is essential to ensuring that the UK can implement any tariff outcome from negotiations with the EU. The Prime Minister has been clear that our aim is to secure a tariff-free trade deal with the EU. As a member of the EU, the UK is part of around 40 free trade agreements with countries and territories outside the European Union. When the UK leaves the EU, the Government are committed to seeking continuity in our trade relationships, including those covered by the EU’s FTAs or other EU preferential arrangements.
Mel Stride
That is a specific question for the Department for International Trade, but think all the indications are that we have been out speaking to many potential trading partners.
Mel Stride
Current trading partners and others. Obviously, as an EU member, we are bound not to enter into any other arrangements prior to our departure, but I am confident that we are having appropriate conversations at this stage of our withdrawal.
In addition, as set out in the trade White Paper, after leaving the EU, the UK will have the opportunity to
“look to forge new and ambitious trade relationships with our partners around the world”.
Clause 9 provides a basis for those aims.
The clause enables the UK to implement preferential import duties on goods originating in territories covered by a preferential arrangement. That will cover arrangements made bilaterally with a Government of another territory. A recent example is the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada.
The Bill refers to making arrangements to allow preferential rates of import duties to apply before an agreement is ratified. That is common when implementing FTAs and is the case under the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, which has been provisionally adopted but is not yet fully ratified.
The clause will also enable the UK to continue to provide preferential tariff treatment to those British overseas territories, including the British Virgin Islands and the Falkland Islands, that currently receive that access under the EU via the overseas association decision.
As I was looking through new clause 2 during the hon. Member for Bootle remarks, my eagle eye spotted what I think is an error. Although subsection (1)(a) of the new clause would do what is intended—that the first regulations to be made under clause 9 will be subject to the provisions of the new clause—the explanatory statement and the points made in his speech suggest that subsection (1)(b) should relate to instances where there has been a lowering of import duties. In fact, as currently drafted, subsection (1)(b) refers to
“the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty”.
I can only imagine that that is a drafting error or has been lifted from new clause 1, which does refer to the increase in import duties. However, I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman intended, and I will deal with new clause 2 on the basis of its intention and of the way in which he describes it in the explanatory statement.
The new clause would put in place an additional parliamentary process for regulations giving preferential import duty arrangements to other countries. As I previously set out, for indirect tax matters, it is common to have framework primary legislation supplemented by secondary legislation. The Bill introduces a comprehensive framework for a new stand-alone customs regime. It ensures that the scrutiny and procedures that apply to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate, taking into account the technicality of the regulations, the frequency with which they are likely to be made and how quickly the law may need to be changed.
Clause 9 allows the Treasury to give effect to the tariff section of trade arrangements once they have been negotiated. It is therefore appropriate and proportionate for the negative procedure to apply. Any delays in implementing preferential duties in trade arrangements could have significant impacts on UK supply chains or exporters who rely on the arrangements. As set out in the trade White Paper the Government are considering how to ensure that the process for negotiating new trade deals is transparent, efficient and effective, and we will ensure that Parliament is engaged throughout.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I am grateful for his comments. He seemed to suggest that the appropriate time to consider these matters might be at the time of ratification of any preferential trade agreement and that the provisions are merely enabling. How will we be able to scrutinise at that stage? Will we be able to have a developed and involved discussion at that stage? My understanding is that we would not be able to do that.
In his opening remarks—perhaps this is unfair—the Minister referred to the existing preferential trade arrangements that we have with the overseas territories and the EU and those between the EU and other countries, but, as many others have mentioned, we could be concluding new trade arrangements, particularly with the US, and there are all the concomitant problems that that might cause as well as potential opportunities. Have the Government considered whether the scope of the clause could be reduced so that it relates only to areas where we already have preferential trade arrangements?
Mel Stride
There are a couple of important points to make here. This particular clause enables the Government to put into effect the tariff-related elements of an FTA, for example. When it comes to the points that the hon. Lady understandably makes about treaties that we may enter into with other countries or with countries with which we already have existing arrangements that we wish to continue on our departure from the European Union, those kinds of debates and issues do not rest within this clause. As the trade White Paper sets out, they rest with the Government whose duty it is to make sure that we consult during the negotiation of those treaties so that we conclude them in an appropriate manner.
Anneliese Dodds
I find that very helpful because it has clarified that there is not a detailed parliamentary process for us to consider the matters that are covered by the clause. We believe that they will not be scrutinised in an appropriate and thoroughly democratic manner. Also, there will not be much opportunity for parliamentarians to engage with the issues raised by free trade agreements.
Mel Stride
I do not think my response to the hon. Lady earlier suggested that there would not be any parliamentary scrutiny of the provisions in clause 9. Indeed there will be, as she knows. If we are going to change duties or introduce tariffs, such matters will be subject to secondary legislation and statutory instruments in the normal manner.
Anneliese Dodds
I did not say “any”. I said that there would not be scrutiny of the type that is necessary and of an appropriate thoroughness, which would not be of a one-shot nature whereby it is difficult to have the kind of debate that we all think is necessary, given the impact that the provisions could have on major sectors of our industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Preferential rates given unilaterally
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 10, page 6, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must consult on a proposed version of any regulations to be made under this section before making them.”
This amendment requires the Treasury to consult prior to making regulations establishing preferential rates for developing countries.
The amendment is about consulting on a proposed version of any regulations to be made under the section before making them. This would make sure that relevant people are consulted in advance, specifically in the case of unilateral preferences. The Minister previously argued about the processes that are gone through in advance of the signing of international agreements, but those are slightly different in relation to this clause. We are specifically talking about consultation. Again, we have been clear that there is not enough consultation throughout, and more consultation would be appropriate.
As amendment 108 is about unilateral preferences, we think that consultation is necessary. It is absolutely clear that unilateral preferences, particularly those relating to these provisions, and the reasons for unilateral preferences, are good—they are sensible in relation to our least developed countries—but we must also ensure that relevant stakeholders are consulted.
Anneliese Dodds
I agree with much of what the hon. Lady said. We heard on Tuesday some of businesses’ concerns about consultation even relative to the Bill. It is important, when we move on to its exact provisions, that we have proper consultative mechanisms. I have certainly benefited hugely from the input into the process around the Bill and information from the Fairtrade Foundation and Traidcraft. If this Government are truly committed to policy coherence for development, it is important that they ensure that non-governmental organisations with expertise on the ground in international development can comment on preferential trade decisions, which could have a significant impact on different nations.
I was encouraged by what the Minister said to me when we talked about ensuring policy coherence for development when it comes to tax treaties. We need to ensure that that is the reality for our preferential trading regimes as well. One way to do that is by having appropriate consultation with experts in the area.
Finally, the Library note to the Bill, which was enormously useful as always, says that,
“the Government argues that the negative procedure is appropriate here as regulations might be lengthy, technical, frequently changed, not yet known and/or administrative.”
The note goes on to indicate what the EU process is for such schemes. It is quite different from what the Government propose:
“The regulations setting out the current EU scheme…were adopted by the EU Parliament and Council”,
meaning that there was debate within both those organisations. Our country is represented in the Council, and our MEPs represent us in the European Parliament. Then there are
“provisions allowing technical/routine updates through Commission delegated regulations.”
Again, delegated regulations can involve thorough scrutiny. I suggest that in many ways, it is far easier for an MEP to trigger a debate on a piece of delegated legislation on the Floor of the European Parliament than for an MP to do so in the British Parliament, certainly when the negative procedure is used, but also, potentially, when the affirmative procedure is used, given the arithmetic of Committees mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. It is enormously important that we have proper scrutiny of such provisions. One way of embedding that is by having appropriate consultation. We support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. It is an intimidating task that falls to me. I see many familiar faces, all pretty experienced and used to being in Bill Committees, as well as the Rolls-Royce Minister to my left. Fortunately, I am backed by the most extraordinary sea of talent behind me, as well as having on my right a much improved Treasury Whip, compared with his predecessor.
Amendment 108 seeks to create a statutory duty to consult on regulations relating to unilateral trade preferences for developing countries. The Government sought views on unilateral preferences as part of the trade White Paper and proposed creating a trade preference scheme that, as a minimum, maintains the preferential market access of countries in the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences, or GSP. The Government regularly engage with stakeholders on the issue, and—I can undertake—will continue to do so in future.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the Minister speaking on these matters in Committee, and I welcome him to his place. He is absolutely right about the importance of the preferential trade agreements, but perhaps we had a slight misunderstanding. I am not suggesting that opposition to such agreements would be likely. It is just that some organisations such as Fairtrade and Traidcraft have been in touch with us, and they might have better insight into what is happening on the ground in some of those countries. They might be able to provide more information to ensure that the preferential tariffs being provided unilaterally are the most appropriate ones.
The amendment is not about trying to create a blockage in the system. My reason for moving it is not about protecting our industries, but about ensuring that the best possible preferences are put in place for those countries that most need them. That is more likely to happen if there is an opportunity—a requirement, I suppose—for the Government to consult, in particular those bodies and organisations working in the country which can be absolutely clear about the best way forward for any trade deals.
If the Minister is clear that he will consult, that is useful. However, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Graham Stuart
I am disappointed that the hon. Lady will press for a Division, not because the points she has made are not important, not because the Government should not consult and listen to those voices, and not because we should not seek to improve our programme of support for developing countries, but because to put consultation in at that particular point in the process will not deliver the outcome that she desires and might in fact cause damage to the very system that we all want to see improved and working properly after having taken such consultation.
We are in regular contact with external stakeholders. We hold roundtables with representatives of civil society, business and academia, and we have received about 20 responses on trade with developing countries as part of the White Paper consultation. We have heard support from some of the organisations that the hon. Lady mentioned for creating a UK preference scheme, and an understanding of our approach to maintaining in the first instance existing levels of market access as we leave the EU. In effect, we are replicating the system we have now. In the oral evidence earlier this week, the Committee heard someone from the Fairtrade Foundation say of the measure:
“It takes the best bits of current EU policy and brings them over into UK policy.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 21, Q23.]
In some areas, stakeholders have suggested changes for the future, including extending to more countries, simplifying rules and adding more products. All of that can be considered by Government. I suggest to the hon. Lady that it is not too late not to press this amendment to the vote, because I do not think it is appropriate, although I take on board entirely the points she is making.
Kirsty Blackman
I still intend to press this to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 10, page 7, line 5, at end insert “and—
(c) may make provision about the restoration or reinstatement of the nil rate band.”
This amendment places beyond doubt that regulations may reinstate the nil rate band after suspension or withdrawal.
This amendment comes from the Law Society of Scotland. It was a kind of tidying-up exercise that we suggest would be helpful in the clause. Clause 10(3)(b) allows the trade preference scheme to
“make provision about the suspension and withdrawal of the application of the nil rate.”
I am sure this is unintentional, but it does not make provision to reinstate or restore the nil-rate band, if it is necessary to do so. It is just a slight technical change suggested by the Law Society of Scotland, allowing for the restoration of the nil-rate band if that is what the Government need to do.
Anneliese Dodds
This seems like a sensible amendment, particularly because accessing that nil rate is crucial for so many nations. If there is ambiguity around the conditions, they need to be clarified. Definition, initially, as a least-developed country, is partly with reference to vulnerability to economic shocks. Inability to access that nil-rate, or inability have it reinstated when it should be, could cause economic shocks. As we know, the value of access to the nil-rate to UK markets for least-developed countries is incredibly important—it is £323 million a year. It is important that we have no ambiguity and are absolutely crystal clear.
Graham Stuart
As we have heard, the amendment seeks to clarify that the regulations may provide for the restoration or reinstatement of the nil rate of import duty to least-developed countries where this has been suspended or withdrawn. It is clearly important that we can reinstate preferential rates of import duty after they have been suspended or withdrawn, but the Government do not believe that the amendment is required. The existing power enables the withdrawal or suspension of preferences to least-developed countries to be partial and reversible. That is in line with the general principles relating to regulation-making powers. It goes to show that even when you deal with lawyers as eminent as those at the Law Society of Scotland, they sometimes get it wrong, even technically.
The Government intend to use the power to suspend sparingly and, if used, we will work with the relevant country with a view to reinstating preferences as soon as is appropriate. For trade preferences to be effective, they must be relatively stable, so that businesses have confidence to make decisions to import from beneficiary countries. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Aberdeen North to withdraw the amendments and give a categorical assurance that a provision to do what they suggest is already in place.
Kirsty Blackman
Having looked at subsection (2), I still do not think it is particularly clear. It says that the scheme can make provision about the withdrawal, but then does not make clear that it can be reinstated. I will not press it to a vote because I hope the Government will table an amendment on Report to make it clear that they have the ability to reinstate the rate. I would not like a situation in which the Government were unable to do so because there was a challenge around the language used in the law. The amendment seeks to make it as unambiguous as possible. The hon. Member for Oxford East was absolutely clear on the importance of nil rates, particularly in relation to economic shocks. SNP Members would echo that. I am not going to press it to a vote, but I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider returning to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 80, in schedule 3, page 57, line 18, at end insert “among other things”.
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may have regard to things other than the classification of least developed countries by the UN in amending the list in Part 2 of Schedule 3.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 10, in clause 32, page 19, line 32, after “which” insert
“section (Preferential rates given unilaterally: enhanced parliamentary procedure, etc) (7) applies and”.
This amendment is consequential on NC4.
New clause 4—Preferential rates given unilaterally: enhanced parliamentary procedure, etc—
(1) No regulations may be made by the Treasury in exercise of the power in section 10(1) except in accordance with the steps set out in subsections (2) and (4) to (6).
(2) The first step is that a Minister of the Crown must lay before the House of Commons—
(a) a statement on the matters specified in subsection (3); and
(b) a draft of the regulations that it is proposed be made.
(3) Those matters are the reasons for—
(a) the proposed application and non-application of the scheme to each country listed in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 3;
(b) any proposed conditions for the application of the lower rates or nil rate, and
(c) any proposed provisions about the variation, suspension and withdrawal of the application of the lower rates or nil rate.
(4) The second step is that a Minister of the Crown must make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons setting out, in respect of proposed regulations of which a draft has been laid in accordance with subsection (2)(b)—
(a) each country to which the proposed regulations apply;
(b) the proposed conditions for the application of the lower rates or nil rate, and
(c) the proposed provisions about the variation, suspension and withdrawal of the application of the lower rates or nil rate.
(5) The third step is that the House of Commons passes a resolution arising from the motion made in the form specified in subsection (4) (whether in the form of that motion or as amended).
(6) The fourth step is that the regulations that may then be made must, in respect of any matters specified in subsection (4), give effect to the terms of the resolution referred to in subsection (5).
(7) No regulations may be made under the following provisions unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons—
(a) section 10(4)(a) (meaning of “arms and ammunition”);
(b) paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 (power to add or remove countries from lists in that Schedule).
This new clause establishes a system of enhanced parliamentary procedure for regulations setting lower import duties for eligible developing countries, with a requirement for the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the key provisions of the proposed regulations, and also requires that certain other regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Graham Stuart
Clause 10 ensures that the UK can operate a unilateral trade preference scheme when the UK leaves the EU. It will provide the powers to implement a scheme that will enable the reduction of import duty on goods originating from developing countries. By legislating now, we can ensure continuity for businesses both in the UK and in those countries when the UK leaves the EU.
As you know, Mrs Main, the UK has a long-standing commitment to support developing countries to reduce poverty through trade. One important way to do that is to offer preferential access for their exports to the UK. Trade preferences will also provide opportunities for UK businesses, while enabling UK consumers to benefit from lower product prices. In 2016, the UK imported £19.1 billion of goods from countries receiving trade preferences.
The UK currently provides trade preferences through the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences. Under GSP, the product coverage and import duty rates for countries vary depending on their development levels and trade flows. The granting of a unilateral preference to facilitate the trade of developing countries should, under WTO rules, be based on objective criteria. The European Commission regularly updates EU legislation to reflect that. Examples include making changes to a country’s economic circumstances, or to the list of products in respect of which a country receives a preference. After the UK leaves the EU, similar legislative powers will be needed to establish and manage an effective trade preference scheme. Clause 10 provides for a power to create a trade preference scheme for eligible developing countries.
It is intended that the UK scheme will have tiers of preferences for groups of countries with different economic characteristics. The UK will reduce to zero the import duty on goods originating from the 48 least developed countries, except for the import of arms and ammunitions, which is called “everything but arms”. That fulfils an international commitment made in the UN sustainable development goals, and will provide vital support to the world’s poorest countries.
To maintain continuity at the point of exit, in the first instance the UK intends to mirror the EU’s scheme, which includes two further tiers, known as standard GSP and GSP-plus. The standard tier will reduce import duty on the majority of goods. The enhanced GSP-plus tier will reduce to zero the import duty applicable to those goods covered by the standard tier when such goods originate from economically vulnerable countries that make commitments on human and labour rights, environmental protection and good governance.
The trade preference scheme will allow for the variation, suspension and withdrawal of trade preferences in certain circumstances. For example, where the import of a good threatens serious injury to UK business, the preferential rate could be amended or revert to the standard customs tariff rate. That would take place following discussion with the specialised, expert Trade Remedies Authority. Importantly, a preference may also be varied or withdrawn from a country in response to serious and systematic human rights violations.
Schedule 3 lists the countries that are eligible to receive unilateral trade preferences. It is an objective list based on economic criteria. Countries in part 2 of schedule 3 are currently or recently classified by the UN as least-developed countries. Countries included in part 3 have not been classified by the World Bank as upper middle income or above for the last three consecutive years. Not all of the countries on the list will actually receive the trade preferences. Some of the eligible countries will trade with the UK under a different arrangement, such as a free trade agreement. In such a case, it is intended that the FTA terms will apply to that country instead. Schedule 3 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the list of eligible developing countries when a country’s economic characteristics change. It is important that a UK preference scheme can react swiftly in such circumstances.
Amendment 80 will allow the Secretary of State to consider things beyond the UN’s classification of least-developed countries when deciding which countries must be provided with a nil rate of import duty. When determining whether a country is least developed, the Secretary of State must have regard to its classification by the UN but, importantly, other relevant considerations may be taken into account. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Anneliese Dodds
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in such a prominent role now. In his role as a Whip, he was of course fundamental to the operation of all the discussions that we have had in this Committee room, but it is good to see him speaking on these issues.
As the Minister intimated, the amendment relates to part 4 of schedule 3, which sets out the conditions under which amendments can be made to parts 2 and 3, including the lists of least developed countries and other countries eligible for preferential trading schemes. Colleagues will be aware that those schemes arose out of the work of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which from the 1960s onwards argued for improved market access for developing countries as a means of fostering their economic development. The so-called generalised system of preferences was adopted in 1968.
The whole point about that—the Minister alluded to it—is that a generalised system of preference, just as with a customs union like that of the EU, is allowed as an exemption from the most favoured nation rules within the WTO. Those rules stipulate that no country can have a preferential trade agreement with any other country that is not offered to every other member of the WTO. It is therefore enormously important to have the ability to deviate from WTO rules to promote development.
As the Minister suggested, the arrangements have over time developed at EU level into, effectively, three different layers of preferential scheme for developing countries: the everything-but-arms approach, which applies to the least developed countries; the generalised system of preferences—GSP—and then GSP-plus which, as the Minister said, offers additional favourable terms to those countries fulfilling environmental and good governance requirements.
Will the Minister clarify one issue relating to GSP-plus, and my reading of the existing Bill, with regard to classification as another eligible developing country under part 3 of schedule 3? I thought that the Bill referred to the Secretary of State developing regulations with a view to
“among other things…classification by the World Bank”
and that those “other things” were not just economic factors but human rights and environmental considerations, as is the case with the GSP-plus system in the EU. I think that was what he intended to say, but it was not crystal clear and it would be helpful if he would clarify it.
Our amendment is focused not on the arrangements for GSP and GSP-plus countries, which I believe are all gathered under part 4 but, in practice, on the least-developed country regime—the successor to everything-but-arms, which the Government say they want us to take on board. It is positive that the Bill provides the possibility for a three-year transition period, so that countries currently described as least-developed countries can remain in the scheme for another three years, as a graduation period. However, particularly with regard to current EU developments, it seems that in the Bill, the Government are missing out on an important opportunity.
The Minister was correct to say that the current everything-but-arms regime does not explicitly include reference to human rights and the environment or other criteria, but there is pressure at EU level for those factors to be taken much more closely into account. Our country could play a key role in that. That is very important when we look at how the everything-but-arms process has worked in practice.
A very good case study is the sugar trade in Cambodia. The sugar industry in Cambodia has grown exponentially over recent times due to changes in the overall sugar price, but also due to the imposition of a preferential trading regime. That has not led to sustainable development. Instead, very large global conglomerates have captured much of the market. Ninety seven per cent. of Cambodia’s sugar exports went to the EU in 2012. Tate & Lyle bought 99% of those, and companies linked to it—or some of those which it has now sold off—were controlling much of the new sugar plantations in Cambodia.
Those plantations have been enormously controversial because they have involved the wholescale removal of families from their smallholdings. Many people illegally transferred into Thailand because the sugar plantations forced them off the land. The growth in the industry has not led to an increase in people’s incomes. In fact, the opposite has happened: it has led to many people becoming destitute who formerly were able to live at subsistence level at least. Some families from Cambodia have even taken cases against Tate & Lyle to our High Court because they were dispossessed of their land and are no longer able to live sustainably.
Other changes occurred around sugar in the EU—minimum pricing and its removal—but surely, given that example, we should think about whether we need to do more to try to stop developments of the kind that existed under the everything-but-arms initiative from occurring in any UK-specific schemes. There is certainly an argument in the development community about whether it is appropriate for human rights matters to be taken into account in trade deals. Particularly in the sugar market, very large corporations are making a huge benefit, but that has not led to a more sustainable income for ordinary people—quite the opposite.
In addition, it is important that other factors can be taken into account in these classifications and in determining whether countries should be on the list. Three years is a good graduation period but it may be necessary for some countries to have longer, especially if they are subject to a particular economic or other problem.
Furthermore, I understand that there are cases where countries have used additional considerations in relation to classification under these kinds of regimes. Norway has said that if a country is not classified as a least-developed country but is part of a customs union with other least-developed countries, it is a good thing because it promotes regional integration. That nation is also likely to share many trade characteristics with the least-developed countries, and therefore should be able to be allotted trade preferences on the same basis. Norway at least believes that it does not need a waiver from the WTO for that—not only is that not being actioned by the WTO, but Norway believes that it does not even need to approach the WTO for a waiver. We could be more ambitious in that regard, and I hope that as a result the Minister takes our suggestion on board.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her passionate espousal of a number of interesting issues. I will respond as best I can, but my three weeks in this post probably does not match her many years of expertise.
As highlighted, clause 10 and schedule 3 ensure that the UK can operate a unilateral trade preference scheme when the UK leaves the EU, supporting our long-standing commitment to support developing countries. The group of least-developed countries, as set out in schedule 3, are among the poorest in the world. As I said, providing nil-rate import duty access to goods from those countries helps them to reduce poverty through trade and is part of the UN’s sustainable development goals. Clause 10 enshrines that in UK law, ensuring that the commitment will be maintained in future. The clause is not prescriptive about the level of import duty for other eligible developing countries—they are listed in part 3 of schedule 3—that are not designated as least developed. However, as I have mentioned and as the Government set out in the trade White Paper, the Government’s policy intention is to ensure continuity at the point of exiting the EU by replicating the market access of all countries currently part of the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences.
I take on board the fact that the hon. Lady talked about being more ambitious. We have said that, as a Government, we wish to be more ambitious, but we need to bring into place in this country continuity from the existing system and give assurance and confidence that we are not opening up. If we open up the issues more widely, we will create uncertainty as to what we will continue—we may be strengthening in some areas; we might weaken in others. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to accept that I need to think and talk to her over time about some of the issues that she has raised. We do want to be more ambitious in the future, but for now, we believe that the right thing to do is to have continuity with the existing system and bring that as effectively as we can into UK law.
The amendment proposes that changes to schedule 3 be done by the affirmative procedure. As I have mentioned, eligible developing countries will be determined with regard to the classification by the World Bank or UN. The Government need to be able to react promptly to a country’s change in economic circumstances. Similarly, the power to specify the meaning of the term “arms and ammunition” is intended to allow the preference scheme to adopt the same nomenclature enabled through clause 8 for the customs tariff, which will itself be constrained by international nomenclature.
As I said, our intention is closely to replicate the EU’s preference scheme, including the GSP-plus tier. That is the enhanced tier of preferences available for economically vulnerable countries that ratify the international conventions I have mentioned. We expect beneficiary countries to continue to respect the conditions in GSP-plus, including meeting those international obligations. Those conditions will be set out in secondary legislation, as clause 10(2)(b) allows.
The question is asked why we would give preference to Cambodia even though land disputes have occurred following the EU’s everything-but-arms access. A key objective of the UK is building the UK’s prosperity by increasing exports and investment and promoting sustainable global growth. Greater prosperity leads to greater stability. We are aware that the Government of Cambodia have taken steps to improve their issue of economic land concessions, such as introducing a compensation process. Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment cancelled more than 20% of all economic land concessions. For now, therefore, we continue to work through the EU’s GSP monitoring system, and we seek to bring the existing system into UK law.
Peter Dowd
I rise to speak to the Opposition’s new clause 4 and will also touch on schedule 3, if I may. We do want to require a vote in the House of Commons on the giving of preferential rates unilaterally to developing countries—I do not mean in relation to amendment 80, but in future. We can all agree that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that our trade policy works for everyone, including the poorest in society, and how tariffs are set has an important bearing on that.
The Minister was very clear and comprehensive about the Government’s direction of travel. I welcome him to his position—as a former Whip, he has come out of the darkness into the light—but I also agree that the current Government Whip, the hon. Member for Macclesfield, is much better.
Graham Stuart
I will respond to some of the points that the hon. Member for Bootle has just made. I pay tribute to him for featuring so well. He must be another fine engine, if not a Rolls-Royce. I have certainly heard him purr in this Committee Room on many an occasion. As with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, I have admired the style and content he has presented.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of whether the trade preferences will undermine human and labour rights. The UK has a long-standing commitment to universal human rights, and that will be reflected in our trade preference scheme. As part of transitioning EU arrangements, we will maintain a similar approach to human rights commitments in UK trade policy.
The hon. Gentleman raised Burma, based on the Rohingya situation, and mentioned the fact that the EU has, after all, suspended Burma before. I agree that this is an important issue. The UK is deeply concerned by the violence taking place in Rakhine state. The UK has been a leader in responding to the crisis in terms of both speed and size, helping to meet the urgent humanitarian needs that have arisen. For now, we continue to work through the EU’s GSP monitoring system. Under a UK scheme, it will be possible for countries to have their preferences suspended, although we intend to reserve suspension powers for serious and systematic human rights violations.
We must make sure that when we act, it is always to tackle the problems in those developing countries, and that the long list that was laid out—including climate change, forestry and various aspects of human rights—is not used as an excuse for protectionism of interests in this country while we are morally posing ourselves as helping those in developing countries. That is why the presumption is that we should let them trade with us; however, in serious cases we should act. I hope that both this Committee and the House can continue to take that proportionate and balanced approach.
On the clauses that the hon. Gentleman says give too much power to the Government, and on the question whether there is sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and due process in setting up this preference scheme, I would say that these powers are moderate and entirely necessary to create and maintain a trade preference scheme for developing countries, which is a goal that we all share. The overarching principles of the preference scheme are set out in primary legislation. That is important. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the inclusion of these principles and powers throughout the passage of the Bill. Parliament will later have the opportunity to consider regulations setting details of the scheme. The scheme will need to be updated regularly. As economies grow or contract, their eligibility for trade preferences will change over time. We must ensure that the legislation is kept up to date to ensure that we trade on fair terms and avoid challenge from the WTO.
I did not respond earlier to the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford East about amendment 80 and why the Secretary of State cannot consider factors other than the UN’s classification when deciding which countries are least developed. The Government have chosen to enshrine in UK law the obligation to provide nil-rate import duty to least developed countries. This meets a commitment the UK made in the UN sustainable development goals to implement duty-free market access for LDCs. As a result, there needs to be significant certainty on the list of LDCs in part 2 of schedule 3, because it is in primary legislation that this legal duty will be in place. Therefore it is right that the Secretary of State is closely bound to the internationally recognised UN classification. The distinction in language between sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) in part 4 of schedule 3 reinforces this point.
As a final remark, I will quote the Fairtrade Foundation, which said that
“from the perspective of developing countries, where in some instances there is a high dependency on the UK market…changes to tariffs could make or break the livelihoods of producers. If you were to ask for a vote on every single tariff change, that would not be workable, so this is about finding the right balance”.—[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 19, Q21.]
Being balanced and proportionate is the basis of the Government approach, and I ask the Opposition not to press their proposed amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 11
Quotas
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in clause 32, page 19, line 32, after “which” insert
“section (Quotas: enhanced parliamentary procedure, etc)(7) applies and”.
This amendment is consequential on NC3.
New clause 3—Quotas: enhanced parliamentary procedure, etc—
(1) No regulations may be made by the Treasury in exercise of the power in section 11(1) except in accordance with the steps set out in subsections (2) and (4) to (6).
(2) The first step is that a Minister of the Crown must lay before the House of Commons—
(a) a statement on the matters specified in subsection (3); and
(b) a draft of the regulations that it is proposed be made.
(3) Those matters are—
(a) in respect of any case where the condition in section 11(2)(a) is met, a statement of the terms of the arrangements made with the government of the country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
(b) in respect of any case where the condition in section 11(2)(b) is met, a statement of the reasons why the Treasury consider it is appropriate for the goods concerned to be subject to a quota.
(4) The second step is that a Minister of the Crown must make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons setting out, in respect of proposed regulations of which a draft has been laid in accordance with subsection (2)(b)—
(a) the amount of import duty proposed to be applicable to any goods that are or are proposed to be subject to a quota; and
(b) the factors by reference to which a quota is to be determined.
(5) The third step is that the House of Commons passes a resolution arising from the motion made in the form specified in subsection (4) (whether in the form of that motion or as amended).
(6) The fourth step is that the regulations that may then be made must, in respect of any matters specified in subsection (4), give effect to the terms of the resolution referred to in subsection (5).
(7) No regulations may be made making provision on the matters in section 11(3)(c) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
This new clause establishes a system of enhanced parliamentary procedure for regulations setting quotas under Clause 11, with a requirement for the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the key provisions of the proposed regulations, and also requires that regulations establishing a licensing or allocation system are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Mel Stride
Clause 11 makes provision for the purpose of establishing an independent quota regime for the United Kingdom. The clause specifies the circumstances in which a quota may be established and gives the Treasury the power to make regulations concerning the administration of the quota regime.
A range of tariff and quota regimes currently govern imports into the UK. The EU currently notifies more than 140 tariff rate quotas to the WTO. TRQs allow specified quantities of a product to be imported at a lower or zero tariff rate. They are often used where the introduction of particular products to the domestic market raises specific policy sensitivities, for example in the case of agricultural produce. Depending on the nature of the goods in question, TRQs may be administered in a number of ways, such as on a first come, first served basis, via a licence system or on a traditional/newcomer basis.
Clause 11 establishes the general rule that a quota may be set only if arrangements, such as a free trade agreement, have been made with another territory outside the UK for that purpose, or if the Treasury has determined that it is appropriate that the goods in question be subject to a quota. In addition, clause 11 gives a power to make regulations concerning the administration of the quota, the conditions subject to which the quota has effect, how the amount of the quota is to be determined and conditions of eligibility, including, where appropriate, a requirement that the quota be subject to a licensing system.
Any power to make regulations that make a quota subject to a licensing system are exercisable by the Secretary of State, and any other power to make regulations under clause 11 is exercisable by the Treasury, having regard to any recommendation made by the Secretary of State. As can be seen, clause 11 does not set specific quotas, but rather seeks to maintain the effect of the general framework by which quotas are set and administered under EU law. Maintaining the framework will help minimise any disruptions to trade as the UK establishes an independent customs regime.
New clause 3 and consequential amendment 11 seek to put in place additional parliamentary procedures for setting the amount of duty applicable to goods subject to a quota. The Bill introduces a comprehensive framework for a new stand-alone customs regime, which will be underpinned by detailed and technical secondary legislation. As I have said in relation to other, similar proposed amendments, the Bill ensures that the scrutiny procedures that apply to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate, taking into account the complexity of the regulations.
Tariff rate quotas are complex and varied in terms of how they arise and how they are administered. Regulations related to tariff rate quotas are lengthy. They will include, among other things, administrative provisions for the opening and management of quotas, conversion factors and details on import licence applications. For the powers under clause 11, the negative procedure will apply, which the Government consider appropriate and proportionate. The procedure provides a sufficient level of parliamentary scrutiny while having regard to the technical and administrative nature of quota regulations.
TRQs are an integral part of the UK’s existing customs regime, particularly for agricultural imports. Clause 11 sets out the necessary provisions to allow us to establish the UK’s quota regime post-EU exit. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman
Quotas have concerned us for some time, particularly the question of how they will happen post-Brexit. I understand what the Minister is saying, and I have read the clause and understood what it says about the regulations and how quotas will be put in place by this Government, but I am still not entirely clear how those quotas will be decided in advance and what circumstances will be used to decide an appropriate level of quota. I am not sure if the plan is for that to follow in regulations. I have tried to work it out from the legislation before us; it may be in the Trade Bill rather than this Bill.
Quotas are important, particularly on agricultural products. If our farmers can only produce a certain percentage of the beef consumed, we must allow a certain amount of beef into this country, but not so much that our farmers will be squeezed. We must protect our farms here. It is about ensuring balance.
The UK and the EU Commission agreed in September 2017 how they would divide the quotas currently in place. They agreed that the tariff rate quotas lodged with the WTO would be divided on the basis of consumption. For example, there is a tariff rate quota for sugar cane. Sugar cane is consumed mainly by the UK—the EU generally uses not sugar cane but sugar beet, which it grows itself—so it makes sense for a more significant proportion of the quota to go to the UK than to the EU. Division by consumption seems like a relatively sensible way to do it.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Actually, a lot of sugar beet is produced in the UK, as well as in Europe.
Kirsty Blackman
That is absolutely the case, but generally the sugar cane that comes into the UK and the EU is consumed in the UK; very little of it is consumed in the EU. This is specifically about the consumption of sugar cane, rather than about the production of sugar beet. I understood that probably most of the sugar beet produced in the UK is not for human consumption, but I could be wrong in that regard. I am happy to chat to the hon. Gentleman afterwards, if he is keen.
Julian Sturdy
I will have to be careful what I say here but, without promoting British Sugar too much, if someone sees Silver Spoon in the supermarket, that is British sugar produced by British Sugar.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I appreciate that his knowledge of sugar is better than mine.
On quotas in particular, the situation is that the UK and the EU Commission have now decided how to divide the quotas and the amount that is lodged as a schedule with the WTO. However, in September 2017, Uruguay, Canada, Thailand, Argentina, Brazil, New Zealand and the US wrote a letter to say that they contested the way in which the UK and the Commission had decided to divide up the quotas, and that they had a concern about the decision taken. I can understand that concern.
For example, let us say that beef is coming into the UK and the EU. If we have a collapse in the beef market in one of those places, the beef cannot simply be redistributed to other countries. That is particularly so in the case of the UK. If the UK ends up with a tenth of the EU’s quota for beef, and the quota allows for 100 tonnes of beef, 10 tonnes of that are a quota allocated to the UK. If something strange happens in the UK, everyone decides that they do not want beef burgers or steaks any more and the market collapses, the country exporting the beef to the UK cannot just send it to another country, because the UK schedule will be the UK schedule alone.
I can therefore understand why countries are unhappy with how that division is working and why they have come back to say that they do not think it is a technical rectification. That is a serious thing in the WTO, because if the change of quota is not a technical rectification but a modification of the schedule, it needs to go through more of a process in order to be agreed.
My big concern is that none of that seems to be in this legislation. None of the way in which the UK Government will be dealing with the WTO on quotas or defending itself against challenges brought to the WTO seems to be in the Bill. While I am on the subject, to throw the cat among the pigeons, I have not seen anything in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, in this Bill or in the Trade Bill that gives the UK Government the power to lodge schedules with the WTO. I hope the UK Government have not missed that and it is written somewhere in one of the pieces of legislation, because it would be rather unfortunate if the UK Government were, post-Brexit, unable to lodge schedules with the WTO or to have its most favoured nation tariffs lodged with the WTO.
I hope that that power is in one of the pieces of legislation—I am happy for the Minister to come back to me and mention it afterwards—because clearly we want to be in a situation in which, post-Brexit, the UK continues to be a functioning country and is able to have tariffs, not just preferential ones but most favoured nation ones as well. Generally, I have concerns about the provisions on quotas because I am not sure that they adequately fulfil all the things that the UK will need to do on quotas.
I have thrown an awful lot of things at the Minister—not literally, I hasten to add for anyone reading this later—and I am happy for some of them to be dealt with at a future sitting. My concern, however, is that because we are leaving the EU and doing so in a short period of time, so legislation has been hastily drafted, some things might be missing. If that is indeed missing, that would be amusing because it is pretty fundamental going forward. I will appreciate the Minister’s providing some clarification, if he can, on the clause.
Peter Dowd
Our new clause 3 would require the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the key provisions of the proposed regulations. It would also require that regulations establishing a licensing or allocation system are subject to the affirmative procedure.
As with the other related new clause we have discussed today, there are four steps set out in our proposed process. First, the Minister lays a statement to the House along with the draft regulation that is proposed to be made. Secondly, the Minister lays a motion setting out the various duties and tariffs that the Government wish to impose. Thirdly, the House would have to pass a resolution on that motion. Finally, the regulations will be made. Amendment 11 is consequential on the above, making a small technical change to clause 32 to accommodate our proposals.
Ultimately, however, we are less concerned with the exact steps for any process for ensuring parliamentary oversight. We just want to see that the Government are acting on the principle that Parliament should have an extended role in scrutinising the changes in this regard. As I have said previously in relation to the other clauses, we seek to guarantee an enhanced parliamentary process. The logic is pretty undisputable. The Government have tabled this Bill as a financial Bill, as I referred to earlier on. In that regard, the House of Lords does not have any capacity to scrutinise it and the Commons does not have the same capacity it usually would. We ask, therefore, that as in all other financial matters a case is presented to the House for a debate and a vote.
It would be a very unfortunate outcome if the Treasury was to acquire powers to alter the rate of taxation without such basic democratic processes. The Government really should think a little longer than this—it is not a short-term matter. It is of course more conceivable that they may be in opposition sooner than they think. They should be looking to construct a fair process for scrutiny, with, in effect, cross-party agreement as to what that would be, in the light of this significant change that we are about to face in one way or another, maybe within the next 12 months or so, possibly a little longer, but the reality is that we are facing change. This House has to face up to the fact that scrutiny processes need looking at, especially with regard to finance.
Mel Stride
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North rightly raises the issues around quotas. First, we have to work out what those quotas will be. We have existing arrangements through the European Union and we are currently in discussions regarding, as she has suggested, how the various quotas should be allocated, whether that be on the basis of consumption, or consumption and other issues that we might consider. The point I would make on that is that this Bill is enabling, in that sense, rather than prescribing or seeking to suggest any particular outcome to those discussions.
In the hon. Lady’s second point she raised an example of 100 tonnes or 100,000 tonnes of beef, and a certain amount coming by way of a quota to the UK, and then circumstances of that changing not to our liking, and asked what we would do in such a situation. That prompts the question as to where the quota itself originated.
Kirsty Blackman
I am sorry; I was obviously not particularly clear when I was making that case. I was suggesting that this was why third countries are upset about how the division might work, because 90 plus 10 is not the same as 100 in a bigger area, because they cannot just redistribute that in the event of a market collapse in the UK, because the 10 is for the UK and they cannot just send that to the EU, because the quota for the EU is now only 90.
Mel Stride
I think I have the gist of the point. In terms of the overarching point about what one would do if the arrangements come to be seen, in the way they are measured, as being inappropriate, that prompts the question where the quotas originate in the first place. If it is in the schedule of concessions at the WTO, I guess we would have to revisit that aspect of it. If it comes from provisions within a free trade agreement, I guess we would attempt to renegotiate that aspect, or perhaps trigger some provisions within that agreement to resolve the issue at hand. If it was a so-called autonomous quota in which we had decided to implement a quota regime or quotas at the request of a third country, I imagine that we would be able to reverse or change that in some way through secondary legislation as well, depending on the precise nature of that agreement.
Mel Stride
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reasserting his arguments, but our arguments remain as I set out in my earlier remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Tariff suspension
Peter Dowd
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 12, page 8, line 40, at end insert—
“(6) No regulations may be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment requires regulations under Clause 12 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 12 stand part.
Amendment 9, in clause 32, page 19, line 32, after “regulations” insert “under section 12 and”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Peter Dowd
I am pleased that the Minister is getting the drift of our line after several hours—[Interruption.]—I hear the Minister saying “with much repetition” from a sedentary position, but I do not think it is as repetitive as the Government’s refusal to give Parliament scrutiny. It is a persistent “No, no, no” from the Government, and that is dangerous. I do not say that as a Labour Member per se; I say that as a democrat. It is crucial that Government Members recognise that. I am sure some of them do, because these things come back to bite Members when they are in a different position. I exhort them to listen to what we say—no matter how often I say it.
The Chair
Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman’s comments should be pertinent to the part of the Bill that he is discussing, rather than a reiteration of points that have already been made.
Peter Dowd
I understand that, Mrs Main. Amendment 5 is another amendment pertinent to the clause, in that it continues to wish to hold the Government to account. That is not just the view of the Opposition, but of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I have referred to before. It says that the Bill involves a “massive transfer of power” that gives Ministers over 150 powers to make tax law for individuals and businesses. Those laws will run to thousands upon thousands of pages, with little opportunity for us to scrutinise them. The Treasury’s delegated powers memorandum alone, which sets out in detail all those law-making powers, runs to 174 pages.
The Fairtrade Foundation has raised concerns over the use of delegated powers in the Bill around the setting of tariffs and the establishment of rules of origin. That relates to developing countries—we touched on them earlier—where, in some instances, there is a high dependency on the UK market and where there are products with tight margins, so changes to tariffs could make or break the livelihoods of producers.
The Hansard Society also rightly pointed out in its evidence that unless the Government can give a compelling reason, all Henry VIII powers should be subject to the affirmative procedure, which the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is also in full agreement with. Mr Blackwell from the Hansard Society does not see any evidence in the delegated powers memorandum that justifies the Government avoiding an affirmative procedure. Nor does the Hansard Society understand the Government’s justification and distinction between the use of urgent and non-urgent powers.
I will continue to repeat that this House is entitled to scrutinise the Government appropriately and as much as it wants within the confines of procedures. I wish that the Government would listen not only to the Opposition but to virtually every organisation out there who tells them that in these times of significant change, the Government should open their arms to scrutiny and challenge and not shut the door in our faces.
Mel Stride
Clause 12 provides for an exception to the application of the standard rate of duty as set under clause 8. It allows some or all of the import duty that would otherwise be charged on specified goods to be waived for a specified period of time. The primary purpose of a tariff suspension is to facilitate domestic production by ensuring that businesses have access to the supplies that they need. A similar exception to the application of the standard rate of duty exists under the Union customs code. A suspension could be introduced on the Government’s own initiative, or after a request for one: for example, from a business.
Suspensions are usually applied to certain types of goods. Any goods that will be subject to a suspension will be specified by regulations. For example, under the current arrangements suspensions are generally granted only where the good is a raw material or unfinished product, which will be used by UK manufacturers; where no competing domestic product exists; and where the goods covered by the suspension are subject to a significant amount of duty. In other words, the suspension would have a material benefit for UK industry.
A suspension of duty would apply for a given period of time that could be extended. Where a continuation of a suspension implies a lasting need to import a certain product at a reduced or zero rate, the Government would look to reduce the standard rate of duty. To be consistent with WTO rules, a suspension on any given good must be granted equally to every country and supplier. Regulations made pursuant to the clause will be subject to the negative procedure.
Amendment 5 and consequential amendment 9 to clause 32 change the proposed parliamentary procedure for regulations relating to tariff suspensions from the negative procedure to the draft affirmative procedure. The Government believe that the scrutiny procedures that apply to the exercise of each power in the Bill are appropriate and proportionate, taking into account the length and technical complexity of the regulations and the frequency with which they are likely to be made.
For tariff suspensions, the negative procedure is both appropriate and proportionate. The power in clause 12 only permits the standard rate of import duty to be temporarily lowered and could not be used to increase the rate. Delays in implementation of suspensions owing to the use of the draft affirmative procedure would only be to the detriment of UK manufacturers.
I will provide an example that might be pertinent to our debate. The suspensions are likely to be numerous and detailed. For example, in the last round of EU suspensions, a UK business successfully applied for a tariff suspension on a specific type of gearbox with a hydraulic torque converter, with at least eight gears and an engine torque of 300 newton metres or more. It is the kind of gearbox I might have in my Rolls-Royce car, perhaps. It is not clear that such a level of detail would benefit from a greater level of parliamentary debate, despite the fact that we have debated Rolls-Royces, and by extension gearboxes, to some degree in this debate today.
In short, the clause is a crucial part of the overall import duty regime, allowing the Government to take action to support manufacturers in the United Kingdom. I therefore move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Peter Dowd
Given the time, I will spare the Committee further scrutiny. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 3 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
Fatalities in Northern Ireland and British Military Personnel
(6 years, 3 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
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Seventh Report of the Defence Committee, Investigations into fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British military personnel, Session 2016-17, HC 1064, and the Government response, HC 549.
It is a pleasure to introduce today’s important debate under your chairmanship, Sir David. My interest in the topic was first sparked by contributions made at an end-of-term debate by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), both of whom are here today, although sadly one of them, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, cannot contribute personally to the debate.
When the Defence Committee agreed to look into this question, we delved into it very much from the point of view of what was technically possible, and what was impossible for reasons of international law. From the beginning of the troubles in 1969 to the signing of the Good Friday agreement, there were 3,260 troubles-related deaths. Of those, 238 were the result of engagements by military personnel.
The Committee was particularly exercised by recent events. As a result of the much more recent campaign in Iraq, soldiers were being brought to court, and it appeared that thousands of cases would have to be investigated, despite the fact that at the end of long, tortuous and expensive processes, the vast majority were found to be without much, or indeed any, substance. The Committee was worried that a similar sort of process would now begin retrospectively in relation to the 238 military-related deaths that occurred during the troubles.
In the course of our inquiry, we took the advice of a panel of four distinguished lawyers who gave evidence. I drew a number of lessons from what they had to say. They told us that it would be possible to draw a line under the events of such a long period so long ago, if that was what was decided, but they assured us that it would not be possible under international law to do so in a selective fashion. They were quite clear that two conditions would have to be met if we wished to bring in, as the Committee felt that we should, a statute of limitations concerning troubles-related deaths up to the date of the Belfast agreement. I have already alluded to the first condition, which is that the statute of limitations should apply to everybody. The second condition, which is a requirement under international law, is that there must be a proper investigative process for deaths that have occurred, even though that may not lead—indeed, if there were a statute of limitations, definitely would not lead—to a prosecution.
I started to discuss the matter with various interested parties. The Democratic Unionists with whom I discussed it certainly want a statute of limitations applying to the military forces, the police and the security agencies, but they have grave difficulty with applying such a statute to former republican paramilitaries. Only yesterday, for the first time, I was given the opportunity to have a discussion, which I welcomed, with three of the Sinn Féin elected MPs. I think it is true to say that they were interested in something that already seems to apply to republican paramilitaries, but they were not interested in something that would apply to the military, the police or the security agencies. There is also a certain lack of clarity, to put it mildly, about the present policy. As we discovered in our discussions yesterday, there is even failure to agree on whether existing limitations on the sentences that can be given to convicted paramilitaries apply to service personnel as well.
What are the existing restrictions? I think we know what they are. As part of the agreements that have been reached after so many years, so many negotiations, so much death, so much tragedy and so much trouble, it was agreed that no matter how great the offence or how numerous the victims, if paramilitaries were convicted under the terms of the agreement, whether they had killed dozens, scores or even just a few individuals, they could not be sentenced to more than two years in prison. The likelihood, therefore, is that they would not serve more than one year in prison.
There seemed, however, to be no agreement on whether that restriction applies to the military. I do not know if the Minister will be able to enlighten us today; if not, I hope that he will write to us with a definitive answer. The Sinn Féin MPs definitely thought that it did, yet previously I had it explicitly put to me by a lawyer for one of the service personnel currently facing trial that the two-year maximum, no matter how heinous the offence for which a republican or presumably any other paramilitary is sentenced, did not apply to the military. If it does not apply to the military, the imbalance between the unlimited sentences that can be imposed on soldiers and the two-year sentences—one year actually served in jail—that can be imposed on paramilitaries is so egregious that it is hard to imagine that the Government would not seek to impose at the very least a cap for all who may be affected by any proceedings. However, I want to try to take a wider view, and I appeal to all who were involved, one way or another, in the tragedy that was the troubles of Northern Ireland to try to take the broader view, too.
It has been put to me in very stark terms that people who suffered losses during that period, even if it was only 40 years ago, cannot rest until those matters are resolved. I share their understanding of the matter, and can perceive something of what they feel, because my family was caught up in the holocaust, and the part of my family who were still in Poland in the second world war was annihilated, with the exception of one very small family unit that was saved by courageous non-Jewish Poles. Even though it happened a few years before I was born, I felt for years after the war that the people who killed them should be hounded forever, yet that is not the situation that we face today, because we have already decided that—in the interests of an overall settlement—there should be a limit of two years on the maximum sentence that paramilitaries can face, so by no stretch of the imagination can the punishment be said to fit the crime.
I come to the second element of what the distinguished professors told the Committee in their advice to us on what would and would not be possible under international law. Any statute of limitations would not only have to apply for everybody—because if it were applied only to the forces of the state, that would legislate for state impunity, which is illegal under international law—but would also have to be coupled with a truth recovery process.
We all know where we first began to hear about truth recovery processes: in South Africa, after Nelson Mandela came out of prison and changes occurred. The decision was taken in South Africa to draw a final line under all the horrors on whichever side, or by whatever part, whether we are talking about state authorities, revolutionaries or innocent civilians caught up in someone else’s crossfire. There, it was decided that in the interests of peace and coherence and the possibility of building some sort of united community, a line must be drawn, but that families must have closure and the best possible opportunity to find out what had happened to their loved ones. That led to people who had been involved in terrible activities coming forward and giving testimony, secure in the knowledge that, even if they were incriminating themselves, they would not be prosecuted. That is how there was some form of resolution for those people who had been bereaved, in the sense of public accountability and the discovery of the truth. It was not only a brilliant and magnanimous concept, but a legal requirement. There is a legal requirement to investigate; there is not a legal requirement to prosecute.
The trouble in the situation in Northern Ireland—I hope I will not strike the wrong note by seeming to be flippant at this point—goes back to the origins of the troubles in 1969. I went to university the following year, 1970, and while I was at university in Oxford, I made a friend called Martin Sieff. Members might deduce from his surname that he has the same sort of background as I do. I remember him trying to explain to me the depth of division between the communities in Northern Ireland. He said, “For example, there was one occasion when I found myself cornered by a gang on the street. They asked me that age-old question: are you a Protestant or a Catholic?” Martin thought he had the perfect, truthful answer; he said, “I am a Jew.” They said, “Yes, but are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?” I am not trying to be flippant; I am trying to indicate that there are irreconcilable and deep-seated beliefs at work here.
The role of the Defence Committee means that our concern has to be for the welfare of the service personnel. We do not wish to see hundreds of old cases reopened, in the absence of any new evidence, which would mean that they were highly unlikely to be successfully brought to a conclusion—if a conviction is regarded as successful. People would nevertheless be put through a tremendous ordeal at a late stage of their life. At the end of it all, in the vast majority of cases, it would almost certainly be found that they did nothing more than their duty and did not commit any offence at all. The Committee’s concern in the report had to be to make a recommendation about what should happen to those personnel. We were unanimous in our belief that a statute of limitations should be enacted for any troubles-related offences, or alleged offences, up to the date of the Good Friday agreement.
We felt that it is for the Government of the day to go wider and decide what other groups beside service personnel and associated police and agencies ought to be included, but we did not shy away from pointing out that the unanimous expert legal advice we received from the four professors made it quite clear that if a statute of limitations were introduced for anyone, it had to be introduced for everyone. That will be very difficult to accept for the different parties across that terrible divide in Northern Ireland that we are seeking to repair. The Unionists take the view that some people should benefit from a statute of limitations, but not others. The republicans take the view that others should benefit from a statute of limitations, but not the people whom the Unionists wish to see benefit.
I will go as far as I can without breaking any personal confidences, and it may be that I am misinterpreting the signals, but from my conversations with people on either side of the argument, I sometimes get the impression that they are held captive by the response they feel they have to make to the people who elected them and brought them to this House. I sometimes detect—perhaps I am wrong; perhaps I am misreading the signals—that, in their heart of hearts, they know that there is either going to be a solution that applies to everyone, or no real solution that applies to anyone, but they will never be able to articulate or promote that.
It is a step forward that the Government have said that they will hold a consultation in which a statute of limitations will be one of the options aired. I believe that sometimes people must seize the opportunity to take a lead. There is nothing of a legal nature to prevent this Parliament from enacting a statute of limitations. If it applies to everyone and is coupled with a truth recovery process, it will maximise the chance of people finding out what happened to their loved ones and of avoiding the poisoning of the settlement so far reached by a constant succession of cases being brought before the criminal courts.
I wish to end on another factor, which I hope the Minister will take back to his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office. I was particularly impressed by it in the meeting I had yesterday with two Labour colleagues, in which I met the Sinn Féin MPs. From their point of view, it seemed to me—I hope I am not misrepresenting what they said—that one particular ongoing issue was the failure to hold inquests into the deaths of many of the people who died during the troubles.
If we could set to one side, as a route of trying to get to the truth, dragging a succession of old men through the courts when there is insufficient evidence against them, and if as part of an overall settlement we could all decide to go ahead with a statute of limitations that applied to everybody, that might open up the possibility of inquests being held. A combination of inquests being held into deaths that have so far not had inquests, and a truth recovery process in which people know they can come forward to say what happened without any danger of incriminating themselves, might be the basis of a step forward.
Today’s debate is only one piece in an enormous jigsaw that people have been trying to put together to come to a conclusion that enables the communities in Northern Ireland to live at peace with each other, and that—as far as we are concerned—ensures that soldiers who did their duty are not hauled through the courts many years after the event, when no new evidence is available. I hope that people do not have too great an expectation that the production of an individual report or the holding of an individual debate will do anything other than add to the momentum.
One thing that the Defence Committee can claim, however, is that we have focused attention on one specific remedy that offers a way forward. If it was a way forward with no disadvantages, of course people would have signed up to it or something similar long ago. There are disadvantages to every policy possible, and people will have to make sacrifices. People do make sacrifices, and have made them. The question is: is it better to go down the route of endless court hearings, deepening divisions and the poisoning of the more positive links that have slowly and gradually built up, or is it better to take a leaf out of the South African book?
I conclude with this thought: if it was good enough for Nelson Mandela, after all he went through and all that the people he represented went through, should it not be good enough for us and the Northern Ireland communities?
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
As ever, it is a privilege to follow my Chair on the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and to be rejoined by some of our former colleagues who served on the Committee in the previous Parliament, because we discussed this issue. I do not intend to speak for long, but I want to talk about the people and why we need to handle the situation so delicately.
Many colleagues will want to be aware that families touched by this issue are sitting in the Public Gallery. Every time we look at the issue of Northern Ireland, we need to remember that this is about people—people on all sides of all communities—as well as service personnel, including those who are serving now, those who may want to serve in future and those who served during the troubles. This impacts on every part of our military. I am speaking today as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, and our responsibility to the covenant is mentioned in the report’s conclusions and recommendations.
Given the political situation in Northern Ireland, not for a decade has there been a more difficult time to raise the issue we are discussing. I do not envy the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my neighbouring MP, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who has to deal with some of the challenges. None of us wants to make her job more difficult as, in the months ahead, we work towards a political settlement in Northern Ireland.
The issue, however, has an impact on people throughout the country, including those of our constituents who are ex-serving personnel. There is not a veterans’ brunch or breakfast that I visit at which people, including members of my own political party who served during the troubles, do not regularly—by which I mean monthly—express their concerns to me about what it might mean for them as they approach their 70s and 80s. They are concerned that legal action may be hanging over their shoulders. As hard as it is for the families who are still suffering the legacy of the troubles, it is also hard for those people who served during that time. We have a responsibility to them, as well as to the families, to give them reassurance going forward.
There is also a knock-on effect for those who may be looking to serve in future. We saw such an effect from Iraq, with the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. If we are continually looking to judicial responses and the law, people will simply stop signing up because of fears about what will happen to them even 30 or 40 years after their service.
The issue is not straightforward by any stretch of the imagination, but it was right for the Defence Committee to explore it and I am proud of our report. That report raises the issue and adds to the burden on the Minister, for which I apologise, but the issue is one we can ignore no longer. We need a settlement that is agreed by all parties, whichever side of the conflict and the troubles they were on.
Our brave service personnel were acting under orders. We asked them to do many things for us; we need to have their backs when they need us. As delicate as the subject is, I hope that everyone will approach it in the same way as the right hon. Member for New Forest East, who led the debate. We need to move forward and we look to the Minister for guidance. I hope that the report’s recommendations will be followed.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir David. I will keep my remarks short, because I have been struck down by the lethal man flu—a very dangerous thing of the sort that would have kept the Minister in bed for a week.
On the issue of historical allegations, I have a recent history in the military and with the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and so on, but at times I feel that we cannot make it clear enough that individuals such as me and those I served with absolutely want to see the rule of law upheld in every nature of engagement that we are involved in. It is completely wrong to assert that we are looking for some sort of cover-up, or even enabling, of illegal activities. That could not be more wrong. We join the military and become part of it because we believe in it and in its mission—that what we are doing is making the world a better place.
It is fantastic to hear the thoughts of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Select Committee, on the situation. We are indeed going to have to have uncomfortable conversations. We are going to have to get together intellectually to work this out. Why are we going to have to do that? Because it does not work for anyone at the moment. The only people who benefit from the existing situation are lawyers, who I know for a fact are being encouraged to practise in Northern Ireland because they see the issue going on and on. I am afraid that that is not acceptable for the victims, their families or, of course, our armed forces.
We know all that, so what are we going to do about it? A couple of options are clear and straightforward on the face of it, but they also represent deep challenges. I echo what my right hon. Friend said, which is that nobody will get a 100% solution. I gently say to those who continue this fight—I will always continue it because I think it is the right thing to do, but there are those who have been in it for far longer than me—that there will come a time when my generation will want to move on, whether they served in Northern Ireland or were affected by crime or other events there. The sympathy that is absolutely with those who have suffered wrong, whichever side of the divide they are on, will not last forever.
We have a unique opportunity to work this out and to make a solution work. A statute of limitations is important, but we have to be so careful about how it is applied. Under the Good Friday agreement, paramilitaries faced a maximum sentence of two years, but that does not apply to the security forces. That is such a binary issue and it is not acceptable. We should have moved on from that.
I have huge sympathy with those who feel that they have been wronged in this process. My experience of dealing with cases of people killed in operations, or with those who have lost sons, daughters, husbands or wives, is that ultimately what they really want to know is what happened. Of course, they want recompense—people talk about compensation crime and time in prison—but what they really want to know is what actually happened. We are not doing those affected by the troubles a service if we carry on in this manner, which in no way will uncover what actually happened.
Doing those people a service requires bold leadership. It requires someone who will sensitively bring everyone together. It will require compromises, because the current situation is not reconcilable. Above all, it will require courage. People talk about courage in the military, but there is another element, which is moral courage—the courage to do things that are difficult because the bigger picture is worth it. Northern Ireland is clearly a wonderful place and it has a bright future. The young people of Northern Ireland want to leave this in the past. Let us help them do that by really coming together in a mature, forward-looking way, with the victims and their families absolutely at the centre. Let us do that in a magnanimous way that can really achieve something for the families, but also halt the totally unacceptable practice of pensioners who have served in this country being relentlessly under scrutiny, when in some cases nobody else is alive to recount the incident.
Let us seize the initiative of this report. I strongly welcome it and I am very pleased that the Government are going to do a consultation on it. We have to have the awkward conversations, because not having them does not work for anyone. It is incumbent on us as political leaders not to rest until we have solved the issue of historical allegations in Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I follow three Members whose contributions were different in many respects. They are all engaged in this issue and have considered it thoughtfully throughout the Select Committee inquiries. It is a privilege for me serve on the Defence Committee and to be a part of the inquiry.
While I was listening to our esteemed Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—I mean that respectfully—I was thinking of Otto von Bismarck’s quote about legislation being a bit like sausages: no one needs to see how they are made. The right hon. Gentleman and I have had many private conversations about this report. He knows very clearly that my party colleagues and I are not supportive of an amnesty and that many victims in Northern Ireland—whether they are victims of republicanism, nationalism, Unionists, loyalist paramilitaries or of state forces—collectively do not believe in an amnesty, nor are they interested in having the hope or the pursuit of justice snuffed out. That is the environment in which it is important to consider this report.
This morning I was listening to BBC Radio Ulster, which had a contribution from Northern Ireland victims about Holocaust Memorial Day. One victim, Alan McBride, lost his wife on the Shankill Road when she went to her local fish and chip shop to get an evening meal and was blown up by the IRA. He spoke about a day of reflection in Northern Ireland, which is 21 June. I did not know this, but he shared the reason that 21 June was selected: victims across the Province had sought to find one single day in the calendar on which there has not been a troubles-related death, but they could not. They could not find a single day when someone had not died as a consequence of the troubles. They focused on 21 June because of the solstice representing a change in culture and weather, and the hope and aspiration of warmth and sunshine.
Our history is harrowing. Anyone who has been personally or directly affected by it is left with the scars and the emotion of the troubles of Northern Ireland. The report is about who “guards the guardians”, to use the phrase from a previous Defence Committee report. It is about how we look after those who protected society in Northern Ireland, not those who persecuted and were prosecuted for the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland.
A total of 300,000 service personnel served in Northern Ireland—there were 27,000 of them at the height of the troubles—and 1,441 human beings who we, as a nation, asked to serve and protect our interests, perished. They died. Three hundred individuals died as a direct consequence of engagement with security forces, but that does not mean 300 murders. It is important to make that point. It does not mean that 300 people were murdered at the hands of the state: 300 people died engaging against the state. They were legitimate deaths—deaths that arose out of conflict and out of those individuals who we asked to defend us standing on the frontline and defending us as best they could.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Select Committee for the huge amount of work they have put into the report and its conclusions. Does he agree that there is a stark difference between someone who went out with murder on their mind to hurt and to kill in the pursuit of terrorism, and the brave men and women of our security forces and armed forces? They went out night after night and day after day to serve and to protect, and some were involved in difficult operational decisions with very tragic outcomes. We should be protecting them, as opposed to a terrorist on the loyalist side, a terrorist on the republican side, or somebody in the armed forces who went out with the intention to murder. That is not what this is about. It is about protecting those who are honourable and who went out to serve and protect.
Gavin Robinson
I agree most fundamentally with my hon. Friend. She has been engaged for almost a decade in the policy matters and implications of legacy issues in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done. These are not easy issues at all.
I am not saying that those 300 deaths were murders or unlawful, but that should not mean that they are immune from investigation. I say that most clearly: they should not be immune from investigation. I will quote from the “Who guards the guardians?” report led by the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) on the inquiry into the Iraq Historic Allegations Team:
“With the prospect of investigations into British deployments in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, the Government must prove both in private, but especially in public that in adhering to the pursuit of justice and the rule of law, it does not lose sight of its moral responsibility and its commitment to the Armed Forces Covenant with those who have served.”
I was disappointed that the Government dismissed those lines.
Given what we have attempted to do in Northern Ireland thus far in dealing with the legacy, this report barely surmises that the overall process of investigations into fatalities in Northern Ireland has been deeply unsatisfactory. The instability of investigatory bodies, the limited resources and manpower provided to them and the continuing question marks over their independence have delivered a vicious cycle of investigation and reinvestigation that fails service personnel, their families and the families of those who died.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister—the Chair of the Select Committee should know my views on this as well—that dealing with this issue through the prism of Northern Ireland does not work. As parliamentarians who stand up in this national Parliament and ask individuals to put their lives on the line for our protection and our security, we should not look at this issue through the prism of Northern Ireland alone. A consultation is fine, and I have nothing against people submitting their views, but the principles with which we are engaged go far beyond the Northern Ireland context. I am not asking for anything that would be injurious to investigation or to upholding the rule of law.
When I say that, I am acutely aware that there are relatives of victims of the Ballymurphy massacre sitting in the Public Gallery—relatives who have sought for years to achieve truth and justice for their loved ones for that incident, which took place over a number of days in August 1971. I say very gently—this applies to their case and to many others in Northern Ireland—that the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice are two noble pursuits, but one does not always lead to the other. Someone can have truth but not get the justice they seek; someone can have justice but not get the truth they think they know. That is the mix that we deal with in Northern Ireland, but a statute of limitations would not, in our view, change the ability to get an investigation or to get closure, or remove the state’s responsibility or what it has to do to be article 2 compliant.
I disagree with the Chair of the Select Committee about this. The year 1973 was a watershed. That was when the investigatory process in Northern Ireland was fundamentally changed because the impartiality or the suitability of investigations had been questioned. The state can have confidence that where there was an investigation post-1973, that process was robust and article 2 compliant. I acknowledge that the Ballymurphy massacre predates that, and I do not stand in the way of any victim who seeks to pursue justice for their loved ones.
It is wrong to say that a statute of limitations would have to be extended to both state and non-state actors. We propose a statute of limitations on the basis that the state has discharged its duty. This is not immunity. This is not state immunity. This is not protection for a class of people. This is the state saying, “Where there has been an investigation and nothing came of it, we will move on after a defined period of time.” That is why looking through the prism of Northern Ireland is wrong in this context. This will apply in four years’ time to Afghanistan, and in five or six years’ time to Iraq. A 20-year statute of limitations could apply to armed conflicts throughout the world, provided we do not deviate from international standards. I do not accept that this has to be all-encompassing.
I draw a distinction: the Government in London created conditions that were preferential for the perpetrators but seemingly did nothing for the protectors. If we are looking for equivalence in the system, we need to look further than the two-year early-release scheme, although that is a key part. There is a distinction. Two serving members of the security forces were in prison at the time of the Good Friday agreement and did not benefit from the two-year release scheme. The perpetrators of heinous paramilitary acts in Northern Ireland kept no records, have no files and provide no honesty or truth in a process that could lead to justice for the loved ones of their victims, be they members of the security forces or not. That is another clear disparity.
If you had asked the Northern Ireland parties to agree to an on-the-runs scheme, they would have asked you to run on, but the Labour Government did produce an on-the-runs scheme. They went out of their way to give comfort to those who had committed heinous paramilitary acts that they would not be pursued for prosecution. Our state—this country and its Government—has given no protection to the people it asked to engage on our behalf. It has given no protection to security forces personnel who served in Northern Ireland or in other conflicts, but it was prepared to give odious on-the-run letters to paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
John Downey is a famous example. He killed 11 members of our security forces in Hyde Park and seven horses associated with their work. When he was brought to the Old Bailey, he produced an on-the-runs letter and said, “I have an assurance from this state that I will not be prosecuted for my actions.” John Downey walked. There is no parallel between the way our state protects the people we ask to protect us and its casual, laissez-faire protection of paramilitaries.
The legal evidence that the Committee received was interesting and compelling, but most importantly—albeit there are different views, ambitions and perspectives on the Northern Ireland issue—our expert witnesses agreed that it is entirely in the UK Parliament’s power to enact a statute of limitations. We call on the Government to do so as a matter of urgency in the next Parliament. That is the nature of our report. That is what we ask for from our Government. Although there will always be different ambitions, different tactics and different approaches in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is but one part of this process. The Government must decide whether they are prepared to redress their approach to legacy issues and to our service personnel and start protecting those who protected us.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
That speech by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) was astonishing and deeply moving. Thank you.
This is personal to me. I am one of the 300,000 soldiers who served in Northern Ireland. I completed seven tours there as an infantry officer. I spent three years there. I first went in the early months of 1970 as a 20-year-old second lieutenant. To be honest, I was utterly shocked that on my first tour I was operating on the streets of my country with weapons. That was not the sort of soldiering I had expected. After all, I had been at Sandhurst since 1967. We withdrew from Aden in 1967, we had a year of peace in 1968, and then the British Army was sent into Northern Ireland in 1970. I was very uncomfortable about it.
When I went to Northern Ireland just after the start of 1970, we were deployed to Londonderry, principally to protect the Catholics. I even had a Catholic girlfriend for a time. I was unmarried. [Laughter.]
Bob Stewart
I thank the hon. Gentleman; he always gets me.
In my seven tours, I certainly witnessed bombings and fatality shootings involving military personnel. I want to centre on how we felt and how we approached it. Our approach started with our instructions, which were called, “Instructions for Opening Fire in Northern Ireland”—the so-called yellow card. I have mine here. This is the 1980 version. It is meant to fit into a pocket, so that soldiers have it with them the whole time. The problem is, when a soldier is in contact, they cannot get the card and think, “Oh, what can I do?” It has to be remembered. It has to be built into a soldier what he or she should do in a case where they might use firearms. It has to be instinctive.
So that people understood the rules, there were huge instructions on pre-operational tour training. The rules were clear and pretty precise as to what a soldier could and could not do. Let me read them, because they are on one piece of paper. This had to be in a soldier’s mind: we were to use minimum force in all situations, and open fire only as a last resort. No live rounds were to be carried in the breech, unless we were ordered otherwise or were about to fire. Challenges were always to be given before firing, unless to do so would increase the risk of death or grave injury to us or anyone we considered was being engaged by terrorists. Challenges were to be clear: “Army. Stop or I fire!” We were ordered to open fire only if someone was committing an act likely to endanger life and there was no other way to stop them.
There are examples on the yellow card of when a soldier can open fire:
“Someone firing or about to fire a weapon; someone planting, detonating or throwing an explosive device, including a petrol bomb”.
in the early 1970s, petrol bombs on William Street in Londonderry put a third of my platoon in hospital with burns before any firing took place. We did not fire; we did not even consider it. We did not even draw our batons.
The next example is
“Someone driving a car at a person, and there is no other way to stop him.”
Some hon. Members may be old enough to remember the case of Corporal Lee Clegg, who was convicted of murder in 1993. He fired at a car as it approached him, and as it passed by he turned around and shot through the window. The yellow card is precise: he was not in danger any more, so he should not have fired. I will return to that.
The examples continue:
“Only aimed shots were to be fired; no more rounds than necessary were to be fired; and be careful not to hit anyone who is innocent.”
Those rules were put into all of us. We practised them. We spent ages in a classroom learning them. We also practised scenarios in exercises, and were judged on whether we had done the right thing.
To decide whether to open fire was an enormous decision, and often—I saw it several times—indecision and worry about whether to open fire resulted in it not happening until it was too late. Fire could have been returned. We all knew that shooting incidents would be investigated, and we had to justify what we had done.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
My hon. and gallant Friend is giving moving first-hand testimony on soldiering in Northern Ireland and the issues surrounding that. He is describing a situation where something has happened. What impact does that have on the soldier concerned?
Bob Stewart
Soldiers were frightened sick of going to court. They would much prefer to be in the field than to face some sort of judicial procedure. In 1986 I was the lead Army witness in Belfast Crown Court for the Ballykelly bombing. I had a string of my men going into court behind me, and although they had not opened fire and they had not done anything wrong, they were absolutely petrified about going to court. Luckily, in the end, I gave evidence, we had lunch and the plea was changed. My men did not have to give evidence, but in answer to my hon. Friend’s question, they were petrified and loathed it, simply because it is so far out of their ken.
The trouble is, decisions to open fire had to be made in seconds. That is against the background of a poor soldier, sometimes only 18 years old, having to think all the time, “Am I making the right decision? Is this right? I don’t want to kill someone.” We are human beings. Soldiers are not brutes. If they are, they should be out of the Army.
Those questioning soldiers’ decisions to open fire always have the luxury of ample time to examine what has happened, normally from a warm, comfortable room rather than an operational situation. So often, soldiers who open fire are frightened sick and having to make a decision very quickly. Of course, they are often in real danger of losing their own life.
In all fatality shootings that I was involved in, the soldiers had to prove that they acted within the law—often in court. The Army, and the special investigation branch in particular, were not nice to them. There was no cosying up. The interrogations—that is what they were— were not cosy. In 1978, I remember telling two soldiers that they were to be investigated and possibly charged with manslaughter. They had just saved their own lives by using their pistols to extricate themselves from a deadly situation, and they were shaking from the experience. They accused me, their officer, of abandoning them, and they used pretty ripe language about me. I felt rotten, as I totally understood how they felt. I explained that they had to be investigated to prove that they had acted legally and that the matter would then be over forever.
I believed then that that was right, but in recent years I have become increasingly worried in case I was wrong. In that case, I let my men down badly by what I said at the time. As politicians, we have a duty to ensure that soldiers such as my two men in 1978 are protected from retrospective investigation, especially into events that we believe were fully investigated at the time and are long in the past.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this matter, Sir David. I thank hon. Members who have spoken, and in particular my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He is a friend, and we share a bit of banter on many occasions, but we have also had the opportunity to serve in uniform, and that is something we both recognise. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who made one of the best speeches I have heard in a long time—one that resonated with all of us, because it was straight from his heart. Well done to him.
I also thank those who produced the report. Its high quality and the hard work that has gone into it are evident, and on behalf of the right-thinking people of Northern Ireland, and those who served Queen and country there, I thank the Committee for investigating with an impartial eye, for not being swayed by propaganda, and for seeking to do right by those who laid their physical and mental health on the line for the safety of every corner of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I declare an interest, having served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years and in the Territorial Army for 11 and a half years as a part-time soldier. I was pleased to serve in uniform; it was something I wanted to do since I was a young boy, and when the opportunity came when I was 18, I did it. The report is clear that between August 1969 and July 2007, over 300,000 soldiers served in Northern Ireland as part of Operation Banner, the longest continuous campaign in the history of the British Army. Those soldiers were deployed to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other security forces, and at the height of the campaign more than 27,000 military personnel were operating out of bases in more than 100 locations across the whole Province. I am proud to have been one of those men in part-time uniform. Operation Banner resulted in the death of 1,441 serving personnel, 722 of whom were killed in paramilitary attacks. Over the same period, British soldiers were responsible for the deaths of around 300 people, some of whom were civilians. That fact sets the scene very well.
Imagine that all around you, your brothers in arms are being blown up, trapped or beaten to death. You are under command and order, and you know that the only way of surviving is to keep your head down and follow orders. You do that. You see the unbelievable and touch the untouchable, and 30 years later, you have flashbacks of the unforgettable face of death and destruction. You rebuild your life, raise your children and grandchildren, and try to return to civilian life and forget what you have seen. You get to your state pension and settle into retirement. Then, one day, you get a knock on the door: someone is preparing a case to prosecute you for following those orders.
If they asked for a description of your colleague’s last seconds as he gasped for breath in your arms, having been blown up, you could easily describe that; it is irrevocably, indelibly imprinted on your mind. However, asking for details of individual outings and cases will be very different. You followed orders; that was the only detail you really needed to know. The hon. Member for Beckenham outlined exactly what a soldier does, in case we needed real, live evidence of that. He put it succinctly: soldiers followed orders. They did not question an order or ask for a brief on it; they followed it. That was the job they did.
By interviewing these men, we are not seeking justice but allowing a minority of people to seek vengeance, not against specific perpetrators, but against anyone who dared to wear a uniform. That was the only crime: being British and serving the Queen. To this day, that is enough for some people to want to destroy someone. The question is why some people are facilitating that, and how we can stop it. Figures show that investigations into former Army personnel account for a minority of legacy investigation branch cases, but that is still a disproportionately high number—some 30%—given that the total level of Army involvement in killings stands at 10%.
I have asked before in this Chamber why the life of someone killed in a skirmish with the Army is worth more time, effort and money than the life of someone killed by a unrepentant republican terrorist, who is walking around with a mayoral chain around his neck. We all know cases where that has happened; I named a very clear one in the House of Commons in the last term. That life is not worth more; it should not be. We must cut off the ability of those with a litigious republican agenda, who are determined to rewrite history, to weave a web of conspiracy theory and collusion, and make it seem like it was ever okay to bring workmen out of a van, let one of a certain religion run, and murder the rest in cold blood. The Kingsmill massacre has been very real in many people’s minds over the last period of time.
Those are the people whom some seek to appease through this continued attack on service personnel. It has to end. For the sake of real justice it has to stop. By all means, if soldiers lured civilians into an area by means of a honey trap and murdered them, let us investigate that, regardless of the uniform. But that is not the way it was; it was the other way around for those three Scottish soldiers. I tabled an early-day motion for them just a short time ago. I ask: where is their justice? There is not a level playing field, and it needs to be levelled.
Lexie Cummings’s family, from Strabane in West Tyrone, need the closure that has been given to those who sought the investigation into Bloody Sunday. My cousin Kenneth Smyth’s family mourn still. Do they not deserve the time that has been wasted on dragging old men out of their beds on the mainland and asking them questions that were above their pay grade, when they simply followed orders in a country where possibly half the people despised them for their uniform, and perhaps half of those people were willing to do something about it?
Bob Stewart
I want to pick up on one point that the hon. Gentleman— my very good friend—said. He said that soldiers followed orders. The decision to open fire was an individual matter; in the vast majority of cases, soldiers did not open fire because someone ordered them to. I cannot think of any cases where people opened fire on an order. They opened fire because they made the decision, based on the yellow card.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Clearly, the yellow card was given by the British Army for guidance on what to do, and soldiers followed that, so the soldiers on the ground followed the rules. There was not a man over their shoulder saying, “Right, fire now.” They made the decision based on the rules, which were clearly laid down for them. I had a yellow card myself, and I still keep it—as a bit of a keepsake, if for no other reason.
I will say it again: if soldiers stepped beyond their role and knowingly and willingly committed offences, then that is very different from what is happening here. I ask everyone to please see the difference.
I support the Committee’s recommendations, and appeal to anyone with any sense of decency and natural justice to do the same—except for a few minor parts that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East and others have mentioned; for that reason, we would not endorse everything that the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said.
The Government need to act. I appeal to them to respond to those who wore a uniform. As one who still lives under threat—not of prosecution, but because of my British service life, as other gallant and very gallant hon. Members have said—I ask the Government to please make best use of their resources. That means not persecuting—I use that word deliberately—men who did no more than wear their uniform and follow orders while under guerrilla and open warfare. Minister, decent people have had enough. People who were in the RUC, Prison Service, UDR or British Army and their families have been traumatised enough. I ask him to please stop appeasing the minority of people who cannot be appeased until they get what they wish for and we are wiped from their sight, and to do what is right and honourable for those who so honourably served Queen and country.
I apologise, Sir David, for the fact that I shall shortly have to retire; I have already asked permission of you, the Minister and the Shadow Minister.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I would like to pay tribute initially to my dear friend and late constituent, Surgeon Captain Rick Jolly. Many people will know of his work in the Falklands and the heroic work he carried out there, but some may not know that he served as the medical officer of 42 Commando and was deployed in Belfast early in his career.
I welcome the Defence Committee report. I want to tell a story—it is a true story about another of my constituents. I first met this gentleman many years ago when I worked in a local village as a doctor’s receptionist in the NHS. One day we had a power cut, and this kindly man from across the road came over bearing a kettle of water so that we could make a cup of tea. Over the years I worked at that location, I got to know my kindly neighbour. His name is Dennis Hutchings. He is now in his late seventies and is not a fit and healthy man: he has incurable chronic kidney disease.
More than 40 years ago, Dennis was a gallant soldier doing his job in the very difficult sphere that was Northern Ireland. In his own words, “It was a war zone.” He served for 26 years in the Life Guards with distinction. During his time in Northern Ireland, he and another soldier were involved in a shooting. I understand that the situation was investigated at the time by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the soldiers were told that they would face no further action.
I now come to the present day—more than 40 years down the road. One newspaper reported that a couple of years ago Dennis was
“arrested and interrogated 25 times by police investigating”.
It went on to say that he
“was held for almost 85 hours before he was charged with attempted murder and on one day he was quizzed ten times over 11 hours.”
This gentleman was told that there would be no further action at the time of the original investigation. A different newspaper outlined the information available, saying that
“there is no forensic evidence, no weapons from the time and all the witnesses are dead”.
Many have described what is happening as a witch hunt. This is the real face of these investigations—a kindly, elderly gentleman being hounded by the authorities for years just because he did his job more than 40 years ago to the best of his ability and as he was ordered to do by his country, and served in Northern Ireland.
The Government say in their response to the Defence Committee report:
“The Armed Forces Covenant is a promise from the nation that those who serve and have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, will be treated fairly”.
I welcome that, as the mother of somebody who serves in the armed forces. However, I do not think that Dennis Hutchings is being treated fairly. Over the years, he has become my friend, and he is my constituent. What is happening to him is wrong. I do sympathise with the families of the victims. I know what it is like to lose a loved one—to have them snatched from you prematurely—so I can speak with authority. Dennis Hutchings is my friend and my constituent, and what is happening to him is wrong. If the armed forces covenant is to mean anything, this attack on Dennis Hutchings must stop now.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. This has been a very interesting and thoughtful debate on the fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British military personnel. I am grateful to the chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), for his detailed explanation of the Committee’s deliberations. It would need the wisdom of Solomon to come up with a true solution to this problem, and I do not envy the Minister, who has to sum up the debate.
We have heard many examples of how stressful the process has been for the individuals and families involved. Many have been left in limbo while investigations drag on. As we know, the legacy investigation branch of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is currently reviewing all deaths attributable to the security situation that occurred in Northern Ireland between 1968 and the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in 1998. Any decision by the legacy investigation branch to prosecute is of course referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. That is an independent process, without UK Government involvement.
We must have confidence in the institutions of the police and the judiciary in Northern Ireland to serve the people. It is for Stormont to reform them if they are not serving them well, and I certainly hope that we can see Stormont functioning again fully in the future. That said, none of us wants former or, for that matter, current members of the armed forces to be treated unfairly when accusations of wrongdoing are made. We all know that the huge backlog of cases with the Iraq Historic Allegations Team meant that serving and former service personnel faced extended periods of uncertainty over the accusations that had been made. We must have adequate resources for investigating allegations so that that does not happen again, or in this case. We all support the idea of justice being done, but that includes fairness to our armed forces personnel, who are entitled to due process in answering allegations made within a reasonable timeframe.
The Select Committee has very helpfully suggested to the Government four possible options and has itself made a recommendation in favour of option one, namely enacting a statute of limitations. I note that the Committee did not recommend the fourth option, which is to cease investigations into former service personnel and stop complying with the European Court of Human Rights interpretation of our obligations under the European convention on human rights. It is important for me to state the Scottish National party position on this question. We fully support the Human Rights Act 1998 and will oppose any attempts to abolish it. Any derogation from article 2 of the European convention on human rights as a response to the situation would blur rather than define the high standards that we rightly expect and overwhelmingly see delivered by our armed forces, so I am grateful that the Committee does not recommend that course of action. It would send entirely the wrong message to the rest of the world about our commitment to human rights.
In conclusion, our service personnel should rightly be held to the high standards of behaviour that we expect, but they should also be fully supported by the Ministry of Defence when allegations are made.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I start by paying tribute to the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and to the members of the Committee for their work in producing the report. This is an extremely important and profoundly serious issue and wholly deserving of the Committee’s attention. The Chair of the Committee made a very considered and thoughtful opening contribution to the debate. He outlined the Committee’s approach and, obviously, the need to consider all views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) talked about the delicate nature of the issues that we are discussing—delicate for families and for armed forces personnel. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) made his contribution with the added knowledge from his military service. From the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), we heard a very moving reflection on the troubles. He reminded us of the complex and delicate nature of the issues that we are discussing. From the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we heard a personal reflection on his time in uniform, as we did from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who as a young infantry soldier served in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) gave an account on behalf of one of her constituents and talked about the links to the armed forces covenant.
The past presents many difficult and unanswered questions to families and individuals in Northern Ireland, as well as to those across Britain, including our armed forces veterans who served in Operation Banner. In all communities, there is a desire for truth and clarity about what happened to loved ones, and the quest for answers has not diminished with the passage of time. Like many hon. Members across the Chamber, I am of a generation that vividly remembers the troubles, as well as the anguish and conflict that that period represented. It is always worth reminding ourselves of the good work that led up to the landmark achievement of the Good Friday agreement. We are all committed to a future for Northern Ireland that guarantees peace and security for all citizens.
The report deals specifically with the issue of fatalities involving British personnel who served in Northern Ireland. We rightly expect the highest standards of conduct from our service personnel, and we know that members of our armed forces are keenly aware of that. Where there are allegations about improper or unlawful behaviour, they must be investigated fairly and thoroughly. Of course, there have been cases where investigations have, regrettably, not been fair. The Opposition welcomed the closure of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, because that forum relied too heavily on referrals from one discredited law firm and was simply not working.
[Ms Karen Buck in the Chair]
On the separate issue of fatalities in Northern Ireland, we are clear that the best means of dealing with this is through the full implementation of the Stormont House agreement and the institutions that that agreement provides for. The Stormont House agreement addressed many important issues relating to legacy, including providing for an independent historical investigations unit to take forward outstanding investigations into deaths relating to the troubles.
I know that there is deep frustration on all sides about the lack of progress towards fully implementing the agreement. One of the many groups eager to see progress is the Ballymurphy families, who earlier today met the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). I know that their desire for progress is shared by all parties. The frustration at the lack of progress is also a point that the Committee’s report makes only too clearly. I fully recognise the Committee’s view that the status quo is simply not sustainable.
We all want to see progress made in resuming power sharing in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said recently, we need the Government to come forward with a clear path to rebuild trust between the parties and restore power sharing. That should involve the enlisting of an independent chair to manage the talks. Only then, and with the implementation of the Stormont House institutions, can we make the progress that we all so badly want to see, and ensure that those affected by the violence of the troubles get the answers and the truth that they deserve.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I remind the House of my interest as a member of the Army Reserve, although Northern Ireland is one of the few places where I have not seen operational service. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for his Committee’s thoughtful report on a sensitive and complex issue, and for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the incredibly powerful contributions made this afternoon. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) focused on people. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) has been such a champion in this area. I am particularly grateful to him for his concern about my health. I have not been laid low with man flu, but I tell him gently that if I were, as a fine Royal Engineer I probably would not seek the sympathy of the House; I would just man up and get on with it.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) gave a really passionate speech. The attention he got from the Chamber was well-deserved. He highlighted many of the challenges that we all face. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) gave such a passionate speech about his experiences and the pressures placed on our security forces. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who had to go and speak in another debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) gave a passionate plea on behalf of her constituent Dennis Hutchings. If she would like a meeting with me, we can discuss the matter in more detail. That is the best way that we can move that forward.
Around 250,000 service personnel served in Northern Ireland as part of Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. Our armed forces played a vital role in providing safety and security, and in bringing about the conditions for peace. As the then Bishop of London, Dr Richard Chartres, put it at a service to mark the end of Operation Banner,
“Force cannot in the end resolve social conflict but it can offer a vital breathing space in which the normal processes of democratic debate and decision making can re-assert themselves. Military intervention can hold the forces of chaos at bay while people learn again how communities with different histories and aspirations can live together and do business with one another. Operation Banner kept open that vital pass”.
I pay tribute to all those who served, especially the more than 1,000 security personnel who sadly lost their lives in doing so, as well as all those who were injured and killed. In total more than 3,500 people were killed during the troubles, with terrorists responsible for 90% of those deaths. The arrangements for investigating those deaths have, over the years, been subject to increasing criticism. There is broad agreement in Northern Ireland that the current systems and structures are not delivering enough for victims, survivors or wider society.
The closure of the Historical Enquiries Team in December 2014 has left more than 1,000 cases outstanding, the vast majority of which are terrorist killings. The Northern Ireland courts risk being overwhelmed by the demands placed on them by historical inquests; there are 50 inquests currently open into almost 100 troubles-related deaths. Where criminal investigations are taking place, they are on a largely ad hoc basis, feeding the concern felt by some that there is an imbalance in the mechanisms in place, which results in a disproportionate focus on those deaths that in some way involve the state. The Government are clear about the problems with the status quo.
After 11 weeks of intensive talks, the Stormont House agreement in December 2014 reached a broad political agreement to establish four institutions to address what is sometimes described in Northern Ireland as the legacy of the past. We continue to seek the implementation of the legacy institutions set out in the Stormont House agreement as the best way to address Northern Ireland’s past in a way that is fair, balanced and proportionate.
The key institution relevant to today’s debate is the proposed Historical Investigations Unit. The HIU would be an independent body responsible for completing outstanding investigations into troubles-related deaths. It would be required to act in a manner that is fair, impartial, proportionate, effective and efficient, and designed to secure the independence of the HIU and the confidence of the public. The HIU would be required to work through its case load in chronological order and to complete its work within five years.
It is clear that action is needed on so-called legacy inquests. For example, in 2013 only two legacy inquests were completed and both have subsequently had their conclusions appealed, one successfully. None was completed in 2014. Better progress has been made since, and the Government support the work of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in putting together a reform plan for the legacy inquests for the Northern Ireland Executive. I hope that a new Executive can be formed soon, so that they can reach a view on how this element of the package of legacy reform can be taken forward.
The Government are committed to the Stormont House agreement and believe that the next phase is to consult publicly on the details of how the new institutions could work in practice. A public consultation will provide everyone who has an interest with the opportunity to see the proposals and contribute to the discussion on the issues. The consultation will include a draft Bill, which I am sure all hon. Members here will want to scrutinise in detail.
The consultation will also do something else. The Defence Committee’s important report, and indeed today’s debate, demonstrate that some people believe that the time has come for Northern Ireland to consider an alternative approach to dealing with the legacy of the past—an approach other than the pursuit of further criminal investigations. The Committee recommended
“the enactment of a statute of limitations, covering all Troubles-related incidents, up to the signing of the 1998 Belfast Agreement, which involved former members of the Armed Forces. This should be coupled with the continuation and development of a truth recovery mechanism which would provide the best possible prospect of bereaved families finding out the facts, once no-one needed to fear being prosecuted.”
A cross-party letter to the Prime Minister signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, who is the Committee’s Chairman, along with the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, went further. The letter drew on expert evidence that a statute of limitations would fall foul of international law if it applied only to servants of the state, and recognised changes that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 made to sentencing for offences related to the troubles. In the light of that, the letter argued that the time had come for a statute of limitations that covered all, including paramilitaries. I know that many, both inside and outside this place, agree with that position, while others, as we have heard, will not.
As there are a range of views, and recognising the view of the Committee, the Government have decided to include within the legacy consultation a question on alternative ways of addressing the legacy of the past, such as a statute of limitations or amnesty. While the Government are clear that in their view the best way forward is to proceed with the Stormont House agreement institutions, in the spirit of meaningful consultation, all views will be considered carefully to inform the next steps.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East asked whether the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act applies to members of the security forces as well as paramilitaries. Yes, it does, provided the eligibility criteria set out in the Act are met. In practice, no former members of the security forces have been convicted of relevant offences since the passing of the Act, so it has not yet been used in this way.
The hon. Member for Belfast East mentioned that two members of the security forces were in prison at the time of the Good Friday agreement and did not benefit from early release under the scheme. The soldiers in question were released under licence by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who had been considering their case before the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act became law. That case does not demonstrate that members of the security forces are debarred from making use of the provisions of the Act.
Going back to the consultation, while all views are important, I am particularly keen that armed forces veterans be given an opportunity to have their say, so I will ensure that the consultation, once published—I hope that will be soon—is distributed to veterans, including through our network of excellent regimental secretaries.
Finding a better way to address Northern Ireland legacy matters is a priority for the UK Government. The Defence Committee’s report is an important contribution to the debate on how best to do that. Now is the time, through the forthcoming consultation, for everyone with an interest in addressing Northern Ireland’s past to have their say.
Dr Julian Lewis
It only remains for me to express my gratitude to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I hope that any onlookers will realise and accept that we are dealing with the most difficult of issues, and are trying to do everything that decent people with good intentions can do to arrive at a fair conclusion.
I am grateful to those who have spoken today. I am grateful to colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who have been highly active in this field in the past but could not be here today, for writing in support. I am grateful to the Minister, not least for making crystal clear that the sentencing Act does indeed apply equally to the military and to terrorists going on trial.
That said, it remains absolutely unacceptable that service personnel will have to go through the sort of ordeal that Dennis Hutchings is going through. It seems to me that there are only two ways to prevent that: getting rid of the international law that requires such matters to be investigated in the way that it does, and having a statute of limitations. The international law, namely the Human Rights Act, says that if we have a statute of limitations, it must apply to everyone. I see my good friend the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) dissenting from that proposition, but that is the testimony that we were given by legal experts. If there is a way in which we can do what the report does—that is, support a statute of limitations for service personnel and analogous organisations, such as the police and the security agencies—without incurring a breach of international law, I would like to know what it is, because the evidence that we were given was that we could not.
Gavin Robinson
I realise that it is probably improper for me to start a new debate during a concluding speech, but it depends on whether there has been an article 2-compliant investigation or not. If there has not been, the right hon. Gentleman is right; but where there has been, the option of a statute of limitations is open.
Dr Lewis
As I say, we sought advice, and the advice we got was that a statute of limitations can be brought in, but there has to be—or have been, as the hon. Gentleman says—an investigation. There has not always been such an investigation, so unless or until we can bring in such a statute, or can get out of the provisions of the Human Rights Act—no one seems to want to do that—we face the prospect of people like Dennis Hutchings being forced to go through a process, at a late stage in their life, that most fair-minded people would regard as unacceptable and that is unlikely to lead to a conviction.
I did not expect for one moment that we would solve this problem today, but I hope that we have clarified the issues, and have focused the Government’s attention on what needs to be done, so that we do not end up with our soldiers having to worry about not only warfare but lawfare.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Seventh Report of the Defence Committee, Investigations into fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British military personnel, Session 2016-17, HC 1064, and the Government response, HC 549.
Written Statements
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Frameworks
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
I am today launching a public consultation on the draft national policy statement and supporting environmental appraisals for geological disposal infrastructure for higher activity radioactive waste. I am also laying the draft national policy statement before this House which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, including review by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee.
A second consultation “Working with Communities” proposes how local people should be engaged if they express an interest in hosting a disposal facility. A facility will only be approved for construction with the consent and support of the local community affected.
In 2014 the Government set out a renewed approach to finding a site to host a geological disposal facility in the “Implementing Geological Disposal” White Paper which was developed following consultation with stakeholders and the public. In it, the Government committed to bringing geological disposal facilities and the deep investigatory boreholes necessary to characterise sites within the definition of nationally significant infrastructure projects and to producing a draft national policy statement for this type of infrastructure in England. The relevant secondary legislation to designate geological disposal facilities and deep investigatory boreholes as nationally significant infrastructure projects was passed in March 2015.
The draft national policy statement sets out a clear route for future planning decisions in respect of geological disposal infrastructure in England, as well as providing planning guidance for developers of such projects and for the Planning Inspectorate and Secretary of State in their consideration and determination of any such applications. The national policy statement will give greater certainty to developers and lead to faster and more transparent delivery of planning decisions. The Government have appointed Radioactive Waste Management Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, to develop this infrastructure. It does not prevent any other developer from bringing forward an application for development consent for a geological disposal facility or deep investigatory boreholes; however, we are not aware of any other developers showing an interest in developing a geological disposal facility and do not expect this to occur.
In this consultation we are actively looking for views and suggestions on the draft national policy statement and the related environmental and sustainability appraisal documents to enable us to meet our objective of delivering a clear planning process for a geological disposal facility in the most effective and efficient way.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks, and will include a series of regional events and technical workshop with interested parties. In parallel with this consultation, we are also running another consultation seeking views on a draft framework for Radioactive Waste Management Ltd’s engagement with willing communities as part of the separate process of finding a suitable site for a geological disposal facility. The approach of working with a willing community to host a geological disposal facility, as set out in the 2014 White Paper, gives communities an opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to proceed with the development of a geological disposal facility. The working with communities policy sets out how Radioactive Waste Management Ltd will work with a community throughout the siting process. Once a community has indicated its support for hosting a geological disposal facility the national policy statement sets out how a geological disposal facility application will be assessed through the planning system. It is important to stress that all the usual opportunities for the public to have a say in the development of a facility like this through planning, safety, security and environmental permitting processes will also be in place.
Planning is a devolved issue and so this draft national policy statement provides the framework for the decision making on development consent applications for geological disposal infrastructure in England only. The planning process in Wales and Northern Ireland is to be decided by their respective Administrations. Scotland has a different policy for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste.
Following our analysis of the responses to this consultation and the consultation on working with communities and feedback from the Select Committee, we will finalise our policy approach.
The “relevant period” for parliamentary scrutiny of the national policy statement will be from 25 January 2018 to 28 September 2018.
The consultation document and supporting papers will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses.
Today I am also publishing the seventh and latest annual report on the geological disposal programme covering the period April 2016 to March 2017. The report can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/implementing-geological-disposal-annual-report-april-2016-to-march-2017 and I have made available copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS427]
Energy Policy
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Exploring and developing the UK’s shale gas resources could bring substantial benefits and the Government’s view is that there is a national need to develop these resources in a safe, sustainable and timely way. As set out in the clean growth strategy, the Government are fully committed to the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies for heat and electricity generation. As we move towards this low-carbon economy, natural gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system. The Government are confident that the right protections are in place to explore shale safely and have always been clear that shale development must be safe and environmentally sound.
On 29 November 2017 I issued a direction to the Oil and Gas Authority. This direction closed a loophole in instances where prospective shale gas wells had been drilled prior to the Infrastructure Act 2015 coming into force. It ensures that all operators proposing to hydraulically fracture a well are subjected to the same rigorous final step of scrutiny.
Third Energy UK Gas Ltd’s proposals to hydraulically fracture its site in Kirby Misperton, north Yorkshire, have been referred to me as a result. I am committed to ensuring that a meticulous approach, rooted in rigorous evidence, is taken when reviewing the application.
Having given careful consideration to the evidence submitted, I have informed the Oil and Gas Authority today that I am satisfied that the 13 technical requirements set out in section 4A of the Petroleum Act 1998 have been met.
I also consider that an equivalent assessment should be undertaken of the financial resilience of companies proposing to carry out hydraulic fracturing operations so that stakeholders can have confidence in the company’s ability to meet its commitments.
I note that as of 24 January Third Energy UK Gas Ltd and other related companies had yet to submit their accounts for the accounting period ending in December 2016, despite a statutory deadline of 30 September 2017 for them to do so. I have therefore asked the Oil and Gas Authority to seek further financial information from the company, including the required set of up-to-date accounts, to inform my decision.
I have also asked the Infrastructure and Projects Authority to assess the financial resilience of the applicant, including its ability to fund decommissioning costs. Once I have received this assessment I will inform the Oil and Gas Authority whether I am satisfied with the application as required by the 1998 Act.
The Government consider that the financial resilience of a company wishing to hydraulically fracture is a relevant consideration. As a matter of policy, we will therefore look at the financial resilience of all companies wishing to carry out hydraulic fracturing operations alongside their application for hydraulic fracturing consent.
[HCWS428]
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Agriculture and Fisheries Council will take place on 29 January in Brussels.
As the provisional agenda stands, the primary focus will be information from the European Commission on “The Future of Food and Farming”, looking towards the next cycle of the common agricultural policy.
The Bulgarian presidency will present its work programme for the remainder of this term, finishing at the end of June. The European Commission will update the Council on the situation in EU agricultural markets, and on trade-related agricultural issues.
There are currently three items scheduled under “any other business”:
situation in the sugar market after the abolition of the quota system
situation in the pig-meat market
conclusions from the ministerial conference on Xylella fastidiosa (Paris, 1 December 2017).
Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. The outcome of these negotiations will determine what arrangements apply in relation to EU legislation in future once the UK has left the EU.
[HCWS426]
Review of Terrorism Legislation
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
In accordance with section 36(5) of the Terrorism Act 2006, Max Hill QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has prepared a report on the operation in 2016 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006.
I am today laying this report before the House, and copies will be available in the Vote Office. It will also be published on gov.uk.
I am grateful to Max Hill for his report. I will carefully consider its contents and the recommendations he makes, and will respond formally in due course.
[HCWS429]