House of Commons
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 8 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, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
Let me begin by updating the House briefly on the recent tragedy in Leicester. Five people are now confirmed to have died in an explosion last night at a shop in Hinckley road. Five others remain in hospital, one with serious injuries. I thank the fire crews who are continuing to search for survivors, and the hospital staff who are working tirelessly to save lives. I know that I speak for all of us when I say that our thoughts are with the family and friends of those who have died, as well as those who have been injured.
Domestic violence is a devastating crime that shatters the lives of victims and families. The Government have introduced a new offence of coercive and controlling behaviour, rolled out new tools to tackle domestic violence—such as protection orders—and committed £100 million to support for victims.
Jo Platt
The number of domestic violence offences in Greater Manchester rose by more than 20% last year, and the local police identified my constituency as a particular hotspot. The police, local authorities and support groups are working flat out to ensure that cases are reported, families are supported and prosecutions take place. Given the significant Government cuts in those services, what steps will the Home Secretary take to ensure that the forthcoming legislation will resource public services adequately so that they are equipped to deal with the rise in domestic violence?
Amber Rudd
I agree with the hon. Lady that tackling domestic violence and abuse is a priority. It will always be a priority for the Government, which is why we are introducing a domestic violence and abuse Bill. There will be a consultation first, and I hope that the hon. Lady will participate in it. There has been an increase in reporting, and although it seems counterintuitive, it is right to welcome that, because it shows that the police are taking domestic violence more seriously, which is exactly what we want.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Southern Domestic Abuse Service, which is based in Havant, does great work tackling domestic violence in southern Hampshire. Will my right hon. Friend support the local and regional charities that do such great work, and will she back the service’s recent campaign to raise funds in order to build a women’s refuge in southern Hampshire?
Amber Rudd
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating southern Hampshire on taking action to protect women and to raise funds for refuges. The support of local charities, councillors and local activists is often necessary to ensure that the women in their communities are kept safe.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Marianne and Tracy, two domestic violence victims in my constituency, came to see me to ask me to support their petition asking the Government to do more to tackle serial domestic abuses by, for instance, providing a publicly accessible register to help to prevent perpetrators such as George Ward, their former partner, from successfully targeting new potential victims through dating websites such as Tinder.
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady is right: serial domestic abusers are one of the worst elements of this whole subject. I encourage her, and her constituents, to participate in the consultation so that we can ensure that that particular trend is addressed.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s article in today’s edition of The Times, which sets out a clear commitment to this important issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that the increased use of screens and video links so that victims of domestic violence can give evidence without having to face their attackers will not only lead to increased reporting, but give the victims a voice in court?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for referring to that article. The purpose of the announcements that I have made today is to ensure that victims are more confident about coming forward and of feeling safe, and to ensure that we can be more certain of securing the convictions that they expect and we all want.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
We on the Labour Benches also wish to thank the brave fire crews in Leicester, and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.
It is welcome that the Home Secretary has expressed concern about domestic violence, but we know that, on average, two women a week are killed by a current or former partner. That is the end point of too much domestic violence. We also know that the number of refuge services in England has sharply reduced over the last few years. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that it fell from 294 in 2010 to 274 in 2017. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to talk about the role of charities, but what will the Government do to address the funding crisis that refuges now face?
Amber Rudd
I point out to the right hon. Lady that there are more beds available to women seeking them now than there were in 2010. This Government will always make sure there are sufficient numbers of beds for the women who need them, so that women are kept safe when they need to be. Since 2010, domestic abuse prosecutions have risen by 26% and convictions by 33%. It is good that women are able to come forward and that convictions are taking place, but terrible crime and gender-based violence against women remains, so I share the right hon. Lady’s view about the need to do something. She can rest assured that this Government are taking action, and I hope she will support the Bill we will be introducing.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
European Union citizens resident before we leave the EU are covered by the agreement we reached in December. We welcome the contribution they have made both to our economy and our societies, and they and their families can stay and carry on living their lives here.
Alan Brown
The reality is that many sectors that rely on EU nationals are struggling with recruitment, and the Government have created further uncertainty with mixed messages about the status of EU nationals who come here during any transitional period, so will the Minister provide clarity for businesses and people thinking about coming here? What will be their rights, and will they match the rights of the 3 million EU citizens already living here?
Caroline Nokes
At various points over the last six weeks I have in this House—and, indeed, in Committee—highlighted the rights that will be available to EU nationals living here. The Government have undertaken to provide regular updates, and I can assure the House that that will indeed be the case going forward.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
When might the immigration Bill actually be brought forward, and what is the reason for its lengthy delay?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Of course, that Bill was the subject of an urgent question in the House, and I made it very clear then that it will be coming forward in due course.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
While protecting the rights of EU nationals who are already here, can the Minister reassure my constituents that, whatever the other details of the final Brexit agreement, it will include the end of free movement?
Caroline Nokes
We have been very clear that, when people voted to leave the European Union back in 2016, that involved the end of free movement, so I can certainly reassure the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents that that will be the case.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am pleased that the Government are delivering on their pledge to secure the rights of EU citizens here—especially those from Taunton Deane. Will my right hon. Friend comment, however, on how straightforward applying to stay might be, and whether we might have a little more detail?
Caroline Nokes
It is very important that we make it clear that, for EU citizens already living here and who have come here before the specified date, we want as smooth and seamless a process as possible. They will be able to apply digitally online, and we want that process to open on a voluntary basis later this year.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The most recent migration statistics show immigration from outside the EU, which the Government have always been able to control, going up, while EU citizens are leaving in their largest numbers for almost a decade. The Government have again postponed their White Paper on post-Brexit immigration strategy. Rather than taking back control, are this Government in fact driven by confusion and inaction?
Caroline Nokes
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are working very hard to make sure we have a sustainable immigration system both now and going forward. I welcome the fact that there are so many students coming here to study—he will of course be aware that there is no limit on the number of students who can come to this country—but what I really welcome is the number of EU citizens who came to this country not just looking for a job, but with a job to go to.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
Serious and organised crime does not respect force boundaries, which is why we organise our response at regional level, giving us the ability to tackle organised crime groups head-on. The Government have invested £140 million in ROCUs since 2013, and last year we announced £40 million of additional funding to enhance ROCU capabilities further in areas such as cyber-crime and undercover work.
Mrs Trevelyan
Does my right hon. Friend agree that when using informants to tackle serious and organised crime such as paedophile rings, it should be unacceptable to use paedophiles as informants in such investigations?
Mr Wallace
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but I can assure her that the use of informants is strongly controlled by robust safeguards and independent oversight. We must not shy away from using informants, as their use in certain circumstances is vital in stopping some of the worst in society carrying out their crimes.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Minister heard, as I have, from police up and down the country about the influence of Russia in our serious and organised crime? I hear time and again about Russian money and influence, and about Russians coming in via Malta and Cyprus.
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a number of active Russians and indeed other nationals are involved in organised crime in this country. That is why the Government are reviewing the organised crime strategy that was first published in 2013 and why we introduced the Criminal Finance Act 2017 to give us the powers to deal not only with the people inflicting these crimes but with their money, should they choose to push it through this country.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Security and Economic Crime Minister will be aware of the great number of loyalist and republican crime gangs that operate with organisations in England, Scotland and Wales, and also internationally. He knows that they are subject to the paramilitary taskforce, but will he meet me to discuss how we can ensure that that succeeds?
Mr Wallace
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that matter. We realise that the best way to tackle organised crime is similar to the way in which we have often tackled terrorism in the past—that is, alongside the criminal justice outcome, to use the broad shoulders of the whole state, local authorities, financial regulation, the police and neighbourhoods to tackle these people.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the article in The New York Times—because I sent it to him—about the British television series “McMafia”. Indeed, he was mentioned in that article. Does he agree, though, that while it is important to recognise that many Russians are involved in organised crime, it would be utterly wrong and simplistic to demonise a whole nation and its immigrants in the United Kingdom?
Mr Wallace
There is absolutely no intention of demonising a nation, an ethnicity or a culture. However, it is important to note that illicit money flows into the United Kingdom come predominantly from China and Russia, and that we have to tackle that. The powers in the Criminal Finance Act 2017 will allow us to go upstream and to take real action. If we take their money away, those people will know that they and their dirty money are not welcome in this country, and that they can either go to prison here or go home.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to visit the National Crime Agency this morning to see the great work that its staff are doing to tackle crime. However, there is little doubt that the tech giants could be doing a great deal more. I know that the Prime Minister has recently asked them to do so, but she was also asking them to do more in her early months as Home Secretary nearly eight years ago. When can we have more emphasis on action rather than words?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the empowerment that the internet gives to criminals, terrorists and radicalisers is extraordinary. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has helped to lead the charge in the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, and recently visited silicon valley to ensure that companies there start to deliver. We have seen significant changes involving the taking down of radicalising material and enabling us to catch the bad people who are doing the crimes. It is, however, important to note that one of the ways in which the National Crime Agency, the police and our intelligence services get to the bottom of these crimes is through the use of the powers given to them under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, whose effectiveness some Members in this House still try to block.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is standing up for his constituents in Sutton by asking this question. The Government have drawn up a comprehensive action plan with the police, motorcycle and insurance industry leaders, local councils, charities and representatives of the motorcycle riding community to focus on the causes of moped-enabled crime, and on what works and what needs to be done to prevent these crimes.
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that the police already have the necessary legal powers to tackle this issue, and that what is important for the Londoners across the 32 London boroughs who are increasingly becoming victims of this crime is that the Government should continue to work with the Met police and the Mayor of London to ensure that those existing powers are used more effectively to tackle this scourge?
Victoria Atkins
I agree that the police have the powers they need, but those powers need to be used in conjunction with charities, local authorities and so on to ensure that we have a thorough response to the problem. We are reviewing the law, guidance and practice around pursuits, because there are concerns about the policy and because we want to be sure that the current arrangements provide the right legal protections for officers who pursue offenders. We will publish the outcome of the review shortly.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I represent a relatively low-crime area that has seen a big increase in moped crime, so what are the Government doing to support the campaign among petrol station owners to stop serving masked riders?
Victoria Atkins
One of my first meetings shortly after my appointment was with the Petrol Retailers Association. Of course, we have to consider all sorts of measures to see what will work, which is why it is so key that our action plan involves not just law enforcement and councils, but those who ride their motorbikes quite legitimately.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
This is not just about mopeds; scrambler bikes and quad bikes are terrorising parts of my constituency. In Maesteg and Caerau, riders on these bikes are chasing people and blocking them from gaining access to public rights of way. What more can the Minister do to try to tackle the scourge not just of mopeds, but of the other types of off-road bikes that can access footpaths and pavements?
Victoria Atkins
We are keen that police forces collaborate on crimes enabled by mopeds and other smaller vehicles. For example, the Metropolitan police is now using DNA sprays, and we have great hopes that that will help to catch offenders. Such measures should be shared around constabularies to ensure that offenders are brought to justice.
Mr Speaker
I must say that I feel considerably better informed about the moped situation now than I was five minutes ago. I hope that colleagues feel the same.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The cap on tier 2 visas was set in 2011 following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. It enables the Government to control migration and encourages employers to look first to the domestic workforce before recruiting from overseas. The Government are clear that carefully controlled economic migration benefits the economy, but we remain committed to reducing migration and protecting the jobs of British workers. We keep all immigration routes under review to ensure that the system serves the national interest.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister, but given that the cap has been reached three times in the past three months, what would she say to employers that are desperate for skilled staff, such as Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge? They find those people, but then discover that the Government say that they cannot come here. Is it really Government policy to deny the national health service the skilled people that it needs?
Caroline Nokes
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that no medical professionals on the shortage occupation list have been refused a visa. It is important that we keep things under review and ensure that we recruit more doctors and nurses from within the UK, and my right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary is committed to ensuring that the number of training places for both nurses and doctors increases.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the levels of staff and skills shortages in a series of economic sectors, including the NHS and social care? How does she see the impacts on these sectors if there are further restrictions on migration for such purposes?
Caroline Nokes
Nurses are on the shortage occupation list, meaning that no nurse is turned away. The important thing is that we keep the matter under review and that we understand the situation through our work with the Migration Advisory Committee, which is looking at the pattern of EU work routes in this country, so that we come forward with an immigration policy that reflects the needs of our economy.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Has the Home Office decided whether EU citizens wanting to come to the UK to work in our NHS post Brexit will be subject to the tier 2 visa cap? If no decision has yet been taken, when do Ministers intend to end the uncertainty facing NHS employers?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He will have heard me say earlier that we will come forward with an immigration Bill in due course. He will also have heard me undertake to ensure that the House is updated on our EU exit policies in regular time, and that will of course happen.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I start by associating my party with the Home Secretary’s remarks about the tragedy in Leicester. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with the families.
The Minister suggests that the tier 2 cap situation is under review. With respect, that is not good enough. Failed applicants in the past three months may have no option but to apply again in the months ahead, making it ever more competitive for tier 2 certificates of sponsorship, which will make the problem much worse. Surely, if there is some sort of review, or if we have to wait for the Migration Advisory Committee, it makes sense to lift the cap in the meantime.
Caroline Nokes
We are very clear that businesses should look first to employ people from within the UK, and we remain committed to reducing migration to sustainable levels. Interestingly, businesses have told us that our system compares well with our global competitors and that businesses like its speed and certainty.
Stuart C. McDonald
The system works well for some businesses, but not for all. Breaching the tier 2 cap essentially meant that, to qualify for a certificate of sponsorship in December 2017, a job was required to offer a salary of £55,000 or above. That might be common enough for multinational companies in London, but it is much rarer elsewhere.
Given the Government say that they want a system that works for the whole United Kingdom, will the Minister make available information on the geographic spread of jobs that qualified for certificates of sponsorship over the past three months when the cap was breached?
Caroline Nokes
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, we keep a separate shortage occupation list for Scotland, if that is what he is referring to, but that broadly reflects the shortage occupations across the whole UK. We look carefully at this issue, as he might expect, but it is important that he reflects on the fact that we are determined to have an immigration system in the UK that works for the whole country.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
Since 2014 the United Kingdom has invested approximately £200 million to fund joint co-operation on illegal migration in northern France and committed another £44.5 million at the recent UK-France summit. Funding focuses on improving port security and infrastructure; facilities for children; accommodation; tackling organised crime, including trafficking; and support with returning migrants. We have allocated £3.6 million to work with France to improve identification and transfer of asylum seekers between the UK and France, including children, under the Dublin regulation.
Stella Creasy
Border Force tells us that it is stopping around 1,000 people a week who are trying to get to the UK, a third of whom are minors, but those children are not being taken into care or asked whether they have family elsewhere—just like Mohammed Hassan, a teenager who had family in Bahrain but was stopped by our Border Force, sent back and died two days later trying again. What action are the Government taking to make sure that our Border Force people are not sending children into the hands of traffickers?
Caroline Nokes
I am sure the hon. Lady would welcome my comment about working to combat organised crime, and we should always reflect that many perilous journeys that are made are in the hands of organised criminals. Any loss of life is an absolute tragedy, but it is important we reflect that our juxtaposed controls are an important part of our border. Our Border Force staff are incredibly well trained and look for vulnerabilities wherever they might see them. She makes an important point, and we are committed to doing more to make sure we meet our allocation of Dubs children. Also, under the Dublin regulation, we continue to resettle thousands of children every year.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that our recent agreement with the French Government will not merely treat the symptoms of the problem but address the deeper-rooted problem by reducing the number of migrant journeys to northern France?
Caroline Nokes
An important component of the recent treaty looks at the whole route of migration. It is critical that we understand we cannot solve this solely by working with France. There is a real commitment with both Italy and Greece to make sure that, particularly with reference to our Dubs commitment, we resettle the children we are determined to bring to the UK.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Thousands of unaccompanied children at risk of trafficking and exploitation still sit in camps in Europe and further afield. Many of them have family members in the UK, so will the Minister amend the immigration regulations so that these desperate children can join their relatives here in the UK to be granted safety and sanctuary?
Caroline Nokes
We have a number of schemes that already allow children to come to the UK, including Dublin and the Dubs commitment that I have outlined. We are determined to make sure that we meet our international commitments and our humanitarian commitments, to make sure that, where we can help children in desperate need across the continent and, indeed, in the wider middle east and north Africa region, we do so.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
The Government have been clear that there should be no space online for terrorists and supporters to radicalise, recruit, incite or inspire. The UK has led the way in setting up the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, to ensure that the larger communications service providers and all internet providers take down that material.
Rehman Chishti
I thank the Home Secretary for that answer. From speaking to experts such as Professor Peter Neumann from King’s College London, I am aware that the vast majority of Daesh supporters have moved away from using online systems such as Facebook and Twitter, and are now using private messaging systems such as Telegram. What steps has the Home Secretary taken, by working with such organisations, to help to tackle these threats?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. He is right to say that a lot of the activity by radicalised people has migrated to the smaller sites. That is partly due to the some of the success that Facebook and Twitter have had; these people are now moving to the smaller sites. We reckon that more than 450 were set up just last year. It is so important to have the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism because the larger companies have committed to working with the smaller companies to show them how to adapt their platforms to keep the terrorists offline.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
But how does it give the public confidence in the Government’s anti-radicalisation and anti-terrorism strategy for the former British soldier James Matthews, who fought alongside our Kurdish allies against ISIS in Syria, to be prosecuted for terrorist offences?
Amber Rudd
There are certain elements to this and I cannot be drawn on individual ones because that particular case is sub judice. However, I understand that there are concerns about the level way in which the Government are approaching this. No individual from this country can go out and fight with another person’s army or terrorist organisation in order perhaps to promote their own way of life. We have to be very clear and even-handed about this.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Prisoners’ illegal use of mobile phones enables their continued offending, threatens the safety and security of our prisons, and harms our communities. The Government have introduced legislation to disconnect mobile phones in prisons remotely; they have invested £2 million in mobile phone detection equipment; and the Ministry of Justice is working closely with mobile network operators to deliver cutting-edge technology to prevent mobile phones from being smuggled into prisons and then working.
Clive Efford
I thank the Minister for her answer, but I have recently been dealing with two cases where violent partners have been running a campaign of threats and intimidation from within prison against their former partners, yet they are still up for parole. It does not seem that the police locally, who are investigating these crimes, are contacting the MOJ and the Prison Service to ensure that this is taken into account when these people are considered for parole.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will appreciate that I am not able to comment specifically on those cases, but I ask him to write to me about them so that we can see what further can be done. I want to emphasise that it is getting harder and harder for prisoners to get mobile phones into prisons and to then use them. Indeed, at least 150 phones have been disconnected since the telecommunications restriction regulations came into force.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
We know that in December some 79 illegal mobile phones were seized as a result of joint operations between police and the Prison Service at HMP Hewell. What steps are being taken by the Home Office, police and crime commissioners and the Prison Service to set up proper protocols and systems for joint working between the police and the Prison Service? Obviously, illegal activity is taking place on the outside in order to get these phones in, as well as within the prisons.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, as Chair of the Justice Committee he knows a great deal about this. More than 23,000 handsets and SIM cards were seized from prisons last year. The Government are investing £25 million to create a new security directorate in prisons and £14 million to transform our intelligence, search and disruption capabilities in prisons at the national, regional and local levels. That includes more than £3 million to establish serious organised crime units to deny offenders space to operate in prisons.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
Her Majesty’s inspectorate reports regularly on efficiency. In its last report, it ranked two forces as outstanding, Thames Valley and Durham, 30 forces as good, including Northamptonshire, and 10 forces as requiring improvement.
Mr Hollobone
Are the most efficient forces getting together with the least efficient forces so that the least efficient can raise their game?
Mr Hurd
That is an excellent question. One of the great challenges that faces our 43-force police system is how we encourage and support greater collaboration and the greater spreading of ideas. We have joint working groups on emergency services collaboration and it is something that we look at closely.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
For my constituents there is only one true test of police efficiency: can we sleep easily at night, free from crime, and are there police on the streets to keep us safe? On Merseyside, where the police are rated good, reported incidents of burglary are up by 22%, rape is up by 32%, robbery is up by 31% and the list goes on. The only thing that is down is the number of police: we had 4,700 police officers five years ago; today, the number is less than 3,500. What can the Minister do to reassure the people of Merseyside about this terrible situation?
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
In Northamptonshire, we have seen cutting-edge policing and fire service innovation, which is leading to better outcomes for local people. How can that innovation be shared with other forces? Will the Government continue to support innovation as much as possible?
Mr Hurd
I think it is fair to say that Northamptonshire is closely associated with best practice on collaboration among the emergency services and sets an example to the rest of the country. My hon. Friend will be aware that the local police and crime commissioner, Stephen Mold, has applied for joint governance of fire and police. That is in the system.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Sutton police are very efficient. Is the Minister aware of the London Mayor’s plans that would see the merger of Sutton, Bromley and Croydon police? Does he share my concern that that would lead to their being less efficient and unable to focus on the needs of each borough in the way they should?
Mr Hurd
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am a London MP, and my constituents express similar concerns about plans in north-west London. The bottom line is that these operating decisions are being driven by the police and crime commissioner team and the commissioner. They are accountable to the public for their decisions.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary identified forensics as one of the key areas impeding police efficiency. Crucial forensics tests can make the difference as to whether a person is jailed or loses their family or their job, yet shockingly the Minister told me in a recent written answer that private providers in civil cases do not need to meet any specific scientific standards. There is no regulation in this area at all. Forensics is becoming the wild west of the criminal justice system, so when will the Government stop dithering and give the regulators the powers they have been calling for?
Mr Hurd
I do not think the hon. Lady’s description of a wild west does justice to the regulators’ work in this space. In fact, everyone agrees that standards have increased on our watch. We have made it clear that we want to put powers on a statutory basis and are actively exploring opportunities for the parliamentary time to do just that.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is true that fire response times have increased gradually over the past 20 years, but over the same period the number of fires, fire-related fatalities and non-fatal casualties has decreased. There is no clear link between response times and firefighter numbers. As I am sure the hon. Lady will know, a range of factors influence response times, including changing traffic levels and call-handling policy.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is the responsibility of the National Joint Council to consider what pay award is appropriate for firefighters in England. Central Government have no role in the process.
Thelma Walker
Firefighters go into burning buildings to save lives. They are professional, compassionate heroes who put their lives at risk to save our families. Can the Minister look every one of them in the eye and tell them it is acceptable that they have received a pay cut in real terms?
Mr Hurd
What I say to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I do apologise—man flu. What I say to the hon. Lady is that the Government are determined to make sure that firefighters, who do difficult, dangerous work—as we have seen today in Leicester—get fair pay for their work. It is also very true, as she suggested, that over recent years they have been asked to make sacrifices as part of the contribution to getting on top of the deficit we inherited from Labour.
Active pay negotiations are going on between the employer and employees at the moment, which we are watching closely. It is for them to sort out. We believe that fire authorities have the resources to make an appropriate offer, but we are watching the situation closely and engaging with them. If we can help, we will, but we need to see a business case for that.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Last night’s fire in Leicestershire, in which five people sadly lost their lives, once again highlighted the bravery of our firefighters. The number of firefighters has been cut by 11,000 since 2010, and their wages have seen a real-terms cut. The current level of un-earmarked reserves equates to just three weeks’ operating costs, at the same time as deaths in fires have increased. I ask the Minister to reconsider the levels of funding and resourcing for our fire service. There has been praise today for our firefighters. When will the Government pay them a fair wage for the courageous work they undertake?
Mr Hurd
No one disputes the courageous work that firefighters do: we saw it at Grenfell and we saw it yesterday in Leicestershire. The point is that active negotiations are going on between those who are responsible—employer and employee. Central Government do not have a role in that process, unless we are called in for additional support.
The hon. Lady mentions reserves. Labour is in denial on this. The fact is that the fire system, which claims to be short of cash, has increased its reserves by £288 million since 2011. Reserves can only be increased by not using the money received, so our question to the fire service is, “Tell us what you’re going to do with the public’s money.”
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
The level of support provided to refugees and asylum seekers will vary depending on their status in the UK and the route that they were granted. Last week in Lebanon, I heard first hand how important our resettlement scheme is and how it helps individuals and families fleeing danger and conflict to rebuild their lives.
David Linden
I thank the Home Secretary for that answer, but a recent report from Refugee Rights Europe showed that two thirds of asylum seekers feel unsafe or very unsafe in their accommodation. At my surgery on Friday, I met a Malawian constituent who showed me photographs of her accommodation, which is simply unacceptable. Will the Home Secretary agree to meet me to discuss not just my constituent’s case, but that recent report by Refugee Rights Europe?
Amber Rudd
We are committed to ensuring that all asylum seekers are kept in safe accommodation, so I will of course meet the hon. Gentleman to look at the evidence. But I take this opportunity to thank the city of Glasgow, which does so much—way above proportionately—to look after vulnerable people and to assist with the Syrian and vulnerable people refugee scheme.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Worcestershire County Council, which recently agreed to resettle 50 more Syrian refugees, taking the total to 100 in the county? That is a real contribution to this country’s efforts to resettle the refugees.
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that up, and I join her in thanking her council for doing that. The great success of the Syrian and vulnerable people resettlement scheme was something that I was able to celebrate last week, when we passed the halfway mark—we passed 10,000, of whom half are children. It is the generosity of British people and the support of local authorities and councils that has allowed that to take place. We must all be mindful of the work that our councils and communities do.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am very pleased that one of the first families to be resettled from Syria under the community sponsorship scheme lives in my constituency. But they are trying to bring over their parents for an important family visit, and the parents are in a refugee camp in Lebanon and cannot supply the necessary evidence to complete their application. Will the Home Secretary or Immigration Minister meet me to discuss the case and the wider issue affecting refugees seeking to make visits here?
Amber Rudd
I understand the difficulty and heartbreak that there can be for the wider families when families are resettled over here. We have to allow the UNHCR to do its job and to make its selection based on who is the most vulnerable. There are some schemes, small though they are, that allow for additional family resettlement. I welcome the hon. Lady meeting one of my ministerial colleagues to discuss the matter, but I must put before the House the fact that, although we do resettle families, resettling the wider family would take up too much of the space allowed.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I recently met refugee families at an event run by the volunteers of the Milngavie refugee action group. One woman there showed me heartbreaking footage on her phone of injured children being removed from rubble. She had been sent the footage by her sister, who is stranded in Syria. Given how few Syrian refugees we have taken in to date, what hope can the Government give to refugees here who fear for the lives of their parents and siblings who are stuck in danger in Syria or in refugee camps in neighbouring countries?
Amber Rudd
We have all seen those pictures and images of children—I saw for myself just last week the children in the refugee camp in Lebanon—and the situation is heartbreaking. The UK is doing the right thing by taking up to 20,000 refugees by 2020. That is five times as many as were resettled from the region under the former Labour Government, and it is more than any other European country in terms of resettlement from the region. The UK is doing its bit, but this is a dual approach. As the hon. Lady no doubt knows, we are one of the largest bilateral donors to the area, having put in £2.4 billion since the Syrian crisis began.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The Department continues to make preparations for a range of possible outcomes from the UK’s negotiations with the European Union, working in close co-ordination with the Department for Exiting the European Union and others. We are already recruiting additional staff in Border Force and across the wider UK Visas and Immigration department to ensure that the correct preparations for leaving the European Union are well under way.
Charlie Elphicke
Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much has been invested in our borders since the referendum and how much is planned between now and Brexit day in March 2019? Will the Home Office be ready on day one, prepared for every single eventuality?
Caroline Nokes
As I reassured my hon. Friend, we are making preparations for every eventuality. The Home Office has already invested £60 million in 2017-18. We will continue to review the funding position as negotiations continue and details of the final agreement become clearer. As he might expect, we are in continuing discussions with Her Majesty’s Treasury.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The phase 1 agreement before Christmas rightly confirmed the Government’s commitment to the avoidance of a hard border in Northern Ireland, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls. The Minister will know the concerns of the Police Service of Northern Ireland that any infrastructure at all could pose a security threat. So far, the Government have not set out any way in which to operate border and customs checks—if the UK is outside a customs union—without some kind of physical infrastructure such as, for example, cameras at or near the border. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s commitment to no physical infrastructure also means a commitment to no cameras at or near the border, which would also pose a security threat?
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Lady will be aware that we have made a very firm commitment to no hard border, and that we will continue to update the House as negotiations progress.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
As a proportion of overall violence, alcohol-related violent crime climbed steadily from 41% in 1995 to 55% in 2009-10. More recently, it has fallen back to 40% of all violent crime in 2016-17. The cost of alcohol misuse to society is estimated to be around £21 billion a year, with alcohol-related crime estimated to account for around £11 billion a year. We continue to work with the police to equip them with the right powers to take effective action.
Kelvin Hopkins
The Minister is obviously aware of the terrible damage that alcohol does, but is she aware of a recent report implicating alcohol as a major factor in child abuse among other things? When are the Government going to take serious, comprehensive and effective action to reduce alcohol abuse, and the suffering and cost that it still inflicts across our society?
Victoria Atkins
Both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care take this issue very seriously. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State for Health recently announced a report on helping children of alcoholic parents. Violent crime is down and alcohol consumption overall is down, particularly among young people, but of course it is very important to look at this issue, particularly in relation to domestic abuse. We will be looking at how we can deal with it, in combination with the Department of Health, as part of our modern crime prevention strategy.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It has just been confirmed that all alcoholic drinks in Scotland must cost at least 50p per unit from May this year. Will the Minister now review our alcohol strategy to allow us to take up this evidence-based policy that will do so much to tackle the scourge of cheap, high-strength alcohol and reduce pressure on our emergency services?
Victoria Atkins
We are of course aware of the Scottish Parliament’s policy on this, and we are looking at it with interest. We set out our alcohol strategy in the 2016 strategy on dealing with modern crime, but we keep the issue under review.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I was one of those who was persuaded years back that we needed to reform our late-night drinking laws. The reality is that this has been a failure. Will the Government seriously consider talking to our police forces and local authorities about how we can ensure a more rational way of dealing with late-night drinking, so that we do not see the problems that it currently causes?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. This is obviously a matter for review and for police and crime commissioners and local police forces to look at in their own local areas. We have changed the late-night levy to try to make it more flexible and targeted, so that district councils and others can use it for the areas that present the most harm in terms of the night-time economy.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
On Saturday night I was out with Inspector Simon Jenkinson and his team seeing how they police Torquay’s night-time economy. Does the Minister agree that it is important that councils work with their local policing teams? Will she agree to meet to discuss how we can review some of the more outdated provisions, such as the Vagrancy Acts, which have a real impact on our night-time economy?
Victoria Atkins
Local councils and local policing teams know where the hotspots of trouble can be in their local areas. That is why it is essential that councils and police work together. Of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this important issue.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
I would like to update the House on the UK’s recent ranking as one of the least corrupt countries in the world following our decisive action to tackle corruption both at home and abroad. Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index ranks 180 countries on perceived public sector corruption. In the latest index, published only last Wednesday, the UK moved up two places from joint tenth least corrupt in the world to joint eighth. We now have the second-highest score in the G20.
Our improved position reflects the proactive approach that this Government have taken to combat corruption, but we recognise that there is still more to do. The national anti-corruption strategy published in December establishes an ambitious framework to tackle corruption to 2022 and contains over 100 commitments to guide Government efforts. I know that Ministers and the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), will support me in driving efforts across Government and around the world.
Mr Speaker
That was a most useful answer, but far too long. It is one of those answers that officials draft and to which a Minister, however busy and distinguished, needs sometimes perhaps to apply the blue pencil. But we are extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for what she has said.
Mr Sweeney
Despite overwhelming evidence from over 90 cities around the world, the Home Secretary still intransigently prevents a pilot study on unsafe drug consumption in the city of Glasgow, where drug-related deaths are at epidemic levels. Why is she being so intransigent on this issue?
Amber Rudd
I do not find the evidence as conclusive as the hon. Gentleman does. We have looked at this. It is an area that is constantly having different reviews and different champions. If he wants to come and meet the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, I am happy for him to do that, but we cannot see, at the moment, any reason to change the policy.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. To his last point, the answer is yes, and Northamptonshire is a good example of where emergency services are working across the lights. I am delighted to say that on 1 October, Roger Hirst of Essex police became the country’s first police, fire and crime commissioner. Six other police and crime commissioners have submitted proposals to take on fire, and we aim to make an announcement soon.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Ministers will be aware that I visited Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre last week, after a year of asking the Home Office to be allowed to visit. Are Ministers aware of the long-standing concerns about the quality of medical care at Yarl’s Wood—concerns that were raised with me by so many women last week? Is the Minister aware that victims of trafficking and sexual abuse are being held at Yarl’s Wood, contrary to Government undertakings? Is the Minister aware that some women at Yarl’s Wood are on hunger strike—a hunger strike that the Home Office flatly refuses to admit is happening? The women of Yarl’s Wood are desperate, and we owe them a duty of care. Will the Minister agree to meet with me, so that I can share with her the specific concerns that so many women raised with me?
Amber Rudd
I am always delighted to meet the right hon. Lady and to listen carefully to any suggestions that she has and her experiences of visiting Yarl’s Wood. We take the health of everybody at any detention centre very seriously. There are high standards there, and if there are any examples otherwise, we will always take a look at them. I was concerned by some of her suggestions afterwards when she made her speech. Immigration detention centres play an important part in enforcing our immigration rules. Some of the people there are very dangerous, and it is right that they are detained and then removed.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Mr Hurd
As my hon. Friend knows, an application has been made with a business case that has been independently assessed. We have had to delay a decision on that because of the inspection in Northamptonshire, as we need to make sure that the financial projection assumptions made by Northamptonshire County Council are built on rock rather than sand. He appreciates that. As soon as that process is resolved, we want to move ahead with a decision as quickly as possible.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will be aware that we had a Westminster Hall debate on that subject last week and that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) has a private Member’s Bill on it, which will come forward on 16 March. This is a policy area where we enable some refugee families to be reunited here. We have a proud track record of so far resettling 10,000 of the 20,000 we are expecting under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. This is an important policy. We are determined to be as compassionate as we can within the commitments we have already made.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Mr Hurd
I can certainly do that. Kent police is regularly rated excellent for the good service it delivers. It performs well across all strands of inspection and has been rated outstanding for the legitimacy with which it keeps people safe and reduces crime. Through my hon. Friend, I would like to congratulate the commissioner, the leadership and all the frontline officers in Kent for the outstanding work they do.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for the meeting that she asked me to attend with leaders of Rotherham Council and the police. There has been and continues to be significant Government investment in response to child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, including £5.17 million to fund transformational change there, funding for police forces to meet the costs of unexpected events and up to £2 million for children’s social care in recognition of social workers’ increased workload resulting from the investigation of CSE. We have previously provided approximately £5.6 million for Operation Stovewood in the last two years, and we are considering an application for funding for the costs of investigation in 2017-18.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is right that successful data transfer—through existing schemes such as Schengen Information System II and the European Criminal Records Information System and, indeed, the use of Europol data—is one of the things that keeps all our citizens safe and keeps other European citizens safe too. That is why the UK has proposed a third-party treaty, so that we can engage just as successfully and just as fully with the European Union as we have done previously, keeping Londoners in Paris and Parisians in London just as safe after we leave as they were before.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
But should not the provision of prescription medicines, even if derived from narcotics, be a purely clinical matter?
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Amber Rudd
This is an area that we will constantly keep under review. It is an area that is sometimes covered by the Cabinet. We have the national cyber-security strategy, backed up by the National Cyber Security Centre. It is something we are very aware of and will continue to discuss in order to make sure that this country is kept safe.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I have been contacted by a local optician in Elgin. He is a tier 2 sponsor, but because optometry is not listed as a priority profession, he has been affected by the tier 2 cap being reached in recent months. Will the Minister and colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care consider including optometrists as priority professionals for tier 2 visas?
Caroline Nokes
The tier 2 cap operates to ensure that our immigration system brings the best talent to the UK while still controlling numbers. Any profession on the shortage occupation list automatically gets priority. The shortage occupation list is determined by the independent Migration Advisory Committee. It has not yet included opticians on the list, but as my hon. Friend will know, it is currently carrying out a major labour market review.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
We know that we have a flat-cash police settlement this year and we know that local ratepayers are going to have to pay increased rates to meet the need, but do we yet know who is going to pay for the police pay rise, given the Police Federation’s 3.4% request today?
Mr Hurd
As the former Policing Minister knows very well, we have to look at the police settlement in the round, balancing the cash that the taxpayer pays from the centre—the Home Office—and the cash that the local taxpayer pays through the precept. We responded to both the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council on additional precept flexibility. That allowed us to put forward a settlement that will see investment in the police increase by £450 million next year—an increase that the Labour party opposed.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Is the Home Office confident that it and its agencies can compete with the private sector, and recruit and retain people with the key digital and cyber skills that we need?
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
For security reasons, I am unable to comment on specific recruitment levels and on the geographical distribution of police and intelligence agencies in specialist areas, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are seeing strong levels of recruitment. GCHQ and the National Crime Agency are doing great work in encouraging the next generation of cyber-sleuths through their Cyber First programme.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am sure the Policing Minister will be as concerned as I am about the 309 assaults on police officers in Humberside in the past year. What more will the Government do to keep our brave police officers safe on the streets?
Mr Hurd
I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern about an increase in assaults on police, which is why we are looking very favourably at supporting the emergency workers protection Bill—the “protect the protectors” Bill—to try to have greater safeguards through the law. On engagement with police leadership, we keep under regular and constant review the application of operational tools at their disposal, such as Tasers.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to penalise rogue landlords and breaches in planning law, local authorities can act as a deterrent and also compensate council tax payers who end up footing the bill. Given that Sussex local authorities have used only one such power, what more can my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime do to encourage them to use more of them?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right to point out his worries. We hope that the Criminal Finances Act 2017 will give a new boost to training local authority officers to deliver on it and increase the amount we take from rogue landlords and property owners.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
A number of migrant workers are starting to lose their jobs because of delays in the renewal and extension of visas. What can the Home Secretary do to speed up the process, so that they do not face that problem in the future?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman will have to give me a bit more information—which sort of migrant workers and where? Of course, there has been no change to EU citizens being able to come and go, nor will there be until we have actually left the European Union. In terms of any other types of migrant workers, I ask him to write to me with more information.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service has already spoken about the benefits of collaboration between emergency services and will be aware of proposed closer working between Warwickshire and West Midlands fire services, while there is already a strategic partnership between Warwickshire and West Mercia police services. Is there any potential conflict if Warwickshire’s blue-light services collaborate with bodies from different areas?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When constituents have no recourse to public funds, serious delays in processing their visas result in them being plunged into abject poverty. What is the Home Secretary doing about that?
Amber Rudd
I did not hear the start of the hon. Lady’s question, but I think she was referring in particular to women who have no recourse to public funds. I am concerned about that, and it will be covered partly in our consultation. If she has other concerns about that particular cohort who are applying for refugee status, I urge her to contact my Department.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
With Suffolk police being one of the lowest-funded forces with the highest number of case loads per officer in the country, will the Policing Minister set out a timetable for reviewing the police funding formula?
Mr Hurd
My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner on behalf of Suffolk police, and he knows that next year, as a result of the funding settlement, it will get an additional £3.6 million. I have made it clear that we will be looking at the fair funding formula in the context of the next comprehensive spending review, because we think that is the most appropriate framework to do so. Although we do not have an exact timetable, I expect that work to start soon.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I note the encouraging words from the Immigration Minister, as well as her excellent pronunciation. Refugees would be greatly helped by the passing of the private Member’s Bill on family reunion, which will receive its Second Reading in the House on Friday 16 March. It is supported by the British Red Cross, Amnesty International, the Refugee Council, Oxfam and United Nations agencies. Given the Minister’s good, warm words, which I welcome, how much thought have the Government given to supporting that Bill to enable families to have very clear rights to be together, which of course is the best security they could have?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I am sure he will understand the trepidation with which I seek to pronounce his constituency name—that was the second time I have managed it in a week. As I have said, we will look very carefully at his Bill, which I understand he published only at the beginning of last week, and we will have a full opportunity to debate it on 16 March.
Mr Speaker
The pronunciation struck me as magnificent, and I hope it will be shared with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, preferably sooner rather than later.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There are lots of people wishing to speak, but I am afraid there is no time. If there are points of order—I had an indication that there was likely to be one—they must they come after the urgent question.
Syria: De-escalation Zones
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question) To ask the Foreign Secretary what action the UK Government are taking on the conflict and humanitarian situation inside de-escalation zones in Syria following attacks on civilians in the last week.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for raising this vital issue.
In seven years of bloodshed, the war in Syria has claimed 400,000 lives and driven 11 million people from their homes, causing a humanitarian tragedy on a scale unknown anywhere else in the world. The House should never forget that the Assad regime, aided and abetted by Russia and Iran, has inflicted the overwhelming burden of that suffering. Assad’s forces are now bombarding the enclave of eastern Ghouta, where 393,000 people are living under siege, enduring what has become a signature tactic of the regime, whereby civilians are starved and pounded into submission. With bitter irony, Russia and Iran declared eastern Ghouta to be a “de-escalation area” in May last year and promised to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid. But the truth is that Assad’s regime has allowed only one United Nations convoy to enter eastern Ghouta so far this year and that carried supplies for only a fraction of the area’s people. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in eastern Ghouta in the last week alone and the House will have noted the disturbing reports of the use of chlorine gas. I call for those reports to be fully investigated and for anyone held responsible for using chemical weapons in Syria to be held accountable.
Over the weekend I discussed the situation with my Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and Sa’ad Hariri, the Prime Minister of Lebanon. Earlier today, I spoke to Sigmar Gabriel, the German Foreign Minister, and I shall be speaking to other European counterparts and António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, in the next few days. Britain has joined with our allies to mobilise the Security Council to demand a ceasefire across the whole of Syria and the immediate delivery of emergency aid to all in need. Last Saturday, after days of prevarication from Russia, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2401, demanding that
“all parties cease hostilities without delay”
and allow the
“safe, unimpeded and sustained delivery of humanitarian aid”
along with
“medical evacuations of the critically sick and wounded”.
The main armed groups in eastern Ghouta have accepted the ceasefire, but as of today, the warplanes of the Assad regime are still reported to be striking targets in the enclave and the UN has been unable to deliver any aid. I remind the House that hundreds of thousands of civilians are going hungry in eastern Ghouta only a few miles from UN warehouses in Damascus that are laden with food. The Assad regime must allow the UN to deliver those supplies, in compliance with resolution 2401, and we look to Russia and Iran to make sure this happens, in accordance with their own promises. I have invited the Russian Ambassador to come to the Foreign Office and give an account of his country’s plans to implement resolution 2401. I have instructed the UK mission at the UN to convene another meeting of the Security Council to discuss the Assad regime’s refusal to respect the will of the UN and implement the ceasefire without delay.
Only a political settlement in Syria can ensure that the carnage is brought to an end and I believe that such a settlement is possible if the will exists. The UN special envoy, Staffan de Mistura, is ready to take forward the talks in Geneva, and the opposition are ready to negotiate pragmatically and without preconditions. The international community has united behind the path to a solution laid out in UN resolution 2254 and Russia has stated its wish to achieve a political settlement under the auspices of the UN. Today, only the Assad regime stands in the way of progress. I urge Russia to use all its influence to bring the Assad regime to the negotiating table and take the steps towards peace that Syria’s people so desperately need.
John Woodcock
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that response. Last week, 527 people were killed in Ghouta, including 129 children. The bombardment killed over 250 people in just two days—the deadliest 48 hours in the conflict since the 2013 gas attack, also on Ghouta. This House failed them then; now surely we must find the courage to act. Right now, a team led by British surgeon, David Nott, is ready to evacuate 175 very sick children from Ghouta and 1,000 adults needing life-saving treatment. The UK could take them. Will the Government commit to doing that?
The EU is today announcing stronger sanctions on regime officials. Will we also impose sanctions on Russian individuals and companies involved in the conflict? Will we have the courage to recognise what is blindingly obvious—that for all the so-called agreement to new resolutions, the Security Council is broken while one of its permanent members flouts the basic laws and systems of order that it was created to uphold, and that, in these dreadful circumstances, being cowed into inaction by this strangulated body is a greater violation than seeking to act even without its authorisation? Will we work with any and all nations committed to returning humanity to Syria to consider the imposition of a no-fly zone over Ghouta, or for peacekeepers to allow aid to get in, or indeed, for strikes on the forces responsible for these atrocities, like we failed to authorise in 2013?
The men and women of Ghouta who lie in pieces, deliberately targeted by Assad’s Russia-enabled bombs, and the dead children whose faces are altered by the chlorine gas that choked them should not be strewn in the rubble of eastern Ghouta. Those bodies should be piled up in this Chamber and lain at the feet of Governments of every single nation that continues to shrug in the face of this horror.
My final question comes from a doctor in Ghouta who spoke to a British journalist yesterday, his voice apparently thick with exhaustion and resignation. He said:
“I have a question for the world. What number of victims does the world need to show responsibility. Its moral responsibility. Its legal responsibility. To stop these crimes.”
Boris Johnson
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the continuing and campaigning interest that he has shown in this matter. He speaks for many people in this country in his indignation and outrage at what is taking place.
Let me take some of his points in turn. On the evacuation of medical cases, particularly children, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in discussion about that very issue with David Nott, to whom the hon. Gentleman rightly alludes. On the point about holding the perpetrators to account and perhaps even bringing Russian agents to justice, we will certainly gather what evidence we can, knowing that the mills of justice may grind slowly, but they grind small. We will want in the end to bring all those responsible to justice.
On the hon. Gentleman’s central point that we in this country and in the west in the end did not do enough to turn the tide in Syria and that we missed our opportunity in 2013, no one can conceivably contradict him. We all understand what took place and the gap that we allowed to be opened up for the Russians and Iranians to come in and support the Assad regime. We all understand the failure that took place then, but we also have to recognise that there is no military solution that we can impose. It is now essential that the Russians recognise that, just because Assad is in possession of half the territory of Syria, or perhaps 75% of the population of Syria, that does not mean that he has won. He has come nowhere near to a complete military victory and I do not believe that it is within his grasp to achieve a complete military victory. Nobody should be under the illusion that that is what will happen. Nobody should be under the illusion that the suffering of the people of eastern Ghouta is simply the sad prerequisite or precursor to an eventual Assad military victory. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that it will prove almost impossible for the Assad regime to achieve a military victory, even with Russian and Iranian support.
The only way forward—the only way out of this mess and this morass—for the Russians is to go for a political solution. The Sochi experiment did not work. Now is the moment to encourage that regime to get down to Geneva and begin those political talks, which I believe will have the support of the entire House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I was going to wait, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
That is very decent of the hon. Gentleman, but if he feels a question welling up in his breast, he should share it with the nation.
Tom Tugendhat
Many hon. Members wanted to ask questions early, so I was going to wait and allow them to do so.
Mr Speaker
We are saving the hon. Gentleman up for the edification of the House.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is correct in saying that, in the end, it will be a political and diplomatic solution, but do we not have a responsibility to demonstrate to the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated? At the very least, are limited strikes to deny the Assad regime the ability to continue this horror within our responsibility?
Boris Johnson
Many people in this country will share my hon. Friend’s sentiments, and many people will believe that the United States of America did exactly the right thing when it responded to the abomination of the attack at Khan Sheikhoun in April with the strike at the Shayrat airfield. If the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons produces incontrovertible evidence of the further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime or its supporters, I would certainly hope very much that the west will not stand idly by.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for securing it.
During the Opposition day debate in the House a month ago, I warned of the Assad regime’s impending criminal assault on eastern Ghouta. Sadly, that is exactly what we have seen in recent weeks. Whatever words we use to describe the assaults, and even if we say, as UNICEF said last week, that there are simply no adequate words, one thing must be made clear: because of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, the targeting of hospitals and medical centres, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, and the alleged use of chemical weapons, the assault is simply a war crime and there must be a reckoning for those responsible.
In the brief time I have, may I ask the Foreign Secretary three questions? First, all hon. Members welcome the UN Security Council statement calling for an immediate ceasefire, but it was clear to anyone reading the text with care that it in fact excluded military action against terrorists. That will allow Assad and his allies to justify continuing their assault against the jihadist armies of Jaysh al-Islam and Tahrir al-Islam inside eastern Ghouta. It will also allow Turkey to justify continuing its assault on Afrin. To stop the assault on eastern Ghouta, therefore, should the UN not instead be clear that there must be a temporary cessation of all military action within Syria, and not the conditional cessation that Assad and his allies are using to justify continuing their assault?
Secondly, I ask the Foreign Secretary what practical discussions there have been at the UN and elsewhere about opening a corridor from eastern Ghouta to Mleiha or Harasta, both to allow access for humanitarian relief and to allow civilian safe passage out of the city.
Finally, while I appreciate that it is the view of some in the House that the suffering of eastern Ghouta can be stopped only by yet more western military intervention, I believe that that would simply prolong and deepen the war. Ultimately, we can end this dreadful conflict and the suffering of all the Syrian people only through genuine peace talks involving all non-jihadi parties and the agreement of a political solution, so may I ask the Foreign Secretary this: what is Britain doing to drive this process forward?
Boris Johnson
As I am sure the right hon. Lady will appreciate, United Nations Security Council resolution 2401 was, in fact, a considerable success of diplomacy, given the position that the Russians had previously taken. I think that it represents a strong commitment to a ceasefire on the part of the entire international community. It is now up to the Russians to enforce that ceasefire, and to get their client state to enforce it as well. That is the point that we are making, and the point that we will definitely make to ambassador Yakovenko. As for the issue of humanitarian corridors, I think that all these ideas are extremely good and we certainly support them, but it will take the acquiescence of the Assad regime to achieve what we want.
The right hon. Lady asked about the UK Government. The UK Government have been in the lead in Geneva and the United Nations in driving the process of holding the Assad regime to account through Security Council resolutions, and we continue to do that. We are calling again for the Security Council to meet to discuss the failure to implement resolution 2401 today. As the right hon. Lady knows, the UK Government are part of the Syria Small Group, which is working to counterbalance what has turned out to be a doomed—or perhaps I should say “so far unsuccessful”—Russian venture at Sochi. That is because we think it is our job to bring the international community together. I am not talking about the Astana process or the Sochi process. We should bring the members of the international community together, as one, in Geneva, with a single political process. That is what the job of the UK Government is, and that is where we will continue to direct our efforts.
Tom Tugendhat
Thank you for your patience, Mr Speaker. I am extremely grateful.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s response to the urgent question. May I share with him the disappointment that I am sure many Conservative Members feel as a war continues and Stop the War does not protest outside the Russian embassy, but stays silent about the brutality that we are seeing?
My right hon. Friend rightly said that Britain should be at the centre of this process. May I ask him what conversations he has had with Minister Zarif and Minister Lavrov over the last few days, given that Minister Lavrov was instrumental in first blocking and then delaying the UN process? May I also ask him whether it is true that both President Macron of France and Chancellor Merkel of Germany have spoken to President Putin of Russia? What contact have we had with Russia over the last few days?
Boris Johnson
I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that we are directing all our conversations and all our energies to getting the Russians to accept their responsibilities. I cannot go into the details of the contacts that we have had with them over the last few days, but suffice it to say that we believe that it is overwhelmingly in their interests to begin a political process. I feel that if they do not do that, they will be bogged down in this conflict for years, perhaps decades, to come. There is no military solution. There are 4 million people in Syria whom Assad does not control, and whom the Russians do not control either. We are therefore exerting all the influence we can to bring the process back to Geneva, where it belongs.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for requesting it.
This is a multi-faceted war. Robert Fisk of The Independent has warned that it is Ghouta today, but it will be Raqqa later. We welcome the united approach of the UN Security Council to this critically urgent issue, and, indeed, the efforts of the UK Government in helping to secure it. However, there is concern about the fact that the resolution does not make it clear how the ceasefire will be enforced, how the injured will be evacuated, and how returning aid workers will be protected. Will the Foreign Secretary provide some clarity on that, and might he think about working to achieve an improved resolution?
We know that, yesterday, both Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron spoke to the Kremlin to urge Russia to use its influence to ensure the ceasefire is respected. Following on from the question of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), what representations are the UK Government planning to make to Russia to ensure the ceasefire is announced and, indeed, implemented, and especially for safe corridors, in which Russia could play a big part?
With Syria and Turkey now disagreeing over whether the ceasefire applies to Turkish forces in north-west Syria, and Iran insisting it does not apply to parts of Damascus, there is a real risk that the limited scope and clarity will lead to the ceasefire being disregarded. Can the Secretary of State confirm if there will be any further discussions aimed at ensuring there is zero ambiguity among all parties as to what the ceasefire entails, especially given Robert Fisk’s warning that the bombing in Ghouta will not end any time soon and, indeed, that there are other cities further down the line that will, when the dominoes start to topple, suffer the same fate?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the safe return of aid workers is paramount, and we are working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to ensure that that is possible and that people can go about their jobs looking after the humanitarian needs of the victims in safety. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the need to bear down on Russia and make it clear to the world that Russia bears responsibility for bringing its client state to heel and delivering it to the talks in Geneva—and, as I have said many times to the House, that is pre-eminently in Russia’s interests.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this ceasefire is absolutely vital not only to get humanitarian aid in, but to aid the medical evacuations across Syria and especially in eastern Ghouta?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she will have heard the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) detail some of the suffering taking place in eastern Ghouta, including the signs that hundreds of children are victims, some of them perhaps now of chemical weapons. It is crucial that those victims receive the medical attention they need, and, as I told the House just now, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is working with the doctors concerned to see what we can do.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Russian Defence Minister has announced that, starting tomorrow, there will be a daily humanitarian pause from 9 o’clock in the morning until 2 o’clock in the afternoon, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that limiting the bombing to 19 hours a day, as opposed to 24, will be of scant comfort to the residents of “hell on Earth”, as the Secretary-General of the United Nations has described eastern Ghouta? What further action is the Foreign Secretary prepared to take, above that which he has already described to the House, to ensure that Russia abides by the terms of the resolution it supported—a humanitarian pause for 30 consecutive days to ensure humanitarian aid gets in? Is not the reason we are having this discussion today that in the past the words of the west have failed to have any impact whatsoever?
Boris Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I remember him making a passionate speech on that very subject. It is a great shame that at a critical moment this House did not give this country the authorisation to respond to the use of chemical weapons, which we might otherwise have done. From that decision all sorts of consequences have flowed, and it has put Russia in the position it now finds itself in. The right hon. Gentleman is right that it is absurd for the Russians to say they are going to desist from bombing for a certain number of hours per day. There needs to be a complete ceasefire, there needs to be an end to the carnage in eastern Ghouta, and Russia needs to be held to account—and the Russians who are responsible for this will eventually be held to account, because we will make sure there is in the end some judicial process that allows us to hold those responsible for war crimes to account.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
This is the same neighbourhood where, following another chemical attack in 2013, President Obama rubbed out his own red line, and this place—wrongly in my view—turned its back and abandoned these people to their fate. When Russia breaks the terms of the resolution and when President Assad breaks international law and gasses his people again, both of which will happen, are we going to carry on with this merry dance and with warm, angry words and stomping our feet, or are we in this country eventually going to say that enough is enough and actually do something?
Boris Johnson
When such questions are posed in this House, there is often cheering and noises of assent from the Benches on both sides, and I have to say that I share that sentiment. I would like to see us in a position to do something and not to allow the use of chemical weapons to go unpunished, but I remind the House of what happened in 2013 when we did have that choice. We had that option then, but we failed to take it. Let us not let the people of Syria down again.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I seek two points of clarity from the Foreign Secretary? He says that we must “bear down on Russia”. Can he tell us explicitly whether anyone from his Government has sought to contact President Putin directly about the situation in Ghouta? He also says that he has met his Turkish counterpart. Did he ask him explicitly about Operation Olive Branch, and did he discuss ensuring that, whatever the Turkish forces are doing, our Kurdish allies are able to receive aid?
Boris Johnson
Unfortunately, I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Lady about any contact between this Government and President Putin over the past few days. I certainly have not had any myself, but as I told the House, the Russian ambassador has been invited to come, and contact has certainly been made with Sergei Lavrov—[Interruption.] I will just make this point to the hon. Lady. In the end, there must be a political solution to this crisis, and it is up to the Russians to deliver their client. That is the best way forward.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for bringing this urgent question to the House. As far back as 2017, the United Nations said that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons on more than two dozen occasions. Would my right hon. Friend now concede that, sadly, due to their regular use over the past few years, chemical munitions are now an accepted weapon of war in the modern era?
Boris Johnson
No, I do not think that anybody in this House would want to concede that. We do not concede that chemical weapons are an acceptable weapon of war, and we want those who use them to be held properly to account.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) that if there were further evidence of the use of chemical weapons, he hoped that we would not stand idly by. So why are we standing idly by while civilians are being slaughtered in their hundreds now, in flagrant breach of a binding United Nations resolution?
Boris Johnson
I do not believe that we are standing idly by. To say that we are doing so is to do a grave disservice to the work of the many hundreds of British people working in the Department for International Development and in our military who are doing all sorts of things on a budget of about £2.5 billion. We are the second biggest contributor to humanitarian relief in this area, and to say that we are doing nothing does a grave disservice to the efforts of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman is seriously advocating military intervention, which seems to be the position being taken up by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), he and the hon. Lady need to be clear about what they are advocating—[Interruption.] I have to say to the House that the last time military intervention was seriously proposed, a very modest proposal was put to the House and the House rejected it. If it is the view on the Labour Benches that Labour Members would now support military action—[Interruption.] They are making an awful lot of racket, but I am asking them a serious question. If it is their view that they would now support military action in Syria, I think they should be explicit about it—[Interruption.] They are chuntering away at me and accusing the UK of not doing anything in a way that I think is gravely disrespectful to the huge efforts that are being made by this Government.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the president of the Council of Europe recently had to resign due to a visit to see Assad without the Council’s knowledge and with the support of Russian MPs. What, if any, direct relationship should there now be with the Syrian regime?
Boris Johnson
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question about relations between the Council of Europe and the Syrian regime. I think there should be no such relations at the present time.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is crucial that those who commit international war crimes know that the world is watching and that we will not forget. What steps are being taken to enable UN monitoring forces to ensure that careful records are kept of attacks on hospitals and other civilian infrastructure and of the indiscriminate killing of women, men and children, so that the perpetrators of such crimes can ultimately be held to account?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Lady asks an important question. As I said to the House, careful records and tabulations are being made of exactly what is happening with a view to holding the perpetrators to account.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The overwhelming majority of abuses in Syria have been committed by the Assad regime and his backers. Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that everything will be done to ensure that those who flout international law and human rights laws will be held properly to account?
Boris Johnson
We will certainly do everything we can both to gather the evidence that is necessary and to hold the perpetrators to account.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is good that the UN Security Council has passed a resolution, but why should President Assad fear the Security Council? What will it do to enforce the resolution?
Boris Johnson
The answer has already been given several times in the House this afternoon: the greatest fear and constraint upon Bashar al-Assad and other members of the Assad regime are the eventual consequences that they will face in terms of prosecution for war crimes.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Meanwhile, just up the road in Afrin, our friends the Kurdish peshmerga, without whom we would not have been able to defeat ISIS, are being backed by Assad’s military forces against a Turkish invasion. Whose side are we on there?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I neglected to answer that part of the question from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). We view the Turkish incursion into Afrin with grave concern. Everybody understands Turkey’s feelings about the YPG and the PKK, and everybody understands Turkey’s legitimate need to protect its own security. However, we do have concerns about the humanitarian consequences in Afrin, which I raised with my Turkish counterpart yesterday morning. We are also concerned about the possibility, which seems to be happening, of the diversion of Kurdish fighters, who have been so effective against Daesh, from the eastern part of Syria back to Afrin and the Manbij gap area to take on the Turks. We simply do not welcome that diversion in the fight against Daesh.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Last week, I met with Dr Ahmad Tarakji, the president of the Syrian American Medical Society, which is supporting the 100 doctors left in eastern Ghouta, where the benighted people are being bombed, besieged and starved into submission. When the International Development Secretary discusses the doctors in eastern Ghouta, will she also undertake to channel funding into SAMS? It exists on $35 million a year, which is tiny in DFID’s funding landscape, and those doctors are the last human rights defenders in eastern Ghouta. We are funding the White Helmets, so why are we not funding SAMS?
Boris Johnson
That is an excellent question. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the SAMS hospital is where we received the evidence of children arriving with symptoms as though they had been poisoned with chlorine gas, so we applaud and support the work of SAMS. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has told me that we will certainly look at what we can do to fund SAMS.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. In 1995, in relation to the Srebrenica massacre and genocide, the international community authorised international humanitarian military action. Will he clarify whether a similar threshold has now been met in relation to taking action in Syria? If so, it is now for the international community to decide whether or not it wants to take that decisive action.
Boris Johnson
The concept of international humanitarian military action, as was employed after Srebrenica, is certainly one that many people have considered. In all candour, I must say to the House that we are not at that point at the moment. I appreciate very much the sincerity of the demands from Opposition Members, if I have understood their sentiments correctly, for a more robust military posture, with airstrikes perhaps—I do not know quite what is being recommended—but I would be misleading the House if I said there is a strong will in the international community to engage in quite that way. In response to the individual use of chemical weapons perhaps, but not a sustained military engagement.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has rightly said that trying to sort this out will involve getting the Russians to bring their clients, the Syrians, to the peace negotiation table, and we seem a very long way from that. Given its importance, will he tell the House whether the Prime Minister has talked to President Putin to express our strong wish in this country that that should happen?
Boris Johnson
As I am sure the hon. Lady knows very well, the Prime Minister is in regular contact with President Putin of Russia and has repeatedly made clear the view of the British Government that there is only one way forward, which is for the Russians to put pressure on the Assad regime to get to the negotiating table. I think that view may at last be gaining ground in Russia, because the Kremlin has no easy way out of this morass.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am sure the Foreign Secretary has noticed that the very fact a ceasefire in eastern Ghouta on humanitarian grounds has been announced in Moscow says it all for who exactly is pulling the strings in this situation, and who should be taking responsibility for the slaughter. Does he agree it is vital that the UK Government, along with their allies, work to ensure that the resolution is fully implemented, and not just for five hours a day?
Boris Johnson
The House has spoken as one on that matter this afternoon, and that is what we will continue to convey to Moscow.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary just said that the Prime Minister has regular discussions with President Putin, but has she had recent discussions with President Putin, as we know full well that both President Macron and Chancellor Merkel have? If the Prime Minister has not, both sides of the House urge her to have those urgent conversations.
Boris Johnson
I will, of course, make sure that the views of the House are communicated to the Prime Minister. I can tell the hon. Lady that the Prime Minister has regular contact with her Russian counterpart and has repeatedly made that point.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Given the slaughter in eastern Ghouta, and given the regret expressed on both sides of the House, including by the Foreign Secretary, does he not agree that the time is long overdue that we urgently review how this House makes different sorts of decisions about intervention and about what sorts of intervention to take?
Boris Johnson
If the hon. Lady is saying that she would like the right to approve such interventions to be once again taken back by the Executive and not necessarily to be a matter for the House of Commons, that is a very interesting point of view.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Three years ago, the YPG and the YPJ had already defended Kabone against the better-armed Daesh forces and took the fight to Raqqa and won. Why are the British Government now effectively supporting a similar brutal offensive by the Turkish army against those same Kurdish forces in Afrin province? Has it got anything to do with the recent £100 million fighter jet deal signed by Turkey and British arms exporters? Will the Foreign Secretary today call for a de-escalation zone in this part of Syria?
Boris Johnson
I must correct the way the hon. Gentleman has expressed it. The UK is not effectively supporting the Turkish incursion in Afrin. As I said to my Turkish counterpart yesterday, we have grave reservations about humanitarian suffering and the consequences for the struggle against Daesh.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary attempted to make party political points earlier on. May I just ask him to go back and read a previous Foreign Secretary’s answers to me and other Members—some on his own Benches—calling for no-fly zones and humanitarian corridors at the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012? His Government—the coalition Government—refused intervention at that time. Is it not a fact that the Russians are in the dominant position they are now because people failed to support the democratic and, at that time, peaceful Syrian opposition?
Boris Johnson
Of course I mean absolutely no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, who, in common with Members on this side of the House and from across the House, took a different view in 2013—on the other hand, that was not the prevailing view. I seem to recall, unless my memory fails me, that it was the then leader of the Labour party who took a contrary view. As a result of that decision, we see this particular political conjuncture in Syria, in which Russia, as Members from across the House have said, has the dominant role.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
One of the agitators in the region is Iran. What engagement has the Foreign Secretary had with his Iranian colleagues in order to try to find a way through this crisis?
Boris Johnson
I spoke to my Iranian counterpart on Friday, I believe it was, about what Iran could do, both in the Syrian theatre and in the region more widely, to promote the cause of peace. I hope that the Iranians will use their considerable influence to do that.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The pro-Assad media organisation al-Watan yesterday reported, unequivocally, that Russian jets were involved in striking targets in Ghouta. Is it the Foreign Secretary’s understanding that in recent days Russian jets have struck targets and broken the ceasefire that the Security Council called for just on Saturday, in its resolution?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. I have to say it would be shocking if the Russians were to be convicted in the eyes of world opinion of breaking the ceasefire that they signed up to in New York. I will study the evidence that he has cited and we will certainly be putting it to the Russians.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary is right in one regard: this is an amoral Russian leadership backing this immoral and wicked Government in Syria. But he is missing one point: the Russians are particularly vulnerable on one count. I refer not to bombing them, but to economic sanctions. The word from the American Treasury and from many Americans is that Europe and Britain have gone soft on sanctions. We need Russia to be totally isolated by the toughest sanctions that this world has ever known. Will he renew sanctions of an extreme kind?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman will know very well that it is actually the UK that is in the lead in the EU in calling for Russia to be held to account, not just for Ukraine, but for what it is doing in Syria.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary said that there can be no military victory in eastern Ghouta, but I fear that Russia, Iran and Assad are not looking for that sort of military victory. They are looking to weaken resistance and instil fear and tension—not only in the middle east but in north Africa and eastern Europe—and to build a cadre of battle-hardened troops and proven military weapons so that they can impose their order on the rest of the world. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that?
Boris Johnson
That may indeed be their ambition, but they have not an earthly chance of achieving it.
Boris Johnson
Well, as I told the House, there are still substantial numbers of people in Syria—around 4 million, which is around a quarter of the population—who are not under the regime’s control. Furthermore, the hon. Lady should remember that the Assad regime is basically a minority regime that seeks to impose itself on a Sunni majority in the country. It is sowing the seeds of its own destruction by its continued brutality. It is not a strategy that can work in the long term, which is why a political process has to begin now.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
On Friday, I was pressed by the Afrin diaspora in my constituency about the Turkish bombardment and invasion. I understand that today President Macron picked up the phone and spoke to President Erdoğan to remind him that the humanitarian truce applies. From what the Foreign Secretary has said, though, I am still not clear what representations Her Majesty’s Government or the Prime Minister have made to President Erdoğan to underline that the truce does apply.
Boris Johnson
I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I think I said pretty clearly to the House just now. Yesterday morning, at my initiative, I had a long conversation with my Turkish counterpart, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, about what is happening in Afrin, the suffering that is taking place there and the UK Government’s strong desire that restraint should be shown—notwithstanding Turkey’s security concerns, which we all understand—and that the primary focus should be on the political process in Geneva and on the defeat of Daesh.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is now nearly five years since the then American Secretary of State and Russian Foreign Minister came to an agreement about the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria. What further diplomatic steps can the Foreign Secretary take to ensure that that happens, including by securing better access for representatives of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons?
Boris Johnson
As the hon. Gentleman will know, after the Khan Shaykhun episode and the work of the joint investigative mechanism to establish almost certainly the culprits behind that chemical weapons attack, Russia has, alas, vetoed any further such activity by the OPCW. Again, it comes back to the Russians and the question that they must ask themselves, which is what kind of international actor they want to be and how they want to be regarded by the world.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary has said that a peaceful solution is possible if the political will exists. What if the political will does not exist? If chemical attacks, including the use of chlorine gas after a ceasefire, are not this country’s red line, will he tell us what is?
Boris Johnson
I do not wish to go back over the points that I have already made this afternoon about the red line that was, alas, crossed in 2013. Where there is incontrovertible evidence of chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian regime, with the connivance of the Russians, then—to answer the question that has been posed many times—the people responsible for those attacks should be held to account. By the way, it was as a result of UK lobbying and the activities of this Government that after the Khan Shaykhun attack we listed several members of the Assad military and imposed new sanctions on Syria. That is the way forward. To get to the question asked by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), in the end it will be the fear of prosecution, sanctions and being prosecuted for war crimes that will have the most powerful effect on the imagination of these individuals.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree entirely with the Foreign Secretary that we must aim for a political solution. Do today’s revelations in the media that we have spent more on our air campaign in the region than we have on humanitarian aid in both Syria and Iraq during the same period show that we should put our money where our mouth is and prioritise aid, sanctions and peace negotiations, not a costly air campaign next door that does not seem to be working?
Boris Johnson
Much as I admire the hon. Gentleman’s idealism, I must respectfully disagree with him. I believe that our military campaign has been highly effective in removing Daesh from Raqqa and Mosul. It was invaluable. The UK had the second biggest number of missions in the air campaign, as the House will know, and it was crucial that we did that. At the same time, as I have said to many hon. Members, we should not neglect the towering work of our humanitarian aid workers. We support the White Helmets very generously, for example, and they have saved 100,000 lives, which is something in which the people of this country can take a great deal of pride. Britain is leading in the humanitarian effort in Syria.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
In the last decade of bloodshed and tragedy in Syria, we have seen that the old adage that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must holds true today. The latest machination of that has the UN warning that civilians in Afrin are effectively trapped by the ongoing violence. If the Foreign Secretary will not urge his Turkish colleagues to stop the violence altogether, can he not, as an immediate step, urge them to open up corridors to a safety zone that can be guaranteed by the NATO alliance?
Boris Johnson
We certainly have urged our Turkish counterparts to do everything they can to minimise humanitarian suffering, and I will study the proposal the hon. Gentleman makes.
Points of Order
Monday 26th February 2018
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 View all Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Foreign Secretary’s contributions, he suggested that in my contribution to the urgent question I had called for military intervention in Ghouta. Actually, I simply called for him to pick up the phone to the Russian president. I wonder if there is a way to correct the record to make it clear what I said.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady has found her own salvation. The Foreign Secretary is nodding approvingly from a sedentary position, which I think is confirmation that he accepts the truth of what the hon. Lady has said. There is a satisfactory conclusion, and I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.] He may come to the Dispatch Box if he wishes.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
Further to that point of order, I am happy to accept the hon. Lady’s assurances that she was not in fact calling for military intervention.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. From memory, I think the record will confirm that the hon. Lady was not advocating that. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was disgusted on Wednesday when someone, consumed with hatred, tried to pull off the turban of one of my Sikh guests, as he queued up outside our Parliament buildings, and shouted “Muslim, go back home.” It has been brought to the Government’s attention on previous occasions that the hate crime action plan to properly record and monitor hate crimes completely ignores Sikhs. The Sikhs regard the turban as a crown on their heads. Indeed, Mr Speaker, when you presided over the launch of the national Sikh war memorial campaign, for which I am extremely grateful, you will have ascertained the substantial strength of feeling in the community about the need for a statue of turbaned Sikh soldiers in our capital. More than 80,000 turbaned individuals died for the freedom of this country—our country.
Given that considerable context, Mr Speaker, when giving your advice, perhaps you would be kind enough to impress on the House authorities and the police the need to take this matter very seriously and to bring the assailant to justice.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in offering me advance notice of his intention to raise it. First, let me take this opportunity from the Chair to empathise with the hon. Gentleman and all decent people across the House on this subject. It was a truly appalling incident. I feel a great sense of shame that such an act could have been perpetrated in our country. The hon. Gentleman’s friend and visitor to Parliament must have been very shaken by his experience. The act can have been motivated only by hatred, ignorance or—more likely— an extremely regrettable combination of the two. The matter is under active consideration by the police. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment in detail upon it. In any case, I would not be able to do myself, although I have received a report of the incident.
Let me make it absolutely clear that I take the matter extremely seriously, as, I am sure, do the House authorities. It is absolutely imperative that visitors to this place are—to the best of our ability and that of the police and security staff here—safe from physical attack and abuse. Moreover, I say to the hon. Gentleman that if I am provided with an address, I would like to write, on behalf of the House, to the hon. Gentleman’s visitor to express our regret about the attack that he experienced. I think that we will have to leave it there for today, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for airing the matter.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a convention in this House when a Member of Parliament visits someone else’s constituency that they should write to them, informing them that they have done so. Many Members of Parliament from England may have stayed and dined—or, indeed, drowned their sorrows—in my constituency on Saturday, after the rugby. Now, I do not really want them all to write to me, but I wondered whether there was a mechanism to find out who they were so that I could write to them in order to remind them of the convention, and also maybe to just about gloat about Scotland’s Calcutta cup success on Saturday.
Mr Speaker
Far be it from me to rain on the hon. Gentleman’s parade after he has shown such considerable ingenuity and sense of humour to raise this matter. The convention, of course, applies only to visits that are undertaken on official business, but I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. I am pleased to say that, so far, no Member of Parliament representing a Manchester constituency has been so unkind as to raise with me the fact of my own team’s defeat at Wembley yesterday.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I hope that I have not brought on a trickle, still less a flood. I was admiring the forbearance and courtesy of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). I hope that he is enjoying his day, possibly more than I have been enjoying mine.
Bill Presented
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Greg Clark, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Secretary Chris Grayling, Secretary Michael Gove, Andrea Leadsom and Claire Perry, presented a Bill to make provision for the imposition of a cap on rates charged to domestic customers for the supply of gas and electricity; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 168) with explanatory notes (Bill 168-EN).
Estimates Day
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 2017-18
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministry of Defence
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I should inform colleagues that, following recommendations by the Procedure Committee, this year the subjects for the estimates debate have been chosen by the Backbench Business Committee based on bids from Members. The subjects chosen by the Backbench Business Committee were then recommended to the Liaison Committee, which in turn, under Standing Order No. 145, recommended them to the House, which agreed to them on 22 February. Needless to say, I am sure that all colleagues present are intimately conscious of this chronology of events, of which I am merely serving to remind them. We will start with the motion on the supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Defence and the debate on the spending of the Ministry of Defence. This debate will be led by a notable knight of the Lincolnshire shires, namely Sir Edward Leigh.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2018, for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £8,852,638,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 808,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £1,363,500,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £1,703,385,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Mr Ellwood.)
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is the first proper departmental estimates debate, thanks to the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee. In our 2012 report to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, “Options to Improve Parliamentary Scrutiny of Government Expenditure”, Dr John Pugh, who was then a Member of Parliament, and I included a recommendation to introduce additional estimates days on subjects to be suggested by a budget committee that we also proposed to create. Dr Pugh decided to test this matter by trying to talk on the subject of estimates on estimates days. He was ruled out of order by your Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker, despite speaking about estimates on estimates days.
The reason we are here today is thanks to the work of the Procedure Committee, which I had the privilege of serving on in the previous Parliament.
Mr Speaker
Of which the hon. Gentleman was, I think I can fairly say, a distinguished ornament.
Sir Edward Leigh
I put it to the Procedure Committee, and it recommended to the Backbench Business Committee, that we take on the role of determining estimates to be debated on estimates days. Scrutiny of the Government’s supply estimates was listed under “unfinished business” at the end of the previous Parliament. It is thanks to the current Committee and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), that this business is no longer unfinished and we have now decided to debate estimates on estimates days. It is quite shocking how little power or influence the House of Commons has over spending in the estimates procedure, with a budget of some £800 billion a year. We have one of the best post-hoc systems in the world, through the Public Accounts Committee. We have one of the weakest systems in the world in terms of parliamentary scrutiny of what we are planning to spend, not of what we have spent.
Estimates days, as they have existed, have borne little relation to the actual content of the departmental estimates. Let me give a little bit of history, which is always interesting. This debate has gone on for quite a long time. In 1911, the then Clerk of the House, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, said:
“The sittings of the committee of supply continue through the greater part of the session, and, under existing standing orders, at least twenty days must be set apart for this purpose” .
Already, estimates days were just being used as a kind of general critique of government rather than actually to deal with what we were going to spend. Another report, in 1981, said:
“By 1966 there was a considerable discrepancy between the theory of supply procedure, under which individual estimates were put down for detailed consideration at regular intervals, and the practice, under which supply days were used by the opposition to discuss topics of their choice”,
which often had little, if anything, to do with the votes concerned. Indeed, the Clerk Assistant told the House that by the 1960s more and more supply day procedures had gone through which were “Little short of farcical”. I am glad that thanks to the Procedure Committee, and all the work that has been done and the debates that we have had, we are now going to talk about money.
However, given that the Government intend this parliamentary Session to last for two years, the already insufficient allocation of days for estimates days is doubly inadequate. Overall, in the past 100 years the House of Commons has delegated its role to the Treasury. We in this Chamber should be doing more. Why should we leave it just to unelected civil servants to debate what we spend and how we allocate spending among Government Departments? This House is asked to approve Executive spending even though we are not given much clarity about what that spending is expected to deliver, nor indeed the means to influence spending levels or priorities. As long ago as 1999, the Procedure Committee said that
“when motions are directed to future plans, motions recommending that ‘in the opinion of the House’ increases in expenditure or transfers between certain budgets are desirable, should be permissible.”
I believe that Select Committees should have stronger powers to investigate and scrutinise public spending. In Australia, Select Committees also sit as estimates committees, with Ministers and departmental body heads appearing before MPs or Senators to justify their spending. In other Commonwealth countries, quite a lot of work has been done on this. For instance, in several other countries with public financial management systems that are based on the British system, estimates include spending information at a programme level, with past spending information for each programme and medium-term estimates of the cost of the programme covering the Budget year and at least two further years. Good estimates help us to understand the link between Government priorities, desired impacts and the contribution of programmes to them.
There is still a lot of work to do. I would have thought that parliamentary scrutiny of the Budget was at the very heart of this body’s raison d’être. We have fought wars on this very subject yet are not particularly bothered by the comparatively little scrutiny we have of Government spending. Debates such as this one will, I hope, encourage broader participation of Members of this House in the formal budgetary process. We have a range of experience and points of view. I hope that this use of the debate to look at the Ministry of Defence estimates might also encourage us to have a more substantial debate on defence in general.
When I saw that at last we were going to get this estimates day debate, I approached my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, because I thought there was no better subject than defence to lead off on in discussing Government spending on an estimates day. That is why we are here, and this is a real opportunity. I will now talk a little bit about defence, although I recognise that there are people who are far more expert than me in this Chamber.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and thank him for achieving this debate. Is he surprised and disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here to respond? We are very much aware, through the press, that the Secretary of State appears to be pushing for greater budgets for the armed forces. It would have been nice if he had been here today to tell us all about the work he is doing.
Sir Edward Leigh
Well, I think it is very nice that we have such an impressive Minister as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), sitting in front of us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
On that introduction, how could I fail to get to my feet? The Defence Secretary sends his apologies. He is with the Prime Minister, telling her what he is doing, which I think is appropriate, given the challenges on finances that we face.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am grateful for that.
Given our commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence, as is required of NATO members, which most NATO countries ignore, we will have to spend more on defence regardless, in order to keep with up that target. That is the challenge we face.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for the way he has introduced the debate. Of course it is important that we scrutinise the estimates, but we need substantial amounts of money to consider. Does he share my concern about a lack of amphibious capacity, which could reduce our capacity to carry out humanitarian missions, for example?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is an extremely good point, and if I have time I will deal with amphibious capacity later in my speech.
This is a real challenge. As Professor Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, pointed out in his evidence to the Defence Committee:
“While the MoD budget is set to grow by 0.5 per cent per annum over the next five years, national income (GDP) is projected to grow by an average of 2.4 per cent per annum over the same period.”
That means that the current Government commitments to defence spending imply that UK defence expenditure will fall from 2.8% of GDP in 2015-16 to 1.85% in 2020-21. I believe that Ministers need to come clean and make it clear whether they intend to abandon the 2% commitment, as seems to be the case.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He says that the Government are committed to a 0.5% increase, but does he agree that that is just on equipment, not personnel? Something like 55% of the budget goes on daily running costs and people, and that will be completely constrained if no new cash is put into the people side of the budget.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is an extremely good point, and I will come on to deal with the people side.
As the Defence Committee has pointed out, there appear to be some shenanigans going on in relation to how we reach the 2% target, and this is a really good opportunity for us to discuss money in detail and for the Minister to reply to these points. The criteria seem to change from year to year, with new bits—war pensions and other expenditure—qualifying when they have not previously done so. NATO is apparently satisfied, but this rather gives the impression that we are meeting our targets only by means of creative accounting, and when it comes to the defence of the realm, surely creative accounting is not good enough.
Let me say a word about procurement. What are our procurement procedures, and are we getting value for money? Professor Julian Lindley French testified, again to the Defence Committee:
“If you look at the $90 billion being spent by the Russians as part of their modernisation programme, the $150 billion or so being spent by the Chinese and what other countries around the world are doing, what strikes me is how few assets—both platforms and systems—the UK gets for its money.”
As a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I am talking not just about more money for the MOD, but about spending the money more wisely.
The MOD committed itself to new purchases arising from its 2015 strategic defence and security review before it established how they could be paid for. This requires the MOD to generate £5.8 billion of new savings from within the defence equipment plan itself, in addition to £1.5 billion from the wider defence budget, which is already under pressure. We never of course know what crisis may happen, and if a crisis happens and our troops have to be deployed, where will the money come from? In such a case, will we end up taking money from procurement that we had not expected to take?
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that very important point and for his excellent introduction to the debate. Does he recognise the issue of the defence inflation rate, which in recent years has been 3.9%, while background inflation has been just 0.8%, leading to a real depreciation in real purchasing power for defence? Is that not the root cause of the problems we are seeing with the attrition of defence capability?
Sir Edward Leigh
That point on purchasing power is a very pertinent one. I hope that the Minister replies to it, because it is a point well made.
Uncertainties and over-optimism—there is over-optimism—in the project costs mean that the final costs of the defence equipment plan may be significantly understated. The MOD’s cost assurance and analysis service reported that the costs in the 2016 plan were understated by £4.8 billion. Over a period of years, the MOD has failed to agree a workable way forward with the prime contractor on the procurement of a Type 26 warship, which has compromised maritime capability and placed further upward pressure on costs.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Does he see the recently announced combat air strategy as a similar sort of programme, and what might its impact be on procurement?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a good point. Again, I hope the Minister replies to it. It may be a case of when times change, procurement policies change, but will that result in more pressure? What I am saying—several Members, particularly my hon. Friend, have made this point in their interventions—is that the defence equipment plan has no leeway to cope with new equipment requirements resulting from emerging threats. As the National Audit Office’s investigation of the plan put it:
“The Department’s Equipment Plan is not affordable. It does not provide a realistic forecast of the costs of buying and supporting the equipment that the Armed Forces will need over the next 10 years.”
If it does not do so, what is it for? The NAO continues:
“Unless the Department takes urgent action to close the gap in affordability, it will find that spending on equipment can only be made affordable by reducing the scope of projects”.
We have had training exercises cancelled, and we know that soldiers, sailors and airmen need to keep active so that they are fully trained and at the ready. Cancelling training exercises is short-sighted and a false economy.
Just to be fair for a moment to the MOD and the pressures it is facing, we are not the only ones having problems. Documents linked to Die Welt newspaper show that the German military has secretly admitted that it cannot fulfil its NATO obligations. The Bundeswehr was due to take over the rotating lead of NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, but despite committing 44 Leopard 2 battle tanks to the force, it was revealed that only nine are operational. It begins to look as though the arrangements for the conventional defence of Europe are a bit of a shambles.
The reality is that we are underspending, just as we did in the lead-up to the second world war. Back then, we were capable of jump-starting and expanding our defence capabilities because we faced an existential threat. God willing, we will not face that kind of threat in the coming years, though we can never rule out the possibility.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
One of the problems with being in a NATO alliance—I know this as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—is that there is nowhere to hide from our allies, and allies are noticing that Britain is withdrawing from exercises. They are concerned because they have seen Britain as an ally on which they could rely and depend. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most worrying things is the lack of credibility of our armed forces—valiant though they may be—because of the cuts we face in expenditure?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very good point. With France, and after America, we are the leading military power in Europe and we have to set an example. If we withdraw from exercises, that creates a bad impression.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) is here. He introduced his Backbench Business debate on defence last month and pointed out that the risks this country faces are only intensifying. If we face a multiplicity and variety of threats, surely our capabilities must reflect that. Russia is indeed a threat again, because it realised that the only way to be taken seriously is to be seen to be a threat. We treated Russia with contempt during the 1990s and it has drawn the lesson. It is a geopolitical gamble that we may not approve of, but in terms of Russian influence it has paid off. What have we been talking about for the past hour except Russia? According to some estimates, its economy’s GDP is equivalent to that of Italy or even that of Australia. Russia’s emphasis on its defence spending has made it an extremely important geopolitical player. Although we are constantly told that times have changed and that defence spending is not as important as it was, perhaps the Russian example shows that defence spending does pay off. I am not for one moment defending or approving of Russia or anything it does, but it has drawn the obvious lessons from the 1990s. There is a threat from Russia and we need to take it seriously.
Surely one lesson we can draw from the past, particularly from the lead-up to the second world war, is that, in terms of commitments, we must have a real presence. There is no point in our having a token commitment to or presence in the Baltic states; we need a real presence if deterrence is to work.
Many other threats are developing from Russia, the Chinese and other potential opponents: cyber-attacks and information warfare are all potential threats.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies the potential difficulties on the north European plain. Should not the Ministry of Defence therefore reconsider its decision to withdraw from north Germany and reinstate our capability there?
Sir Edward Leigh
Yes, I certainly think it should reconsider it. All the old, conventional threats are still very real and require conventional responses. We have to maintain our original capabilities while also expanding and improving them.
On the range of capabilities, last year Hurricane Irma wreaked devastation in the Caribbean, and HMS Ocean was a key element in our response to that tragedy. Now, apparently we have sold HMS Ocean to the Brazilians, but we have a proud humanitarian tradition on these islands and it is our duty to maintain it. This is not just about responding to threats; it is also about our humanitarian duty. We have direct responsibility for our overseas territories and bonds of close friendship with other members of the Commonwealth.
Ministers have so far refused to commit to keeping HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which give our armed forces an amphibious landing capability, as the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said in an earlier intervention. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) pointed out last month that
“40% of the world’s population live within 100 km of the coast”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 516.]
I voted against the Iraq war, but the fact remains that we made a very effective contribution with our amphibious invasion of the al-Faw peninsula in 2003. I may not always be in favour of using military options, but I want, and the British people demand, that we have as many options on the table as we can and that we maintain our capabilities.
Meanwhile, there are proposals to cut the Royal Marines, some of our most useful, well-trained, high-quality and greatly effective troops. The variety of roles they can undertake underpins the ability of Great Britain to project our military power. As I will mention in a moment, this has led to low morale and a culture of fear for the future in one of the most important and valuable parts of our military.
Then there is the Navy. I received an email—one of many that have been sent to many Members from all sorts of sources—from a former Army major, writing to me through “gritted teeth”:
“the area of defence that has been shockingly neglected is the Royal Navy. Put Trident to one side and disregard the vanity project that is HMS Queen Elizabeth and you have virtually no ships. The Royal Navy has to be the most important service for an outwardly facing island nation.”
I agree with that. In December 2017, all six of our Type 45 destroyers were laid up in Portsmouth, whether for repairs, equipment failures, routine maintenance or manpower shortages. The possibility of a significant crisis requiring a naval deployment catching us not ready is strong—too strong.
Toby Perkins
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is absolutely right. In December 2017, not only were none of our destroyers out, but, as revealed by an answer to my parliamentary question, for the first time in history not a single Royal Navy frigate or destroyer was deployed overseas. That demonstrates powerfully the scale of the pressure on our Royal Navy and its lack of capability.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very good point and that was a worrying incident.
On recruitment and numbers, the Public Accounts Committee “Army 2020” report notes that
“the Army’s recruiting partner, Capita, missed its regular soldier recruitment target by 30% in 2013-14 and it recruited only around 2,000 reserves against a target of 6,000. A huge step-up in performance is required if the Army is to hit its ambitious target of recruiting 9,270 new reserves in 2016-17. The size of the regular Army is reducing faster than originally planned but the size of the trained Army reserve has not increased in the last two years because more people have left the reserve than joined.”
We have shifted from an emphasis on the Regular Army to one that includes a very strong Army reserve. All the same, we still need a Regular Army, but we are not meeting targets for that either. Our force strength numbers are not up to scratch. In April 2016, we were short by 5,750 personnel. A year later, that had increased to over 6,000. By August 2017, it was over 7,000 and the latest statistics available show our armed forces are short of their full strength by 8,160 men. The problem is getting worse.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
My hon. Friend highlights a very important point. What I cannot understand is why it takes the best part of a year for someone to be able to join the armed forces. Surely that should be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Sir Edward Leigh
There is clearly a problem, one I hope the Minister will deal with later. Why does it take so long to recruit? Are we putting off potential recruits with our very slow processes?
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Just before my hon. Friend moves on from the issue of recruitment, does he agree that the performance of the Capita recruitment partnering project contract has been distinctly sub-optimal, and that if this continues for very much longer the Ministry of Defence would be wise to seek an alternative?
Sir Edward Leigh
My right hon. Friend is of course a former Minister for the Armed Forces and really does know what he is talking about. The Government should listen to him.
There is a problem with morale. Those who perceive service morale as low increased by 12% on the previous year in the Army and 15% in the Royal Marines in 2017. The overwhelming majority, 74%, feel proud to serve—we are proud of them for feeling proud to serve—but only a third feel valued by their service. What is the point of training men and women if we fail to keep them?
Mr Sweeney
On retention, the hon. Gentleman referred to the reservists and the recruitment challenges that they face. My infantry battalion—a reserve battalion—has seen a significant influx of former regular soldiers echeloning through from the Regular Army as it has been severely downsized, including by, in effect, the disbanding of an entire battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. The concern is how long these former regular soldiers will remain reservists before they move out altogether, because they have benefited from a transition payment. Could that financial incentive just be temporary, and will we see a further pressure on reserve recruitment in the longer term?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a fair point. Pressures build on pressures.
In conclusion, the problems are many, but they must be tackled head on. Speaking personally, my record on spending and saving is clear: I think that the state should spend as little as possible. However, we also have responsibilities of absolute necessity, such as the defence of the realm. It is not pompous to say that—it is an absolute fact. That is the first responsibility of what we do in this House and we are falling short. The Government simply have to commit to spending more if we are to have the armed forces that this country requires. In order to maintain our independence—not just our sovereignty, but our freedom of action and ability to make our own decisions rather than be dictated to by circumstances—we need highly trained, fully manned, well-equipped armed forces. For a trading island nation on the cusp of Brexit and turning her face to the world, Great Britain must turn the tide of decline in defence.
I hope that this debate will prove to be a turning point, but that is up to the Government to decide. One thing is sure: further stagnation and cutting capabilities will set us back further. Once again, I am reminded of the wise words of Admiral Andrew Cunningham during the battle of Crete. Exposed to German air assault, his ships were taking heavy losses as they helped to evacuate the Army from Crete to Egypt. Some suggested that he should suspend the Navy’s part in the evacuation, saving his ships but ending the tradition of solidarity under fire among the armed forces. Cunningham knew that the Navy must not let the Army down and he refused. He said these words:
“It takes three years to build a ship, but it takes three centuries to build a tradition. The evacuation will continue.”
Our traditions of a great nation and great armed forces must continue. That is why this important debate must continue, too.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the fantastic overview that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) set out of the defence estimates. For Members who do not find themselves—as many of us do—becoming defence-obsessed, due to our concerns at the lack of funding being sent into the defence of this wonderful realm, it was a fantastic primer on the concerns that we must face as a country.
I want to look at the reserve forces, an area that the hon. Gentleman also raised. I declare a sort of interest as the chair of the all-party group on reserves and cadets. I recently met an academic from the University of Bath, Dr Patrick Bury, who has been looking at the progress of the Future Reserves 2020 plan, the main purpose of which was to provide direct support to a reduced Army and to increase the reserves to 35,000. Following the meeting, I rather upset a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, who received more than 100 parliamentary questions in the lead-up to Christmas. He took me aside to remonstrate with me for giving him so much work. I pointed out that if he had answered some of the questions the first time around, there might have been 50% less questions, but that is the way of asking and pursuing parliamentary questions.
The information I will speak to in today’s debate is all provided—sometimes reluctantly, but it was provided eventually—by the Ministry of Defence following parliamentary questions. I am deeply concerned that the expenses involved in Future Reserves 2020 not only show a programme that is struggling to achieve its goals, but are such that we need either to redefine or to look at whether the money we are spending, given the outcomes we are achieving, would be better spent elsewhere. We all know that the Ministry of Defence cannot afford to waste that expense. Every penny counts in the Ministry of Defence.
To provide context and make the costs clear, what is the current reserve structure? The reserve model means that Army reservists sign a contract in which they commit to achieving a certain amount of training time, and to achieving training targets over a financial year. That involves 27 days’ training, including a two-week continuous period away, which is known as annual camp. If the reservists achieve that commitment, they are considered to be fully trained and up to date, and ready to fulfil their role in supporting the Regular Army—in other words, they are deployable—and are rewarded with a tax-free bounty cash payment.
It goes without saying that, for a reservist to achieve a high level of practice and well-honed skills, they would need to achieve that minimum level of training. It is only 27 days. Many members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme spend more than 27 days in the armed forces and do not qualify to be reservists. They nevertheless give that commitment. Unlike those in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, the reservist is not compelled to complete their commitment to get their pass-out certificate. They have only to complete a minimum of 27 days. The only compelling desire is achieving the tax-free bounty.
We can therefore use that tax-free bounty as a useful way of assessing how many people in the reserves are deployable. It is possible to be an Army reservist without achieving any training targets in a financial year, so if we want to know about the Army reserves, we need to look at how many achieve their bounties. Let us look at the cost of the programme. The easiest way to calculate the cost is to look at the bounty payments combined with the number of reservist service days claimed over the past few years. I am making a general assumption. A basic private’s pay in April 2017 was £46.42 a day—some will earn more, and therefore my numbers might be lower, but I am giving the benefit of the doubt and working on the assumption that everybody gets the minimum payment.
In 2016-17, 1,008,290 reserve days were claimed, and 14,930 reservists qualified for their bounty. That resulted in a spend of £68 million—it was nearly £69 million. In the year 2015-16, 957,390 reserve service days were claimed, and 14,990 reservists qualified for their bounty. In 2014-15, 884,050 reserve service days were claimed, and 14,270 reservists qualified for their bounty. Therefore, despite the rising costs, and despite continual recruitment, the true number of qualified reservists has remained stable, at just less than 15,000. It is not just that we are failing to meet targets year on year, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but we are not increasing our numbers of deployable reservists.
The wages and the bonuses are low.
Mr Kevan Jones
What my hon. Friend is describing is fascinating. Does she agree that Army 2020 was really designed to give the Government political cover in the light of the reduction of the Regular Army to 82,000? It is not just a question of the retraining days; it is a question of whether the 15,000 reservists to whom she referred can actually be deployed alongside regular troops. I am told that in some cases there is no joint training at all.
Mrs Moon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we have here is a consistent pattern of only about 15,000 deployable reservists. Despite the money that has been poured into the reserve forces, we have not increased their number, but we have massively decreased the number of regulars. Our Army capability is therefore shrinking. That is something that we must be very worried about, but what worries me even more is the fact that we are spending huge amounts of money while receiving little or no return.
Mr Sweeney
My hon. Friend has referred to the significant reductions in the regular forces. As was mentioned earlier, a large number of former regular service personnel have moved into the reserves, but they may be doing so on a temporary basis. That may explain why so few people—in real terms—are achieving their bounty qualifications each year.
Mrs Moon
I intend to talk about the reserve bonus scheme in the next part of my speech. I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome that.
Part of the problem is that, despite the theory that employers would be willing, and even encouraged, to allow people to take their time to go to, for instance, the annual camp, it is not happening. As people are under pressure to remain in work and to retain their jobs, they are not willing to give those 27 days. They are not able to make that commitment.
Further inefficient costs to the Army reserve can be seen when we look at the “regular to reserve” bonus scheme and its failure to retain personnel. The scheme was introduced in 2013 as a way of enticing former regular soldiers to join the reserves in order to keep their expertise within the military and pass it on to the new reserves who were being recruited. We were retaining capability, and also using the former regulars to train the reserves. The incentive for ex-regulars to join the scheme is, again, financial: a £10,000 bonus is paid in four instalments, provided that they meet the requirements of training and attendance at each stage.
As of October 2017, 4,350 ex-regular soldiers have joined the reserves under the scheme. At first that looks like a good number, but the question is, how many have been retained? In 2017, only 480 of those soldiers achieved all four instalments, which indicates a dropout rate of 89%. I accept that that figure does not take into account the fact that entry into the scheme may be staggered over the preceding four years, but it none the less demonstrates that retention of ex-regular soldiers in the Army reserve is a problem.
I can give an example. An ex-regular soldier who turned up at my house to do a piece of work had signed up for the reserve bonus scheme, and had found that once he had left the military and started work, the pressures of civilian life—being back with his family and getting into the new job—meant that he could not retain the commitment that he had thought he would want to ease his transition out of the military and into the civilian world. These are men and women with vital knowledge and expertise who are used to military life. Their retention is vital, but even with that offer of £10,000, there is not enough to keep them and for them to commit to what is being asked. This further suggests that the current model of the Army reserve just is not working.
The situation looks bad on its own, but if the cost of the scheme is taken into account, it looks a lot worse. Breaking down the entrants to the scheme into their respective ranks and assuming this distribution follows through the key milestone payments, and using these elements and combining wages and bonuses, the scheme so far has cost just over £29 million, with only 480 soldiers reaching all four payments. I am sorry to bat on about this, and I know the figures are boring, but I am deeply concerned. We have a reducing capability in our Army. We have been sold a pup, with a promise that the reserves would fill a gap in the regular forces, but that is not happening.
Defence is an expensive business—there is no getting around that—but it is also a business in which we cannot afford to lose highly skilled and highly able individuals willing to give the time and effort to get through their training so that they are deployable. I know that many Members of this House, including the Minister, are eager to fulfil our commitment to them so that they retain their membership of the reserves and their employability. I honour, and express my gratitude for, the service of all those reservists, but are we getting value for money in a way that allows us as a country to have the forces that we need? It is my concern that we do not, and the MOD’s own figures suggest that the reserves model as it stands cannot provide us with the numbers we need.
The challenges and menaces we face are very real. Many of our platforms are not fit for purpose and the readiness of our forces is just not in place, and we have heard about the disastrous Capita contract. I appreciate that the Minister has apparently suggested that he will resign if the military is cut further, and I hope he does not have to resign, because he is a good Minister, whom we trust, rely on and respect, but we also need the Minister to hear the concerns that we are expressing.
None of us want our Army to be damaged. All of us know that our personnel can, when fully trained and fully committed, be some of the best in the world; that knowledge is shared across our NATO alliance. But we are getting weaker, and that is unacceptable. I call on the Minister to look at how we are spending in terms of the reserve forces.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the numbers, but does she share my concern that a huge amount of experience is being lost from our military? There are people performing roles with a few years’ experience who would have taken 10 or 15 years to reach that position in the past, and the experience of many of them—excellent soldiers and sailors though they are—might come under pressure in the fiercest of circumstances.
Mrs Moon
My hon. Friend is right, and this is also making them so much easier to be bought off by companies who seek the expertise and qualifications they achieve in the military. They feel dissatisfaction when they see the forces they joined—particularly the Army—being hollowed out. That is leading many more to consider leaving.
I shall make one final comment. I have spoken to a young man who was working as a full-time reservist when I first met him. He has told me that a lot of his time as a full-time reservist was spent going out and trying to recruit. He said that one of the most frightening things was that so many of the youngsters he spoke to about joining the armed forces had no understanding of military life. They had no idea of what NATO stood for, for example. This is a wider problem that we as a country need to tackle. We need to get the message out about how invaluable our armed forces are and how critical it is that our young people should seek the life, the experience, the skills, the challenge and the satisfaction of a military career, whether as a reservist or full time.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we still need to do a lot more for people leaving the service? There are still too many ex-military personnel finding civilian life very difficult. Does she agree that we need to support them as they adapt?
Mrs Moon
I agree with my hon. Friend; it is difficult for people who have been in an all-encompassing environment to transition. I know many ex-MPs who have found it very difficult to transition out of this place, because it is not just a job; it is our whole life and requires great commitment. That is what the military is like as well, and that transition is grave.
I shall take no more interventions, but before I finally sit down, I want to make the point that life in the military does not mean that someone will get post-traumatic stress disorder. It worries me that that possibility seems to have got into the public consciousness. Life in the military will offer someone a chance to grow, to mature and to become an asset to their country, and I just wish that more people understood that, rather than thinking about the downsides of joining our military.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). As a former Defence Minister, I too can attest to being on the receiving end of a rolling barrage of parliamentary questions. This points to her great assiduity when it comes to defence matters, which she has demonstrated again in her speech this afternoon. I am glad to have been called to speak on the Defence estimates, which, for reasons I will explain, include an important change in the Government’s defence policy. I therefore believe that the estimates need to be increased. In giving important evidence to the Defence Committee last week, the new Secretary of State for Defence argued that “state on state” threats were now the primary threat to the security of the United Kingdom. This is an important shift in the Government’s position, and it has the logical knock-on effect that defence expenditure should now be increased to meet these new circumstances and the far more serious challenge that they represent.
It is important to put this change into historical context. I shall begin by going back to the 1980s, when the Berlin wall was still standing and the cold war was at its height. Britain, then as now, was a key member of NATO, and we spent about 5% of our GDP on defence, principally to deter the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw pact countries. As the Chairman of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), has pointed out in the House before, in the 1990s after the wall had come down, we, like other countries, took a peace dividend. This reduced our defence spending to between 3% and 3.5% of our GDP.
As we entered the new millennium, the horrific events of 9/11 led to massive shifts in strategy. The United Kingdom became involved in expeditionary conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our forces became increasingly optimised to fight wars with a counter-insurgency element, at reach, against technologically inferior but nevertheless very determined enemies. As a result, and with the MOD already under considerable financial pressure, we optimised our force mix accordingly while deprioritising areas such as anti-submarine warfare and air defence to the point where, today, we have only 19 frigates and destroyers and have seen a major reduction in fast jet squadrons. As the process continued, by the time of the 2010 strategic defence and security review and the accompanying national security strategy, it became the Government’s policy that there was no existential threat to the security of the United Kingdom. With echoes of the 10-year rule of the 1930s, state-based threats to our security were effectively seen as no longer relevant. However, the events of the past few years have shown those assumptions to be highly erroneous.
The activities of a resurgent Russia in annexing Crimea and effectively invading parts of Ukraine have shown a Russian willingness to use military force on the European landmass in order to achieve its political objectives. We have also seen heavy Russian involvement in Syria, which the House was discussing a little over two hours ago, and massively increased Russian submarine activity in the North sea, the north Atlantic and the GIUK gap. Russia has also exerted pressure on the Baltic states, which are now members of NATO and covered by the article 5 guarantee. All of that is occurring at a time when we have reduced our defence expenditure further to where it sits today: barely 2% of our GDP.
Mrs Moon
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to address our undersea cables and the risks posed by Russian submarines in particular. I was recently at a meeting at which Defence Ministers from several states expressed grave concerns about the number of Russian submarines that they were seeing off their coasts and alarm at those submarines seeking the undersea cables that come ashore in their countries. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that issue?
Mr Francois
I am sure that the Minister may want to say something about that when he replies, but he will be constrained, because it is difficult to discuss the exact details of such matters in an open forum. However, when I served in the Ministry, I was certainly aware of a potential threat to those undersea cables, and everything that I have understood since then leads me to believe that that threat has increased, not decreased, so the hon. Lady makes an important point. The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Nick Carter, sounded a timely warning in his recent very good speech to the Royal United Services Institute about growing Russian military capability and areas where we need to bolster our own Army in response.
In the United States, the recently published defence strategy, authored by Secretary Mattis, has declared that state-on-state competition, particularly with Russia and China, is now viewed as the primary threat to the security of the United States and its allies. That important change in policy was then echoed to some degree by our Secretary of State for Defence in his evidence to the Defence Committee only last Wednesday, and it is really important that the House appreciates what he said. During the sitting, he explained that the threat to the United Kingdom from other states, such as Russia and North Korea, is now greater than the threated posed by terrorism, telling the Committee:
“We would highlight state-based threats… as the top priority”.
He went on to say that state-based threats have
“grown immeasurably over the past few years.”
When I put it to the Secretary of State at that hearing that what he was announcing—the primacy of state-based threats to our security—was a massive change in focus and that it would have a knock-on effect on how Britain’s military was structured and its readiness for war, he replied unequivocally, “Yes it does.”
That means that the defence review that is currently under way—the modernising defence programme—is now taking place against a significantly revised strategic background, in which deterring military threats from other states such as Russia, North Korea and, to a lesser extent, China is now to become the primary focus of this country’s defence policy. This new context brings with it certain important implications.
First, we absolutely must retain our independent strategic nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantee of our national security. All three states I just mentioned are nuclear armed, and it is important that we retain our deterrent to deter any nuclear threat against us.
Secondly, if we are to deter state-on-state threats, clearly we must bolster our conventional defences. Joseph Stalin is reputed to have said, “Quantity has a quality all of its own.” We can no longer rely on advances in technological capability always to give us the edge in any future war. We also need to make sure we have sufficient mass—the number of platforms—to deter our potential enemies. That means, for instance, rebuilding our air defences and bolstering our anti-submarine warfare capabilities to help to protect the sea lines of communication across the Atlantic, which will be vital in any conflagration on the European mainland.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I am interested in his comments on rebuilding our air defences. Is he as encouraged as I am by the announcement last week of the combat air strategy? Does he also agree that, given the enormous cost of modern aviation programmes, we will have to look at doing one of two things? We will either have to take a very serious strategic look at what kind of aviation military capacity we want and then to plan accordingly or, if we want full-spectrum military capability, it will ultimately mean more money.
Mr Francois
I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right that the Secretary of State for Defence announced the new combat air strategy at the Committee, but what he announced on state-on-state threats was even more important. If we now have to deter Russian aviation capability as a state-on-state threat, it will be extremely expensive but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) wisely reminded the House in his excellent introduction to this debate, the first duty of Government, above all others, is the defence of the realm. Our whole history as a nation reminds us that we forget that at our peril.
Thirdly, we must seriously consider how we could reconstitute forces in a national emergency. We must accumulate war reserves in order to show that we have the ability to sustain a fight if we were ever to get into one. As just one example, the Committee took evidence from BAE Systems executives a few months ago. When we asked how long it would take to build a Typhoon from scratch, we were told it would take four years or, if they attempted to accelerate the process, perhaps three years at best.
Those long lead times for manufacturing sophisticated modern military equipment mean that, in reality, we would likely have to fight a so-called “come as you are” war, which involves using equipment that is either immediately available or that can be reintroduced into service at short notice. It follows from this that we should now adopt a practice of mothballing highly expensive and complex equipment when it goes out of service—rather than disposing of it all, often for a pittance—so we have the ability to reconstitute at least some mass, should that be required if the skies were ever to darken again.
Fourthly, in light of the new strategic situation of state-on-state threats, spending 2% of our GDP on defence is simply not sufficient. We helped to deter Russia during the cold war by spending 5% of GDP on defence. If we now have to deter Russia again, we will simply not be able to do so by spending only 2% of GDP on defence —our allies also need to make a greater contribution. If we are to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent, bolster our conventional forces and build up our war reserves, we obviously need to spend something much nearer to 3% than 2% on defence. If we will the ends, we must also will the means.
Finally, I went to the cinema recently to watch Gary Oldman’s wonderful portrayal of Winston Churchill in “Darkest Hour”—he got the BAFTA and I very much hope he gets the Oscar, too. That film brought home graphically what happened to our nation after the policy of appeasement in the 1930s and our having run down our armed forces to the point where they were unable to deter war. I humbly suggest that my friends the “pinstripe warriors” of the Treasury, as I call them, should be taken en masse to watch that film as part of their continued professional development, in the hope that that might yet bolster our overall determination as a nation to defend ourselves.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am going to make a relatively brief contribution to this debate. I wish to make one simple point, which I shall base on something I have mentioned before in this Chamber. First, for the record, I probably ought to draw the House’s attention to the fact that I have a family member serving in the armed forces.
What we should do first is bank the good news, which, as we all know, is that the armed forces enjoy popular support the length and breadth of this country. I have made mention before of the Territorials and cadets in my constituency, all of whom are greatly supported by the local communities. It gladdens everyone’s heart to see the cadets parade on Remembrance Sunday. Even better is when, as happens now and again, the 4th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland—the Seaforth, Gordons and Camerons—come to exercise their right to parade through my home town of Tain with bayonets fixed and colours flying. I assure Members that people from my home town and round about turn out in great numbers to see this. Equally, when HMS Sutherland pays her occasional visit to the county of Sutherland, at Invergordon in Easter Ross or indeed off the north coast, people are very pleased to see that warship.
I wish to take the opportunity to give my personal thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). He may not know about this, but a Royal Navy warship—a small one, I suspect—is going to visit Wick on 6 April. That is hot news in the royal borough of Wick and I assure him that the ship will be very well received. As a humorous aside, I might add that my own way of saying thank you to the 4th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland when it came to parade was to give the sergeants’ mess a bottle of very good whisky made in my home town which goes by the name of Glenmorangie. The commanding officer was not at all pleased with me for having done that, but I shall spare hon. Members the details.
So I have set out the basic premise on which I base my argument, which is that we have the foundation of good will, and the point I wish to make today is simply that we should build on it. In the past, small local projects could be undertaken by the armed forces for the good of the community. In the past, the Royal Engineers could come out to build a small bridge, repair a footpath and so on. One might say that that was not a wise expenditure of armed forces money, but they do have to train. We should try to get back to that kind of involvement of the armed forces in the community. I am not talking about doing this in a social work way; it should be a genuine involvement.
Mention has been made of how so many people are unaware of what the armed forces do and even of what NATO stands for. One way of reversing that decline is to get the people in Wick to come on board this warship on 6 April—they will learn something—and to come to see the 4th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland parading. That will build up knowledge, and will build up even further confidence in and enthusiastic support for our armed forces.
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Gentleman is making a good series of points about the outreach of the armed forces and their visibility. Ought we not to encourage the more widespread wearing of uniform by service personnel when they are going about their business in our communities? The standard practice is for them to wear civilian clothing, but wearing the uniform, as the American services do, would also raise the profile and recognition of our armed forces.
Jamie Stone
That point is extremely well made. I might say, for the amusement of the House, that when I was a lowly private in the 2nd Battalion the 51st Highland Volunteers I used to find that one of the best ways to get home after a long camp far away in a remote part of the highlands was to wear my uniform and hitchhike—invariably, one got a lift pretty fast.
Jamie Stone
Unfortunately, that uniform has shrunk over time.
We have heard so many times in this Chamber about the difficulty our armed forces have recruiting. If we build up the good will and the knowledge of what the armed forces do and stand for, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, that will surely improve recruitment. That is the prize because, at the end of the day, the defence of the realm, with the enthusiastic support of the people, is paramount.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I might be a touch over-optimistic, but I get the impression that a sea change is going on, at least in this Chamber. It was only in 2016 that we first started to debate whether 2% of gross domestic product was a sufficient investment for this country to make in defence in peacetime. At that time, it seemed fairly outlandish to suggest that we ought to be talking about 3% of GDP or even more. It is not outlandish to suggest that now. Of course, that is partly because of the shift in the strategic situation, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) outlined so comprehensively a few moments ago, but it is also partly because of the efforts of colleagues on the Government and Opposition Benches—I pay tribute to my old friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for doing this today—to bring this subject forward time and again to impress on the House and the country that we are simply not investing enough in defence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford referred to pinstriped warriors in the civil service. I do not wish to point any fingers in any particular directions, but when the National Security Adviser appeared before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on 18 December and was asked whether it would be possible for him to recommend that the defence budget ought to be increased, given the fact that the security capability review that he had been conducting was supposed to be fiscally neutral, it worried me that he responded:
“When I said that the 2015 review was fiscally neutral, it was fiscally neutral within a growing envelope.”
In other words, he meant that there were certain absolute increases in the sums being spent. At a later stage, having tried to lump together the defence budget with all other moneys spent on security of one form or another to give a global figure of £56 billion, he went on to say:
“If we concluded that the total set of capabilities, optimised across that £56 billion, was insufficient to meet the threats, of course we would say that to Ministers. That is not a conclusion I expect to reach, but of course I always have the freedom to give Ministers candid advice.”
I am rather worried if our top security professionals do not feel even a twinge of doubt about the level of priority that we are giving to defence. When sometimes people stress the point, which is not without merit, that when we talk about spending 2% or 3% of GDP we are talking about inputs, not outputs in terms of capability, I say to them that of course it is true that we could spend a huge amount of money on defence, but if we spent it on all the wrong things, it would not do us a lot of good. Conversely, though, if we are simply not spending enough on defence, nothing that we can do will give us the outputs we need.
Mr Kevan Jones
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about civil servants, but the decision to cut the defence budget by 16% between 2010 and 2015 was not a civil servant’s invention. It was the political decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government at the time.
Dr Lewis
Yes, and I will come to the issue of how we can use the percentage of GDP to track what has been happening to defence in a moment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—a former Defence Minister in the Labour Government, of course, and a very good one—will try to be non-partisan about this for the simple reason that successive Governments are responsible for what has happened.
What actually took place was, as has already been hinted at, something that has been going on over a very long period. Colleagues on both sides of the House have heard me recite this so often that I am afraid they might do that terrible thing and join in, singing the song with me. But I will just run through it again. In 1963, the falling graph of defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP crossed over with the rising graph of expenditure on welfare at 6%. So we were spending the same on welfare and defence—6%—in 1963. In the mid-1980s, as we have heard, we regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence, and that was the period when we last had an assertive Russia combined with a major terrorist threat—the threat in Northern Ireland. We were spending at that time roughly the same amount on education and health. Nowadays we spend six times on welfare what we spend on defence, we spend four times on health what we spend on defence, and we spend two and a half times on education what we spend on defence.
We have to ask what we mean when we say that defence is the first duty of Government. If it is the first duty of Government, it is a duty that is more important than any other duty, because if we fail to discharge it everything else is put in jeopardy.
Toby Perkins
I partly take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, if he is looking back to 1963 and the role of successive Governments from then to now. But it is also true that there was a substantial cut in defence spending in 2010-11, which bears no relationship to what happened in the previous 13 years. If defence spending had carried on increasing in real terms from 2009-10 to the present, £10 billion more would be being spent on defence than is spent under this Government. That is a substantial change from this Government to the previous one.
Dr Lewis
I will not defend what happened in 2010. I was a shadow Defence Minister for slightly longer than the duration of the second world war in the years up to 2010, and I was told retrospectively that the reason I never became a real Defence Minister was that it was known that I would not go along with what they were planning to do. So I am not inclined to lay down my life for the Cameron-Lib Dem coalition of those years. I did not do it then, and I will not do it now.
Having said that, it is all part of a bigger trend, and I come back to my projection of the situation. At the end of the cold war, as we have heard, we took the peace dividend. We had the reductions, which were reasonable under the circumstances. But in 1995-96—the middle of the 1990s and several years after we had taken the peace dividend reductions—we were not spending barely 2% of GDP on defence as we do now, but we were spending fully 3% of GDP on defence. From then on it was downhill all the way—
Dr Lewis
I will give way to my good friend the deputy Chairman of the Committee in a moment.
I can remember Tony Blair on HMS Albion in 2007, looking back on his 10 years as Prime Minister and saying, “Well, I think we can say that we have kept defence spending roughly constant at 2.5% of GDP if the cost of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are included.” But in fact the cost of operations should not have been included, because they are meant to be met from the Treasury reserve. The real figure over the Blair decade came down to 2.1% or 2.2% of GDP.
John Spellar
It is clear from the figures provided by the Library that while in most years there was an actual increase in defence expenditure during the years of that Labour Government, since 2010 it has been -1.4%, -1.4%, -4%, -3.3%, -2.4% and -2.9%, and in 2016-17 it did actually go into the positive, +1.4%. My friend should be clear that there was a step-change when the Cameron Government came in that led to year-on-year cuts, and our armed forces are feeling the effect of that.
Dr Lewis
What I am looking for today is agreement across the House that we recognise that we should not be having almost theological debates about whether we are just above or just below the 2% minimum guideline that NATO prescribes to its member states for defence expenditure, but that we have to get back to the level—at the very least—of what we considered appropriate for so long, right up until the mid-1990s, when the Labour Government came in, which was 3% of GDP.
Mr Jones
The facts do not bear out what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. According to the Library, the last time defence expenditure was 3% was 1993-94. After that, there was a 7% decrease in 1995, a 1% decrease in 1996 and a 5.7% increase the following year. The Labour Government came in, following the Treasury rules laid down by the previous Government, and in 1998 increased defence spending by 5.8%. The idea that the last Labour Government were following a trend that had been set is just not the case.
Dr Lewis
It depends whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about absolute figures or percentages of GDP spent on defence. In 2016, the Defence Committee produced a unanimous report called “Shifting the Goalposts? Defence expenditure and the 2% pledge”. We had the Committee staff use all available sourcing to draw up a definitive table of what had been spent on defence by Britain as a proportion of GDP over the past 50 years. The figures for the period we are talking about are: 1990-91, 3.8%; 1991-92, 3.8%; 1992-1993, 3.7%; 1993-94, 3.5%; 1994-95, 3.3%; and 1995-96, 3%. It then dips below 3% in 1996-97 to 2.7%, and thereafter it is down and down, with little blips here and there, until it is hovering around 2.5% because the cost of operations were included.
The point about all this is that we should not be arguing about who did the most damage. We should be agreeing about what we need in the future. If we are hearing a chorus of voices from the Labour Benches—it is music to my ears—saying that we have not been spending enough on defence and we need to be spending more, that is what we should be saying loud and clear to those people who seem to be perfectly content to spend the existing inadequate sums.
I do not wish to prolong my contribution, but I do wish to speak briefly about the equipment plan that was alluded to in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. The equipment plan of 2016 is for £178 billion over 10 years. That includes a small number—nine, which some would say was too small a number—of new P-8A maritime patrol aircraft, replacing a capability that was quite wrongly dispensed with after 2010. We are also supposed to be replacing 13 Type 23 frigates and supplying mechanised infantry vehicles out of this budget, and we are of course engaged in resurrecting carrier strike capability—another capacity that was temporarily lost after 2010.
The first report of the Defence Committee in the new Parliament was entitled, “Gambling on ‘Efficiency’: Defence Acquisition and Procurement”. The word “efficiency” was in inverted commas because we believe that the affordability of the scheme is predicated on an estimate of £7.3 billion of theoretical efficiency savings that are to be made in addition to some £7.1 billion that was previously announced. As we have heard, the National Audit Office thinks that the equipment programme is at greater risk than at any time since reporting was introduced in 2012. The truth of the matter is that we encounter black holes everywhere we look in defence. This brings me to my concluding point.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for the points he is making. We can starkly illustrate this issue. Training operations that had been committed for next year have been delayed, and we now hear that there are more. We also heard, very openly and honestly, at the Defence Committee last week not only that we going to have to cut mobile phone contracts and car hire contracts, but that—thinking about next year’s budget—£300 million has already been flexed in this year’s budget for a black hole in the Dreadnought class.
Dr Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is a stalwart of the Committee. I hope that he will develop that important point if he catches your eye presently, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously there has to be flexibility and a means of making adjustments when adjustments have to be made to very large sums during the course of an annual budget cycle. But we are talking about an overall shortfall that is so great that we are not going to get anywhere unless we recognise reality and accept that defence should not be so far down the national scale of priorities that it has far left behind those areas of high Government expenditure with which it used to bear straight comparison.
I mentioned previously the National Security Adviser and his security and capability review. The House will know something of the difficulties that the Defence Committee has had in getting the National Security Adviser to appear before it on the grounds—he says—that defence was only one out of 12 strands in that review. The new Secretary of State for Defence has now had some success in regaining control of that one strand for the MOD. Nevertheless, there is something to be said for a very in-depth interrogation of the people who are currently charged with the overall design of our defence and security policy.
At the present time, there is a degree of complacency by people who work in these Ministries. Then, as if by magic, the scales drop from their eyes the moment that they leave. Dare I say this in relation to our most recent former Secretary of State for Defence? Throughout his tenure he played a very straight bat, constantly talking up how much more money was being spent on defence. But within a very short time of leaving his position he made an excellent speech—I believe it was on 22 January this year—in which he said not only that he feels that we need to spend more on defence, but that we ought to be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament.
In the further contributions to this debate, I look to some magic formula that will take hold of our Defence Ministers, civil servants, National Security Adviser and all the rest who seem to think that all is well with the world when, confronted with threats such as we face today, we are spending a fraction of what we used to spend in percentage terms of GDP, and who are saying, “Everything is fine and we are on course.” We are not on course. We need to change course, and the direction in which we have to go is towards a significant uplift to 3% of GDP to be spent on the defence of the United Kingdom.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I want, first, to say something about spending and then to say a bit more about some of the points that can be made from the actual estimates. I think that that would help the defence debate. I will refer to historical defence spending but, whatever the rights and wrongs of that argument, let me say this: there is no disguising the fact that this country is not spending enough on the defence and security of the realm. I have said that before and I will say it again. That is the frank reality. That is the truth. That point has been heard—loud and clear.
My advice to the Minister is that he and the Defence Secretary use the power of this Parliament’s voice to go to the Prime Minister and tell her that we, the elected representatives, by and large do not think that we are spending enough on the defence and security of the country. As the Chair of the Defence Committee said, it is no good generals, admirals, national security people or whoever is responsible telling secret meetings that there is a real problem, and then, in three weeks’ or three months’ time, trying to tell the British public that £x million or £x billion more is needed and expecting them just to click their fingers on the basis of, “If you only knew what we knew.” It is not good enough and it is not satisfactory.
I have said at many meetings that the whole of Government need to shift their attitude and be clear what we are talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) will make this point in a different way. The tables are available from the House of Commons Library. Hon. Members can go back to when they want. One paper goes back to 1956, showing the percentage of GDP spent on defence at 6%. It is now at 2%. We can see the ups and downs within that time but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the table is clear.
Let me give Members one stark reality. The out-turn figure for the defence budget in 2009-10 was £45 billion at 2016-17 prices. These are not my figures; they are the Library’s. If the Government think that they are wrong, they should tell the Library. The 2016-17 out-turn figures, at 2016-17 prices, were just over £35 billion. There are some notes at the bottom which, quite frankly, I do not properly understand: they talk about changes in accounting practices, and counting this or counting that. However, there can be no doubt that it is a huge reduction. I totally agree with the Chair of the Defence Committee that we are now in a position where we all need to say that more should be spent and more has to be spent. The drop in the figures in that table is frankly astonishing.
Let me ask a couple of questions of the Minister that I really want answered. One of the big things that came out of the defence debate that we had a few weeks ago was that the National Security Adviser said that anything he found—it did not matter what it was—had to be fiscally neutral. The Chair of the Defence Committee said, and I agree, that the state-on-state threats are much greater and more intensified than they were. But apparently that does not matter: it has to be fiscally neutral. Can I ask the Minister a direct question? If the modernising defence programme says that the Government should be spending billions of pounds more to secure the defence of this country, is that whole programme predicated on a fiscally neutral position, or is it predicated on the Government funding what their modernising defence programme tells them?
As the Chair of the Defence Committee said, the defence threats are not reducing but intensifying. It is not acceptable to me, or, I believe, to this House, to say that as we are now facing a greater state-on-state threat because the terrorist threat is apparently not quite as big as it was, we will take some money from this budget and move it to that budget. That is not good enough, because we do not know what will happen in three, four, five or six years’ time. We cannot take money from a capability that is not necessarily needed quite as much at this time in order to pay for something else. It is the methodology of madness.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman will perhaps be surprised by how much I will say in my speech that—I hope—he agrees with, as I agree with him. The capability review was fiscally neutral, and we found that unacceptable. That was the first thing that the Secretary of State dealt with, perhaps breaking the trend that my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee suggested was the case. Let me make it very clear that the study that we are doing now is not fiscally neutral, but we do have to decide what our defence posture is and how much it will cost.
Vernon Coaker
There we go—that is the power of Parliament. That is the point I am making. We had the debate before and this was fiscally neutral. The original review—the national security and defence capability review, or whatever it was—was not set up by accident; the Government set it up, and defence was included in it. Parliament said that that was not acceptable, and the Government responded and took it out. We then said that it was not acceptable for that review to be fiscally neutral, and now the Government are saying that it will not be. Of course no one is saying that we should buy chariots or whatever—what we have has to be relevant to the needs that we face. Before, the process was budget-driven: it was a case of having whatever it needed to be in order to meet the budget requirement.
It is going to be difficult for the Government to do this when, for example, we are told today that, even in their response to the Select Committee’s report on the F-35 programme, they will not put a figure on what one F-35 is going to cost. Then the Government say, “We’re buying 138 F-35s—that is the current plan—and 48 will be F-35Bs, but we’re not sure what variant the other 90 are going to be.” How can the Government talk about being fiscally neutral in their plans when they could not say to the Defence Committee a couple of months ago what the cost of the F-35 is and they cannot tell us in their response published today either?
Mr Kevan Jones
It is not just the F-35. Much has been said in the past few weeks about the procurement of the new Type 31e frigate. There is no line in the defence budget for that. Likewise, the P-8, which is being trumpeted as a vital need for our maritime patrol aircraft—I agree—is not capable of delivering the sonar buoys or torpedoes that are currently being used, so there is added cost there.
Vernon Coaker
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is the point of the debate on estimates days. For the Minister to be able to say that we will have the capabilities that we need to meet the threats that we will face, we need to be able to say how much those capabilities are going to cost. My hon. Friend raised the issue of frigates; I am using the example of the F-35s. Cannot the Minister go back to the people who plan this and say, “We need some detail on these costs. Otherwise, how can we project forward what the equipment plan or any other plan is going to cost us?”
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman answers his own question in a way. He asked for, and supports, a fiscally open defence modernisation programme. That will pose the question as to whether we want A variants or B variants of the F-35s. The study needs to be done. On the individual cost, he knows from his own experience that it will vary, as the cost of prototypes does. There was not a unit cost for the F-16 because it was a prototype. It is very difficult to pinpoint the exact cost because the life cycles, the upgrades and the weapons systems that would be put on board vary. That is why we cannot provide the exact figure that he is seeking.
Vernon Coaker
I will leave it there, but the Government need to have a better idea, and make it public to the Select Committee and Parliament, of the individual costs. I say gently to the Minister that, otherwise, in a year’s time or two years’ time, he will find himself in exactly the same place that the Government find themselves now, where the National Audit Office is pointing to various gaps in the affordability of the equipment programme.
Let me give another example of where the Government need to be clearer with regard to their estimates. I again say this as something that the Minister and the Government should be saying to the Treasury and to the Prime Minister. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned this point. As the Minister knows, the Government have had to bring forward £300 million to pay for some more up-front costs with regard to the deterrent programme. When they were asked where that money has been taken from, there was a very vague answer, to put it mildly. In essence, therefore, it is an IOU for future programmes. I think that between 2006 and 2007—certainly in the last few years of the Labour Government—where there was an up-front cost that perhaps needed to be taken from future programmes, the Treasury came forward with an uplift to the defence budget to pay for it. That then gave some certainty to future programmes.
Because the Treasury has not uplifted the Ministry of Defence figure by that £300 million, there is already a potential £300 million gap in the future—next year or the year after. I say this to the Government, again trying to be helpful: the Ministry of Defence should go to No. 10 and say, “We believe that where there are additional costs with regard to our deterrent programme that were unforeseen, or there was a growth in those costs, the Treasury should fund that uplift in costs, as was previous practice”—for example, the £300 million. I use that as just one example.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend has given two excellent examples. There are plans for a super-garrison at Catterick. I understand that service accommodation was meant to be completed by 2020 but is now estimated at 2023, which will clearly create cost overruns. Around the CarillionAmey contract, again, we are seeing a lack of maintenance on that, which will end up costing us more. We are seeing cost overruns in not just equipment but a whole range of areas, including accommodation.
Vernon Coaker
My hon. Friend gives another good example.
I have given the Minister a couple of examples, notwithstanding all the questions. I make a plea again to him and to the Government: when we know that the Government are considering their options on amphibious ships, please do not say to Parliament that these are things they cannot talk about and that the Government do not comment on leaks. That does not help us. It does not help this Parliament in trying to support Ministers to ensure they have the resources to defend the country. We then have a situation where, three months or two years down the line, those capabilities are scrapped, and we are all left thinking, “If only we’d known a bit more.”
Let me also mention something positive that the Government should do. We should help to explain this to the British public. Tucked away in annex A of the estimates, under the “Memorandum for the Ministry of Defence Supplementary Estimates 2017-18”, the Government list the additional estimates that they have had to ask the Treasury for for operations. I do not believe the British public would know how many operations our armed forces are rightly involved with.
If we want to build support for our armed forces, we should be telling the public that there is £1 billion for operations, peacekeeping and the MOD’s share of the conflict, stability and security fund, and that there is a further allocation of £84 million for the UK’s contribution to Afghanistan, as well as allocations for the wider Gulf, counter-Daesh activity, the EU mission to counter migrant smugglers in the Mediterranean, NATO enhanced forward presence in Estonia and Poland, enhanced intelligence and surveillance, and support to UN peacekeeping operations in Somalia and South Sudan. Those are just some examples, and the Treasury is giving money to the MOD to support all those different things.
Our country is proud of that work. Our country is proud that our armed forces are involved in defending human rights, defending democracy and doing what they can to ensure that stability exists and conflict is prevented. The Government should be shouting much more loudly about that. It should not be tucked away in an annex; it should be one of the forefront siren calls that the Minister makes in these estimates debates.
I finish with this, and it goes back to where I started. We are not spending enough money on the defence and security of the realm and the role that this country plays in promoting democracy and defending human rights across the world with our allies. All power to the MOD’s elbow when it goes to the Treasury and the Prime Minister to demand more money, but let that be done through the voice of this Parliament, where the majority of Members believe we should be spending more money and will support the Minister in trying to achieve that.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Angus is proud of its long-standing ties to the armed forces, and it is vital for both the country’s defences and the Angus economy that the armed forces are properly funded. While I am pleased that this Government are committed to meeting the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on defence and that the UK has been one of only three NATO members to consistently meet that target since 2010, we should be careful not to rest on our laurels. I completely agree that we should look at 2% as an absolute minimum on which we should build. It is a start, not an end point.
The world is constantly changing, both politically and technologically. It is crucial that our military capabilities are funded sufficiently to ensure that they can keep up with those changes and secure our country in any and all circumstances. At the same time, funding alone is not enough. We must ensure that the money the Ministry of Defence does receive is spent as wisely as possible, and this Government have worked hard to make defence spending more efficient. The Government took the right decision to conduct a new defence review this year, and I look forward to its completion. I hope it will lay the groundwork for a well-funded, well-equipped military that is fit for the challenges the future may hold.
I firmly believe that the RM Condor base in Angus must be part of that future. RM Condor and the Royal Marines of 45 Commando who serve there are a valued part of Angus’s community and economy. Moreover, through their skills and professionalism, they help to keep this entire country safe. I am glad therefore to have been assured on many occasions that RM Condor will remain an integral part of our defence capability.
RM Condor quite simply is good value for money, and I am pleased that this Government recognise that. Cynical scaremongering about the future of the base by some in the Scottish National party does nobody any good and serves only to cause unnecessary anxiety for service personnel and their families. It is important that 45 Commando continues to have the necessary facilities at RM Condor, and while there are ongoing discussions about the future of the base’s airfield, the review must be conducted in such a way that it does not detrimentally affect work at RM Condor. Currently the airfield offers training facilities for the in-house rifle range and an incredibly impressive indoor facility for urban combat drills that they built themselves inside one of the old aircraft carrier hangars on the airfield. It would be foolish to divest so much of the airfield that 45 Commando was unable to utilise those resources and had to travel to alternative ranges for training.
This question can and must be resolved in a way that works for RM Condor and Angus as a whole. I look forward to these upcoming developments in defence spending. I hope and expect that they will deliver for Angus and the United Kingdom as a whole and demonstrate that we can trust only a Conservative Government with the armed forces.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The scale of the cuts we have experienced in defence are genuinely endangering our ability and the Government’s ability to protect our nation.
I maintain the point that I made earlier. It is tremendously disappointing that the Secretary of State is not here to respond to the debate. I take the Minister’s point about the fact that the Secretary of State is meeting the Prime Minister. I am sure she is a busy woman and he is a busy man, but, given how much we read about how extensively the Secretary of State is supposed to be lobbying for defence spending, it would have been good if he had been here.
I have been in the position of being on the Front Bench and having people complain about the fact that I am the one responding. It is meant as no insult to the Minister. In my opinion, he might make a better Secretary of State than the one we have at the moment, but I do not mean to undermine his career by saying so. I would prefer it even more if my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) was the Secretary of State. I say again, it would have been good if the Secretary of State had been here.
I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon): it would be a tremendous shame if the Minister was forced into a position where he felt he had to resign because of the level of cuts to the Ministry of Defence. He would be a loss to the Government. I know how seriously he takes his position and what an agony it would be for him if he had to do so, so I hope he is not placed in that position.
The truth is that this Government have presided over the scale of cuts and over the failure of armed forces recruitment that we have seen. The Government have presided over huge cuts—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State’s arrival shows the power of my speeches. Not only have the Government broken their 2015 manifesto pledge to retain a standing Army of 82,000, but we continue to see more people leaving the Army than joining it, and under this Government military housing is in a disgraceful state.
The Government have announced numerous unfunded spending commitments, which are estimated by the National Audit Office to have left a £21 billion black hole, and they have achieved their commitment to continue spending 2% of GDP on defence by including things that would never previously have been included. I have to say—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who was previously on the Front Bench, would repeat this with feeling—that if any Labour Secretary of State for Defence had presided over such a record, the right-wing press would be demanding their head on a platter in a way that defied anything previously seen in the press.
The moment is arriving when the Government must decide what their story is. We are hearing that the country faces very significant new threats. The scale of the threat from Russia has grown to its greatest extent at any time since the cold war. Brexit means that a not insignificant element of our key partners’ defence response will take place through an institution that we are no longer a part of. There is an urgent need to scale up our cyber and hybrid warfare capabilities. We have observed the extent of Russia’s upscaling of its capabilities, and we need to take action to ensure that we are responding. We are also seeing regular incursions by Russian aircraft and submarines into UK space, and an increasingly aggressive posture by Russia and Putin. If all those things are true—I believe they are, and we have heard from credible sources that they are—it is unconscionable for defence spending to have such a low priority in the apparent strategic approach of the wider Government.
As my hon. Friend has said, the roots of the current defence spending crisis lie in the disastrous 2010 SDSR, and the Government must be held to account for their performance. The real-terms funding cut in the departmental expenditure limit since 2010 is almost £10 billion. As my colleagues have said, this is an extraordinary amount out of a budget that was about £40 billion back in 2010, and this at a time when inflation in defence equipment and skill shortages have grown substantially. It is therefore impossible to take seriously the suggestion that the Prime Minister is presiding over a Government who have our nation’s future safe in their hands.
I have long feared that the announcements made in the 2015 SDSR on future defence procurement bore no relation to the budgets set for it. I thought that the 2015 SDSR was a considerable improvement on what had gone before—that may be setting a low bar, but it was an improvement—and it is important to recognise that. However, if the budgets from the Treasury for the Ministry of Defence do not bear any relationship to what is promised, it is incumbent on all of us to highlight that. The NAO figures showing a £21 billion black hole demonstrate that I was right to be suspicious.
The Government should come clean. I am absolutely calling on the Government to bring forward more money, but if they are not going to do that—if the Treasury is not willing to come up with the amount required to fill the black hole—the Government must be candid with Parliament and with the people about which of the spending commitments made in the SDSR are not going to happen.
The Government will get so far in bridging the gap by putting off decisions and allowing timescales to slide, such as with the commitment on the Type 26s. There is now a commitment—or a theoretical commitment—on Type 31s, but I suspect the actual development of the frigate will continue to be pushed into the long grass. Each of these delays both undermines the ability of our armed forces to respond and increases the demand on the servicemen and women on the existing platforms.
I am immensely proud of the UK’s commitment to the aircraft carriers. They are a piece of collateral that the whole nation should take pride in. It was a really important announcement—initially by the previous Labour Government and subsequently by the coalition Government —to commission and then to build them. However, the scale of the current cuts calls into question the amount of resources required by the aircraft carriers. In 2009-10, when the idea was initially put in place to go forward with the aircraft carriers, the Government were spending, in today’s terms, about £45 billion a year on the armed forces. With a Government who are now spending £35 billion, it is a different decision, and it has to be placed in the context of the scale of subsequent Government spending cuts to the MOD.
The Government appear to have a strategy of not going forward with more Type 26 frigates, but of having a greater number of Type 31s instead. That means we will have less capable ships, but they can be in more different places at the same time. As I have said, this calls into question the amount of resources—both financial resources and personnel—that the aircraft carriers will be consuming. Whether the Government would have commissioned two aircraft carriers if the scale of the subsequent cuts had been known about at the time is an important question.
I asked the Minister for the Armed Forces a parliamentary question about the scale of current recruitment and retention performance, and almost all the major arms of the Army lost more people last year than they recruited. The Royal Regiment of Artillery lost 170 more people than it recruited; the Royal Engineers, 130; the Royal Corps of Signals, 270; the infantry, 750; and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, 100. There was a similar picture for the reserves, which we were told would make up some of the deficit. In the Army future reserves, the Royal Engineers lost 50 more people than it recruited; the Royal Corps of Signals, 20; the Royal Logistic Corps, 200; and REME, 160. Right across the Army, more people have left the service than have been recruited.
This reduction is to an Army that is already significantly under the numbers promised in the Conservative party manifesto of 2015. I believe I am right in saying that a standing Army of 82,000 is no longer the policy of the Government, although they have never officially come out and said that. It is very clear that a significant commitment was made in the 2015 general election—it was a very popular commitment—and they should be held to account for delivering on it.
Soldier numbers in our Army, which were stable throughout the previous Labour Government—they actually went up during the last five years of the Labour Government—have fallen from 98,340 in 2010 to 73,870 now. It is interesting that while there has been a fall of 25% in the number of soldiers, there has been a fall of only 15% in the number of officers. It is an interesting development for a Government who pride themselves—or claim to pride themselves—on defending the frontline that we have seen a bigger decrease in the ranks than in the officer numbers, and that is significant.
There is clearly a significant funding element to the fall in Army numbers, but there are also a number of other reasons why they are in such a distressing state. Morale among members of our armed forces continues to be challenged both by the demands placed on them and by issues such as pay and pensions, the quality of housing and the number of times that they have to go repeatedly on different kinds of deployments because of the shortage in numbers.
There is also real fear among our armed forces regarding this place’s commitment to actually using the Army. Our 2013 debate about airstrikes in Syria, which was referred to a great deal in the response to the urgent question immediately before this debate, called into question this place’s commitment to keeping an Army and being willing to use it. I get a strong sense from my responsibilities on the armed forces parliamentary scheme that there are people in our Army who think it is legitimate to question what we in this place actually see as their role and our willingness to deploy them.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made a strong point about the outsourcing partner’s performance on recruitment and demanded that it step up or ship out. He did not quite put it like that—I am paraphrasing—but he was absolutely right. As I have said in previous debates—I do not apologise for saying so again—it would be beneficial if the Government published the number of people in each constituency who are recruited to the armed forces, so that we can take pride in our constituents. That would also enable us to hold to account the outsourcing company for its performance with regard not only to the overall numbers that it recruits, but to where it is recruiting them from and the extent to which it is achieving its aims.
I thank the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for introducing the debate. I say to the Minister and to the Secretary of State, who popped in but has popped out again—[Interruption.] I apologise: I expected him to be on the Front Bench. He has popped back, not popped out. I say to him that he can be absolutely certain that there is a real commitment among Members to strengthen his arm in his negotiations with the Treasury. We wish him every success and he can be absolutely certain that he will have our support if he is able to get from future spending reviews the resources that our armed forces need and deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Let us have the hon. and gallant Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are considering the way in which the Ministry of Defence spends its money, and I want to draw attention to an instance of the MOD spending money in a very unwise way. It is my belief that its funding of the Iraq Fatality Investigations unit is a misuse of MOD money—taxpayers’ money—that allows the unit to pursue soldiers and veterans in a vexatious and spurious manner, and is having a highly detrimental effect on the bond of trust that underpins the relationship between the Government and their soldiers. I call on the MOD to bring to an end its funding of the IFI unit.
I draw attention to the experience of a serving soldier and Iraq veteran, Major Robert Campbell, a decorated and injured soldier who has faced seven separate inquiries of one form or another into an historical incident involving the unfortunate death of an Iraqi teenager some 15 years ago. Major Campbell has been cleared and exonerated by all seven inquiries, the most recent of which concluded in December 2017. The service prosecuting authority decided that no charges should be brought. Some of the inquiries he had to endure also involved the now defunct and utterly diminished Iraq Historic Allegations Team, which brought about a series of inquiries driven by the discredited lawyer, Phil Shiner, who has now quite rightly been struck off.
Given the fact that the Government rightly acted to close IHAT, it is unfortunate that it seems to have been born again in the form of the Iraq Fatality Investigations unit. Such vexatious and spurious hounding of veterans and soldiers, with the use of taxpayers’ money, is entirely unacceptable and represents a betrayal of their commitment to their country.
Stephen Kerr
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for giving way; he is making a powerful speech. What effect does the persecution of those who have served our country in conflict have on the morale of our armed forces?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. It utterly diminishes the faith that our servicemen and women have in the Government’s commitment to minding soldiers’ backs. Soldiers deploy with the good faith that, no matter what, as long as they act honourably, the Government will back them up. Of course, soldiers expect to be held to the highest standard with regard to the law. That is the case with Major Robert Campbell and others. He has endured an inquiry into this historical allegation seven times over, and each time he has been exonerated. By great coincidence, just a few weeks ago he was awarded the Long Service and Good Conduct medal, and then he got a call to say—can you believe it?—that an eighth inquiry was under way. This situation must end.
I call on the Minister to tell the House in his concluding remarks how much the MOD spends on the Iraq Fatality Investigations unit; how many servicemen and women are undergoing investigation at this time; how many have been previously cleared of allegations against them; and what immediate steps the Department will take to bring about the end of the use of MOD money to pursue soldiers and veterans in this way.
The military thrives because there is an absolute bond of trust between those who serve and those who govern. If that is in any way undermined, it would be a huge dereliction of the Government’s duty to maintain that essential bond. I hope that the Government will act decisively, in the best interests of our soldiers, veterans, military community and our country as a whole.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on his introduction to the debate. I agree with him that it is important to secure more such opportunities to discuss defence and how it is financed.
I do not think that anyone who follows the defence world and the way that the MOD has conducted itself over the past few years would conclude that the situation is anything other than dire. It is fair to say that the new Secretary of State realises that as well. There is also, however, a collective sense of acute amnesia, certainly among those who were Government Members in 2010, about how we arrived at this position. It is clear that the mess that the defence budget is in today is a direct result of policies taken by the coalition Government and the present Conservative Government. Seven years of ill-thought-through, rushed cuts and, on occasion, very bad decisions are now coming home to roost. The new Defence Secretary has the unfortunate task of sorting it out—a task that I do not envy, to say the least. It is therefore worth recapping how we have arrived at this position.
The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said that these were not political decisions. They were political decisions that led directly to the mess we have today. To ignore that is to avoid the evidence and means that we will not learn lessons for the future for how we manage our nation’s defence. In 2010, the new Conservative-led coalition implemented a number of deep cuts to the armed forces. The right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the then Defence Secretary, justified them by claiming that the defence budget had a £38 billion black hole, which somehow meant that rash and direct action would have to be taken straightaway. No one knows how he arrived at £38 billion. I have asked Ministers in this House to explain it on numerous occasions. The NAO and the Defence Committee could not arrive at a £38 billion black hole either, but it was used in every debate as the reason why cuts to our defence budget had to be made.
The Government stopped using the figure after a while, when they realised they could not justify it. I think it came about from a clear misinterpretation of the 2009 NAO report on major projects started under the previous Labour Government. The report was a snapshot of cost increases in 2009 and related primarily to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, the A400M transport aircraft and the Astute submarine programme.
Mr Jones
It was a deliberate strategy, in the Cameron-Osborne Conservative party, to ignore the facts and spin—“If we keep saying it long enough, people will believe it.”
The 2009 NAO report said that if the equipment budget was not increased at all over 10 years, it might be possible to arrive at a figure of £36 billion. How did they then get an extra £2 billion? I think the then Defence Secretary just added some personnel revenue costs to get to the £38 billion figure. What the report actually said, however—this point was completely ignored—was that the scenario it envisaged, of the budget remaining constant in real terms over the 10-year period, would lead to a £6 billion funding gap, which could have been managed over that 10-year period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) is right. The impression was given to the public, and to everyone else who wanted to hear this spin, that the £38 billion had to be found in year straightaway. That was a clear fabrication. We know that, because when the current Chancellor became Defence Secretary, following the resignation of the right hon. Member for North Somerset after two years, he suddenly announced that the black hole had disappeared. I do not know whether he was auditioning for his current job as Chancellor, but the idea that it is possible to get rid of a £38 billion in-year black hole in the defence budget in just two years is complete nonsense.
The Conservative Government used that as a smokescreen to allow them to cut the defence budget, as part of the Chancellor’s austerity drive, by 16%. The effect of that has been some of the decisions referred to earlier on, including the scrapping of capability such as Nimrod. Making people compulsorily redundant in our armed forces was completely inexcusable. Certainly, if the Government I was a member of had done that when I was a Defence Minister, we would have been rightly decried by the people who are always arguing for defence. Those decisions have had an impact on what is happening today. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) referred to the increased expenditure on the Trident programme. The £1.2 billion to £1.4 billion in additional costs happened because that decision was delayed. The deal done by the then Prime Minister David Cameron to get the Liberal Democrats on board in coalition delayed the programme, which built in costs.
Mr Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is nodding. He and I kept raising that and asking why that decision had not been made. The costs arriving now are because of the decisions taken by the coalition Government. I accept all that has been said about increased defence expenditure, but we cannot get away from the core decisions that have led to the problems we have today.
The 2015 pre-Brexit strategic defence and security review announced an additional £24.4 billion spending on new equipment. Some of that, for example on the P-8, was to fill the gap the Government created in 2010 with a hasty decision to scrap the Nimrod. Reference was made earlier to the civil service making decisions. I am sorry, but it was not civil servants or generals making those decisions; it was Ministers making these decisions, including the right hon. Member for North Somerset and the current Chancellor, when he was Defence Secretary. They decided to reduce the size of the Army to 82,000. I asked a retired senior general, “Who came up with the figure of 82,000 for our armed forces?” He scratched his head and said, “We were just told that that was what the figure was going to be to fit the cash envelope.” We then had the construct of Army 2020, which is a complete political cover, to try to give the impression that we are going to keep the Army at nearly 100,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend very eloquently outlined in her contribution to the debate, that is not only not producing the additional personnel required, but is actually costing more than if we had not done that in the first place.
Another point about the 2015 review is that, again, hasty decisions were taken in ordering the P-8. There is a gap, created by this Government, in maritime patrol aircraft. The P-8 was to be bought off the shelf—the Apache contract was announced at the same time—from the United States. That was pre Brexit. The added costs in foreign currency exchange are now creating pressures on the defence budget, and that is before we look at the effect on the economic and industrial base of our country. It may seem an easy option to buy off the shelf from the United States, but that lets our own industrial base decline, and that is what is happening. I have not yet seen any meaningful commitment by the contractors, Boeing, to create real jobs in the UK. What angers me is that if it was the other way around and we were selling equipment to the United States, we would be unable to do so without a clear commitment to jobs and investment in United States industry. That is where the MOD woefully and shamefully let down the British economy.
Mrs Moon
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that during a visit to the Boeing factory in Charleston three weeks ago, I asked Boeing whether it regretted taking action against Bombardier and almost damaging and destroying the economy of Northern Ireland. Its response was, “We’re American, it’s what we do. It’s America first, second and third.” That is the sort of company that we were putting our trust in.
Mr Jones
It is. As an example, we have to look only at the sale of Airbus in the United States market. As part of that deal, it had to build a plant in Alabama, I think. We have the mindset in this country that somehow the ticket price looks cheap, but we are not thinking about the loss in tax revenue going back to the Exchequer and the fact that the defence industrial base is suffering.
Some decisions in 2015 were very strange. The Navy has been mentioned, and I accept that naval platforms are far more capable than they were 10 or 20—and certainly 50—years ago, but people are fixated on the number of hulls. The Government came up with the novel idea of having a cheap alternative through the Type 31e. This was literally just to deal with the idea that we have a certain number of hulls. I asked what the Type 31e is capable of doing. It cannot do NATO tasks and it is not clear what weaponry will go on it. Lo and behold, when I looked at the Ministry of Defence budget, I saw that there was no budget line for it at all—it has a £1.3 billion price tag on it—so again, how will it be paid for?
The Secretary of State needs to look not just at asking for more money, which the budget clearly needs, but at some of the ill-thought-out decisions. Take the P-8, for example. Buying off the shelf from the United States might look like a simple solution, but as I understand it, sonar buoys and missiles cannot be fired from the P-8 as it is configured, so we will have to redevelop the programme, adding more costs in. This is about looking at whether we have to revisit some decisions and take things out of the budget. I think that will be the case if we are to fit the budgets,
The issue of numbers is always contentious. When we were in government, I remember the hue and cry from the Conservative Front-Bench team—the right hon. Member for New Forest East was part of it—when we froze training days for the Territorial Army. The cost was £20 million. From looking at the headlines and at the way some Conservative politicians were going on, one would have thought that the world had stopped. If a Labour Government had slashed the defence budget by 16% and sacked people or made them redundant, as this Government have, they clearly would have been condemned.
It is the same old story. I understand the point that the right hon. Member for New Forest East made about arguing for defence—I have argued consistently for it in this House—but these are political decisions. When I was in the Ministry of Defence in 2010, I did not hear Conservative politicians stand up and say, “No, we do not need extra expenditure.” We were being condemned because we were not spending enough. In 2010, I did not see a single poster or anything in the Conservative manifesto saying, “We are going to slash the defence budget by 16%,” but these are the real facts and we cannot ignore them.
Let me turn to recruitment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend touched upon. I do not like to say, “I told you so,” but the decision on the Capita contract for recruitment was criticised at the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling raised complaints, asking why armed forces personnel were being taken out of recruitment centres and why such centres were being closed in some areas. The position we find ourselves in now was bound to happen. We have heard some of the stories. The recruitment process is not only taking a year, but given the rate at which people are being failed, it is no wonder the Government are not meeting the targets. It is now time to revisit the contract and put uniformed personnel back into recruitment centres. The Capita contract should be scrapped, because it is completely failing to deliver what was outlined.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend talked eloquently about reservists. It is time to rethink Army 2020. It was never going to work. It was political cover so that when the Government were cutting the Army to 82,000, they could still give the impression that they had an Army of more than 100,000. The issues my hon. Friend raised are not the only concern. I have never had an answer to the question about how we get formed units. How do we get training whereby regulars and reserves can train side by side to go on operations? I have not seen any evidence that that is happening in practice. If, in addition, it is costing what my hon. Friend says it is, it might be time to revisit it and see whether those resources can be put elsewhere. Let us come back to the suggestion that Ministers were asking advice from the Army about this. They were not; it was a political decision imposed on the Army.
Mr Francois
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from recruitment, may I ask whether he accepts that the other main problem with Army recruitment is the very large number of people who are being failed on medical grounds, often for very minor medical ailments that date back to their childhood? For instance, in the year to February 2017, some 10,600 people—both regular and reserves—who wanted to join the Army were told, “No, you cannot join on medical grounds.” At the same time, the regular Army was 3,000 recruits short. Does he believe that the MOD should look at that area again?
Mr Jones
That situation was predictable when the system was set up. What is worse, I have heard stories about young people who have nearly got to the end of the selection process but do not get called back in, but then get a telephone call from some Capita call centre saying, “I’m sorry, you’ve failed. That is it.” I am sorry, but that is not the way to treat people who have tried to join the armed forces.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) makes a good point. When we had senior non-commissioned officers stationed in recruitment offices, they could work out how to handle the recruits and use their breadth of experience to explain what life in the armed forces is like. This situation could have been avoided. Unless something has changed radically in the last few years with injuries, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I had case in which someone had a childhood knee injury. That person had to wait six months for a decision and then the knee injury was flagged up as the reason why he could not join the armed forces. That cannot be acceptable.
Mr Sweeney
To give a personal example, I joined the Territorial Army back in 2006 with a good friend, who went on to serve in Afghanistan. He left the reserves and when he sought to rejoin, he was disqualified on medical grounds. That is someone who had actually served in Afghanistan and who did not have any obvious injuries.
Mr Francois
I am sorry to hammer the nail, but this is very important, and we have the Secretary of State on the Front Bench at the moment to hear this. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases, people have been failed and prevented from joining the Army for relatively minor issues such as asthma? Paula Radcliffe and Sir Chris Hoy would have failed on the same grounds.
Mr Jones
That prompts the question, “How are the tests being done, what criteria are being used and how are they being interpreted?” The problem is partly that if we have a civilianised and, as it has been described to me, bureaucratic, tick-box process, common sense does not kick in, and perhaps common sense is what we need as well.
The problem is that we need to look at the size of our armed forces from a strategic point of view. What do we actually need? A decision was taken suddenly that the answer was 82,000—the Army was told that that is what it would get because the budget required it—but we need to look at the strategic needs of our armed forces. Members of the Royal Navy are under severe pressure in terms of deployment. With smaller numbers, there is a bigger turnover of individuals. In addition, people are doing constant back-to-back tours, which is not good for morale or family life. If that is happening, the chances of people staying long term will clearly be affected.
We need to look at our Navy. The idea that we have a Navy that cannot deploy and that we have ships that are laid up—my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said that we are not deploying ships—is a damning indictment. The sight this week of HMS Mersey, an offshore patrol vessel, escorting three Russian vessels through the English channel summed it up in one. We need to think seriously about what we need. The hon. Member for Gainsborough said that we are a maritime nation, and that it is about not just kit, but people.
Vernon Coaker
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we do exactly what he says, we will be in a ludicrous position. We will be saying, “To facilitate scrapping Albion and Bulwark, we will modify our aircraft carriers,” which takes us into the realms of never-never land. What does that mean? We are not going to do a beach landing from an aircraft carrier. We might have a few more helicopters or a dry dock facility, but the idea of carrying out an amphibious landing from an aircraft carrier belies the point of having amphibious craft, which is to land on beaches and lay marines off on them.
Mr Jones
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but that goes to the point—this was the problem back in 2010—of the Treasury being let in the door of the MOD, and being in control and in the driving seat. When I was a Minister, I chaired the finance group in the MOD when we were looking for savings and dealing with the Treasury. I know exactly what Ministers are dealing with. The Treasury does not understand the value of our armed forces and how they operate. I am glad that the Secretary of State seems to have wrestled control of that element back. If our defence policy is determined by Treasury figures, we will have very strange decisions that will not match strategic needs.
We keep hearing from the Government that they are meeting the NATO 2%. As someone who is committed to NATO and who supports it—I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—I can say that that is an academic argument. It is important in that we are trying to get people to spend a minimum of 2%, but it is also important to look at what our NATO partners spend that 2% on. It is clear that the Government have rejigged the figures. I am not saying that they have done something illegal or anything like that, but in 2015, they changed how defence spending was calculated. War pensions of £820 million were included; assessments of contributions to UN peacekeeping of £400 million were included; and the pensions of retired military personnel, which was another £200 million, were included. The thick end of £1 billion of that 2% is made up of things that the hardiest defender of Government policy would not think were frontline defence commitments.
It is about being realistic. It would be fine if we were spending only 1.8% on defence but spending it on the right things. There is a case for increasing the defence budget—that argument was made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling—but we need to do it by setting strategic objectives that show why we need more than we are spending. There is also an onus on the MOD to ensure that what it is spending is not only efficient, but provides value for money for the taxpayer.
All hon. Members who have contributed to this debate have said that our armed forces are universally and rightly held in the highest regard. I agree, but it is not just national sentiment; it is because they are vital for our nation’s security and because they define our place in the world. I do not think for one minute that the new Secretary of State or his ministerial team lack commitment to the armed forces—they are all committed to defence and want to do the best for our armed forces, so I wish them well in the battle they will have with the Treasury—but without new money or a radical rethink about the commitments we ask our armed forces to fulfil, I fear for our forces’ future, and more importantly for Britain’s place in the world.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on securing it in this year’s series of debates on estimates. They have long been strong champions of our armed forces and are rightly proud of Britain’s history of defence.
That pride is not misplaced. This country has the fifth-largest defence budget in the world. I have the honour of representing two military bases in my constituency —Kinloss barracks and RAF Lossiemouth. Moray has a long history of service, and the armed forces are intertwined in our local communities. In the last year alone, servicemen and women from the two bases in Moray have served in South Sudan, the Falkland Islands and Romania, and in Cyprus as part of the international efforts against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. Scotland and indeed Moray have long benefited from the UK’s defence budget, and the defence industry is one of Scotland’s great success stories.
I am delighted that, in the numbers we are discussing, we can see that investment will continue to increase. Defence spending is due to rise by 3% in real terms over the next year, which is an increase of more than £1 billion. We will feel that investment directly in Moray. The arrival of nine P-8 Poseidon aircraft at Lossiemouth will mean 400 extra jobs and investment of £400 million. There can be no doubt that the Government remain strong on their commitment to the defence of our country. I look forward to seeing the positive impact that that new capability will bring to Moray.
On Thursday, I look forward to welcoming the Secretary of State for Defence to the official turf-cutting ceremony for the new Poseidon strategic facility at RAF Lossiemouth. I also commend the work he has embarked on since taking up his position. His recently announced defence modernisation programme provides the perfect opportunity to assess our spending. I know that he will not shy away from the difficult decisions that need to be taken to safeguard the future of our world-class armed forces.
Douglas Ross
If there is a job going, I will take it.
I should like to touch briefly on an extremely pertinent issue currently affecting MOD personnel—serving and civilian—based in Scotland. The budget confirmed by the SNP Government last week raises taxes for anyone earning more than £33,000 in Scotland. It will also mean that someone serving in Scotland at the same rank and doing the same job as someone in England will pay more tax if they earn more than just £26,000. That is simply unfair and unacceptable. To put that in perspective, everyone above the rank of lance corporal will pay more in Scotland, as will every single Royal Navy officer. That is an attack on our hard-working service personnel and a kick in the teeth for all those who have chosen to serve our country. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their communications—they met my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) and I to discuss the issue. I make another plea on behalf of MOD personnel in Scotland. The “Nat tax” is unfair and cannot be allowed to stand, and I call on the UK Government to use the powers available to them to mitigate the worst effects of that ill-thought-through tax rise.
We are a military nation, and Scotland is proud to play its part in that. Moray is a fantastic example of what Government investment in defence looks like, and we will continue to play our part in the defence of our nation and our interests around the world. Under this Government, and with a rising defence budget next year, I have no doubt that Lossiemouth, Kinloss, and our capabilities around the globe will continue to go from strength to strength.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Mr Speaker. Let me also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for their efforts in securing the debate, and for their persistent scrutiny of the Government on defence matters, which has been of long-standing note in the House.
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), whose constituency is the home of the Royal Air Force in Scotland—although, sadly, it has been much diminished since only a few years ago, when Kinloss was home to the RAF’s fleet of marine patrol aircraft. That yawning capability gap is just one of the many litanies of defence cuts that we have seen in the past few years, so I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s glowing review of the trajectory of British defence capability in recent years. That speech aside, however, I have been struck by the consistent level of shock and dismay expressed about the extent of the reduction in Britain’s defence capabilities.
It is an established fact that there has been a steady decline in defence spending as a percentage of GDP. It has fallen from 2.4% in 2011 to 1.9% in 2016. Not only has it declined every year under the present Government, but it is lower than it was in any year under the last Labour Government, which rather puts paid to the mythology about Labour’s defence record. Those figures, however—damning as they are of the Government’s real commitment—belie the true criticality of the situation. A recently published letter from former defence chiefs described the 2% target as “an accounting deception”, and added:
“Most analysts…agree core defence expenditure for hard military power is well below 2%.”
As has already been pointed out today, the inclusion of pension liabilities and other elements that were previously excluded from core defence spending suggests that what we are truly spending is much less than 2%. I welcome the commitment by the Secretary of State to making the 2% a floor rather than a target, and I hope that we can reboot our spending to increase the percentage substantially in the longer term.
I intend to stick to some essential points to which I hope the Minister will respond. Not only is defence spending well below the 2% minimum target, but its effective purchasing power is being eroded year on year. The defence inflation rate is running well above the national rate. In 2015-16 the defence inflation rate was 3.9%, the highest rate since 2010, while the national GDP deflator was just 0.8%. We only know that because the Ministry of Defence calculates the figures in conjunction with the Treasury, but, as the defence analyst Francis Tusa recently noted, the MOD and the Treasury stopped calculating them last year, so the visibility of the real purchasing power of defence has now been lost. We must recover that visibility as a matter of urgency, because it is the only way in which we can really scrutinise the trajectory of defence purchasing power. I hope that the Secretary of State will commit himself to discussions with the Treasury about the reinstatement of the calculation, because it is vital for us to have the information in order to plan ahead.
In recent months the Army has been cut by a fifth, wages have been frozen for a sustained period, and—as we heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough—no Royal Navy ships were on patrol in international waters over Christmas, which is shocking and unheard of in recent history. All that can be attributed to the funding gap of £21 billion in the equipment programme, which shows how underfunded that programme is, and reveals the gap in defence spending overall.
I referred earlier to the relentless decline in defence spending in recent years. It peaked at £45 billion in real terms in 2009-10, the last year of the Labour Government. Although it has been suggested today that there is currently a £10 billion gap, I calculate that if the trajectory of an average of, say, 1.7% had been maintained rather than cut, we would have seen real-terms spending of £53 billion by 2020 rather than the £37 billion that has been projected. According to my calculation, the real funding gap is £16 billion rather than £10 billion. Members may feel free to correct me, but I believe that if we extrapolate the trend of defence spending before the cuts started in 2010, we see substantially more defence spending. Perhaps that shows just how critical the situation is, and demonstrates the reality of the root cause of the cuts.
The present position is both absurd and depressing. We know what the solutions are, and addressing them is a matter of political will. The key themes of the debate have concerned the chronic underfunding of defence, and the failure to recognise the uniqueness of defence industrial capability and understand how we can get the most out of it. The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked whether we were getting the bang for our buck that we ought to be getting, and what capability we received per pound in comparison with our peer countries around the world. That is a critical question, and I think that we, as a country, should investigate it. How can we secure maximum capability? I suggest that we can largely blame the way in which defence is financed.
When I was in the shipbuilding industry, we designed and built complex warships such as Type 26 frigates. We were massively constrained by the arbitrary limits placed on capital expenditure. Like many other Members, I take issue with that. When a programme of that kind is being commissioned—possibly the most complex and the largest-scale defence equipment programme, indeed the largest-scale engineering programme, undertaken anywhere in the world—imposing of arbitrary annual limits on spending is ridiculous. We ought to finance such programmes in the same way as we finance other critical national infrastructure programmes, such as HS2, Crossrail and the Olympic games.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that when equipment such as ships is being ordered, the payback to the Exchequer in tax should be taken into account and the jobs should not be exported?
Mr Sweeney
Absolutely. My hon. Friend has made an excellent and salient point. He and I are both members of the all-party parliamentary group on shipbuilding and ship repair, which is currently undertaking a study of that issue. According to another study, conducted by the Fraser of Allander Institute at the University of Strathclyde, the overall benefit to the UK economy per annum from the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde alone is £366 million a year, in purely multiplier effects. As for the idea that we can competitively tender programmes overseas, we are losing the opportunity of industrial benefit as well. We are not just talking about the loss of core capabilities; we are talking about the loss of revenue and economic potential for our country.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I know that the hon. Gentleman has no intention of being churlish or unhelpful. He will, I am sure, acknowledge that having a shipbuilding strategy, together with a maritime growth strategy, is a particular feature of this Government, which marks them out from their predecessors of all political persuasions.
Mr Sweeney
I do not accept that point. It was a Labour Government who, in 2005, introduced the first defence industrial strategy, which defined a far more robust way of delivering shipbuilding capability in the UK. It defined key industrial capabilities, and that is sorely lacking from the Government’s current shipbuilding strategy. I hope that there will be some improvement as a result of the ongoing discussions on the matter.
Mr Sweeney
That may have been a discrete maritime growth strategy, but the overall defence industrial strategy encompassed maritime aspects. However, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s efforts in that regard, and I hope that we can work constructively to improve the strategy in the manner that I suggested.
The funding of large-scale equipment programmes must be revisited as a matter of urgency, because it is not sustainable. The annual limits on key programmes that are multi-generational cannot be allowed to continue. When we were looking at the programme for the construction of the Type 26, we wanted to invest potentially half a billion pounds in reinvigorating the infrastructure that would support it, but because of the arbitrary in-year spending profile we could not invest in the infrastructure and facilities that would have benefited the programme throughout its life cycle, and we therefore lost that long-term benefit. For the sake of short-term savings, we are losing long-term efficiency in the generation of defence capability. That may be an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Gainsborough about whether we were receiving the maximum benefit. Perhaps if we sow the seeds of the maximum capability at the start of programmes, we will reap the benefits of efficiencies through the manufactures that result from those highly complex programmes.
Defence inflation and the need to pump-prime programmes at the start to ensure that they meet world-class standards are just a couple of the issues that we need to challenge if we are to get the most out of our industrial capability. I hope that the Secretary of State will take those comments on board.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
During this debate, the subject of how much we should spend on defence and what we should be spending on has taken up a lot of the time, as is only right in an estimates day debate. I want to take this opportunity to put on record my agreement with the sentiments expressed by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), and the hon. Members for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney). Simply put, I agree that more needs to be spent on the defence of our nation, and that the continued speculation about cuts to capability and manpower not only weakens us in the eyes of our allies, but does untold grievous damage to the morale of our men and women serving today. I also want to mention something that has not been touched on this afternoon. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and others for their tireless campaign to get more help and investment into mental health support for serving personnel, and to the MOD for the announcement this weekend of the creation of the new helpline operated by Combat Stress.
Today, however, I want to raise something different, which I estimate would cost the UK Government very little money at all. All Members are aware of the current problems in recruitment to the armed forces. I know that a great deal of time and effort is going into revamping and modernising the recruitment process and the new recruitment campaign. However, there is one group of people that, apart from in the rarest of circumstances, is very unlikely to be found in the ranks of the Army, the Navy or the Air Force: subjects from the British overseas territories. These territories are British by choice and their residents are British subjects. However, despite being loyal citizens and holders of a British passport, and being fit and able and willing, individuals are still ineligible to serve in the armed forces of this country unless they have resided on the British mainland for five whole years.
Let us put that into perspective. That means that an 18-year-old Falklander or Gibraltarian who wanted, like his compatriots on these islands, to have a rewarding career in the armed forces would be forced to move to the UK mainland and live, and presumably work, here until the age of 23 before being eligible to join up. Some might argue that, for example, the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and the Falklands Island Defence Force give the chance for rewarding careers in the armed forces for citizens of overseas territories, but if they wanted to join the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Air Force or any regiment in the regular British Army they would be prevented from doing so for five whole years simply by virtue of not residing in these islands long enough. I put it to the House that that is not only daft, but is borderline discriminatory, and it is doing our loyal subjects in our overseas territories a huge disservice, and denying our armed forces willing volunteers at a time when we are struggling to fill the books.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I have no problem with it, but it was his own Government when they came into office in 2010 who turned off the pipeline of recruits from the Commonwealth. If he wants to increase the numbers and “fill the books”, as he said, there is an easy option in terms of Commonwealth recruits.
Andrew Bowie
I agree. That was a decision of my party and the previous coalition Government, and I am taking action on it with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard); he asked me to join him in attempting to change the situation, and I was only too keen to assist.
This is simply an unfair situation, so in late November the hon. Gentleman and I wrote to the Home Secretary expressing our hope that something might be done to arrest this wrong. We received a reply from the MOD, which was welcome of course, saying it could not do anything as this was a Home Office policy. We knew that, which is why we sent the letter to the Home Office. It obviously feels it has enough on its plate to be dealing with just now, which is understandable, but the fact is that this is not a tricky issue to solve; it requires a minor tweak, and it has precedent. Until 2006, citizens of British overseas territories had to pay “overseas” fees at British universities. In 2007, however, due to the fact that overseas territories do not have their own higher education institutions, the Government brought in legislation equalising the levels of tuition fees, so that now at British higher education institutions a student from Stanley will pay no more than a student from Southampton.
Surely it is possible to do something similar for those young people who want to serve their country in the finest armed forces in the world. In this 100th anniversary of the end of the first world war, a conflict that saw thousands of young men from across the then empire volunteer to fight for this country—76 from the Falkland Islands alone—we should do honour to those who fought under our flag by righting this wrong.
We have heard many times this year that Britain is charting a new course in the world, re-establishing relations with allies old and friends new. What better signal to send to the outside world that this truly is a “global Britain” than granting citizens of our overseas territories the same rights as citizens living on these islands? What better way of honouring the commitment to this country of citizens of our overseas territories throughout the years than by removing this residency requirement and allowing British subjects, wherever in our global family they reside, to serve without restriction in the armed forces of this country?
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and to congratulate the Members who have brought this debate forward. I find myself in the happy position of agreeing with much of what I have heard.
The armed forces of our country have been engaged in continuous operations for the last couple of decades, yet at the same time—particularly in the last seven to eight years—we have been dealing with a sustained programme of deficit reduction. That has not been mentioned in this debate in connection with the financing of our armed forces. The stress and strain that this has placed on our military is manifest as we ask them not only to do more in the world, but to do a more varied set of tasks while managing with fewer resources. This asks a lot of the men and women who wear the Queen’s uniform, but they wear it with commitment and pride, which is worthy of our respect. They put themselves on a path of service that puts them in harm’s way—sometimes in deadly harm’s way—on our behalf, and we should not forget that.
However, we should have gratitude not only to the men and women of our armed forces, but to those who support them in the supply chain. I am proud to have visited, and spent time with, the men and women who work at the Babcock military vehicle and armament repair facility at Forthside in Stirling. They told me their stories of deployment alongside our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are, in their way, as heroic and dedicated to the cause of defending our United Kingdom as the enlisted men and women, and their sacrifice and work is worthy of our celebration. These contractors and suppliers who support our military in theatre are a vital cog in the machine of our defences. It is one of our jobs in this Parliament to ensure that our military is well served by these contractors. The MOD would do well to remember its role as the customer and better leverage its authority as a customer with these contractors. I believe that there is room for improvement in that area in terms of value of money.
At present, there is a threat hanging over the future of vehicle and armament repairs in Scotland. I hope that Ministers will take the opportunity provided by this debate to confirm that the MOD expects such repairs to be carried out in Scotland in future. I very much regret that as things stand I appear to have failed to convince the MOD to exercise its voice of customer with Babcock and to site the mobile defence support group unit for Scotland in my constituency. That is a wrong decision, especially given the calibre of the highly skilled and extremely loyal workforce, whose support of our armed forces included, as I have said, regular and repeated tours of duty in war zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq. These workers are my constituents and I believe they deserve better from the MOD.
We cannot go on asking our armed forces to have the level and reach of the operational commitments we lay on them and expect of them while continuing to cut back on the resources available to them. I have a simple but effective slogan to summarise my position and that of a great many other Members across the House: no more cuts.
I turn to other matters. We should be very wary of Russia. I have a strong feeling for Russia, as you might know, Mr Deputy Speaker, because my son Luke, who is a constituent of yours, served two years in Novosibirsk in Siberia as a voluntary representative of our church. Over the two years he was there, he became very fluent in Russian and became a great lover of all things Russian, in particular the people of Russia. He has shared his enthusiasm for Russia with all his family, including me, and I have had the opportunity to experience the warmth and hospitality of the Russian people myself. However, the issue of Russian nationalism is a different story, as it is with the nationalism that has emerged all around the world. Nationalism is a destructive force that divides people and pits ethnicities and national identities against one another. Fundamentally, it is a poisonous ideology wherever it is found, and although it is often disguised in modern times, it is still a threat to our way of life and to the security and peace of the world. We must be ready to meet nationalism head on, to challenge it and to defend its victims.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, does he support ending the Olympics, which are a competition between nations? There is a bit of nationalism there. End the Olympics!
Stephen Kerr
There is a great difference between nationalism and patriotism, which is far more wholesome. It is no mistake that the leader of the Scottish National party herself has said that she very much regrets the fact that the word “national” is to be found in the SNP’s party name. But I am not here to talk about the SNP, disappointed though its Members will be to hear that. I urge Ministers across Government to take seriously the direct warning by General Sir Nick Carter that Russia poses a major threat that the UK would struggle to confront without an increase in defence spending.
I also want to mention recruitment. I believe that subcontracting recruitment to a civilian business was not a good decision. Such recruitment cannot be determined by someone working with a spreadsheet, and I seriously doubt that any private company has what it takes to function as an adequate recruitment agent for the British armed forces.
Housing for our armed forces is also an issue. Some of the anecdotal stories shared with me about living conditions for service families are, quite frankly, nothing less than shameful. However, that is too broad an issue to be covered in the time available tonight.
We also need to be sure that our troops have the right equipment at the right time. There is a black hole in the budget, as has been admitted. We have laid orders for equipment that we do not have the money to pay for. If we are not careful—I say this as a member of the Select Committee investigating Carillion—we will find ourselves in a situation of robbing Peter to pay Paul that will become a vicious circle, and we all know where that will lead to.
Vernon Coaker
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the difficulties that we can get into when we rob Peter to pay Paul. The Defence Secretary recently told the Defence Committee, in discussing the £300 million needed to support the development of the at-sea nuclear deterrent and the critically important Dreadnought programme:
“We have had to make sacrifices elsewhere in order to ensure that the programme keeps going”.
That is what this debate has been all about, and the hon. Gentleman is right to make that point.
Stephen Kerr
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my colleague on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, for making that point.
In regard to capabilities, I very much regret the fact that the Royal Navy does not have the number of surface vessels that it requires to send both our aircraft carriers to sea at the same time with the prerequisite level of air and submarine protection. I lay that before the House as an example of the capability issues that we face. We further need to be sure that we are meeting the needs of modern warfare, as has been mentioned several times. The UK is vulnerable to cyber-attack, which presents a clear and present danger in terms of the peer-to-peer threat that we are living under.
Addressing these issues will require resources and a new range of skills for defence and for counter- attack. That is why I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement a few weeks ago of the defence modernisation programme review. It seems to me that this review came about because he was faced with a choice between two sets of unpalatable cuts. Our armed forces are not only an emblem of our national pride that symbolises our national values; they are also a vital tool to project British values across the world. I believe, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, that no Conservative Secretary of State for Defence should contemplate undermining our defences further with more cuts. We must give our armed forces the reassurance and the resources that they need to do the job, and an increase in the defence budget should be forthcoming.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
It normally falls to the Scottish National party to break the consensual mood of these debates, but I fear that the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) has somewhat jumped our gun in that respect. Some of what he had to say was useful, but I will take no lectures on patriotism from a party that is presiding over the housing crisis that he describes, the recruitment crisis that he describes, or indeed the morale crisis that has been adumbrated by so many Members tonight. It takes a bit more than jumping on a tank with a Union Jack to be taken seriously on these issues.
Returning to the consensual points, however, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and congratulate him on bringing forward this estimates debate. He eloquently highlighted the miasma of despair that hangs over the finances in the Ministry of Defence, just as we have done fairly frequently in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall. I half-joked with the Government Whip earlier that the speech I am about to make was the same one I have been making for the past five months—[Interruption.] I have no intention of sitting down! I mean no disrespect to the colleagues who also take part in these debates, but much of what has been said this afternoon and this evening has been said before. And no doubt the response will be the same. We will be told that we have to wait for the review of the new defence modernisation programme, and that is something that we look forward to engaging in.
In one of my sadder moments, one night when I was suffering from insomnia, I was looking for something to listen to on Radio 4 when I came across a programme from 2011 featuring an interview with the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who was the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee at the time. It was a programme on defence procurement. Anyone listening to that programme tonight—I am sure that many Members will want to go and do just that when they leave the Chamber—would be forgiven for thinking that that interview was conducted last week. So dreadful is the state and condition of defence financing that we are repeating the same problems over and over again. I genuinely want to make a contribution that offers an alternative to the way in which the financing is done, so that we can avoid the shambles that the National Audit Office pointed out only a couple of weeks ago. I will return to that in a moment.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Other hon. Members have raised the point—I think it is worth repeating, and I know that Ministers will hear it with some sympathy—that when it comes to defence spending, the housing that is provided for service personnel and particularly for their families is of critical importance. A number of my constituents have approached me about the housing conditions in Leuchars, and I hope that my hon. Friend will urge the Minister to look into this to ensure that military bases are as family-friendly as possible.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I am quite confident that the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s point, and that he will do just that. I shall go on to talk about the equipment plan report, but I think another National Audit Office report came out the day before that one, which covered the Annington deal on military housing. Admittedly, that does not affect Scotland, but the report states that if that deal had not been signed by the Conservative Government in, I think, 1996, the taxpayer could have saved some £4 billion. We could undoubtedly have had better military housing as a result.
I want to offer an alternative to the financing model, to which I have alluded in the past. The model that is used in Sweden and Denmark involves longer projections for funding and reaching defence agreements that last more than just 12 months. The Danish model, which admittedly is imperfect, has a defence agreement that involves all the political parties. The heat of the politics is taken out of the agreement, allowing the Government to sign up to a funding model lasting somewhere between five and six years, so that even when there is a change of Government, the model can still be adhered to. Obviously, there are caveats, such as that if the Parliament chooses to diverge from the plan, it ultimately has the power to do so, but it means that the Government are not constantly chasing their tail. I would encourage hon. Members who regularly attend these debates to consider that model, which we are certainly keen to see the Government explore.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
My hon. Friend makes a prescient point. At the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy today, the experts were recommending the Danish model as something that the UK should follow, and I am sure that the Ministers are listening to that point.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would hope that such a model could avoid some of the incredibly alarming passages in the NAO report, which have been highlighted by many right hon. and hon. Members. There is a funding hole in the equipment plan of up to £20 billion. To make that clear, that means that we cannot afford to buy the equipment we say we need in order to keep us safe.
I give all the weight I can to the Ministry of Defence in trying to get it the money that it needs—if not just to stand still, then certainly to move forward—but I do have some criticisms of how the Department has managed to get into this position. Why were the exchange rate projections so badly out—by up to a quarter in some cases?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I understand that that was what caused it, but how did the MOD manage to get the calculations so badly wrong? When there is a funding hole of £20 billion just in the MOD’s equipment spending—before we get to estates, personnel and all the rest of it—why is no one being hauled over the coals? I cannot think of another Minister or Department that would be allowed to get away with that, but it is due to a fundamental problem in how this Government, this Parliament and Governments over many years have decided to fund defence. It needs radical change. Even if the solution that we think might be helpful is not the perfect solution, something has to give, because the situation is unsustainable. The NAO is clear that the result is that projects must be cancelled, delayed or scaled back. I therefore ask the Minister to make it clear to the House which projects are to be cancelled, delayed or scaled back. Can we have a guarantee that not a single project in Scotland will be cancelled, delayed or scaled back, because that is the road that the NAO says the UK Government is heading down?
The situation adumbrates the need for a new SDSR—one that takes account of the change in currency fluctuations and of the fact that Britain will no longer be in the European Union. Our current security policy is based on our being members of the EU, so we need a new one that takes account of the fact that we are coming out, because that undermines operational capability.
Mr Sweeney
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the impact on real defence spending of things such as currency fluctuations. We are talking about the need for stability in the defence budget and for it to be fiscally neutral, which I think was the term used by the Secretary of State, so should the Treasury not give special dispensation to the MOD so that it is pegged to a certain real level of spending, which would be an automatic stabiliser that rises and falls automatically with changing valuations or with defence inflation rates?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
There is nothing that I could add to make that point any better. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
Vernon Coaker
The hon. Gentleman poses an interesting question. There was an SDSR in 2015, and the modernising defence programme, which will presumably have consequences, is going to be announced in the next few months. Just to be clear about what he is saying, is his argument that there should be another SDSR at the end of the five-year period in 2020 or before that?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I rather suspect that I cannot get the Government not to go ahead with its modernising defence programme. My preference would be for a proper SDSR, rather than this mini review, but we are where we are. Despite the supposed lifting of the fiscally neutral element, I fear that we are heading in the same direction. The hon. Gentleman will remember the statement: three of the four announcements were cuts. Let us not dress that up in any other language; they were cuts. I fully expect that to happen again when the announcement comes later in the year.
Setting aside our views on whether we should have the nuclear deterrent, the other alarming aspect of the NAO report is its rising cost. All of a sudden, it has gone up by £1 billion—overnight, it seems. It has gone up by so much that the MOD’s director general nuclear is having to review the costings, so I would welcome some information on when that review will happen, when an announcement will be made and when Parliament can expect to get the information.
I want to end on a note of consensus, so my final point is that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) made the very good point, with which I can find no reason to disagree, about making it easier for people from the British overseas territories to join up, instead of making them wait five years, which would be eminently sensible given the existing recruitment problems. Those problems have been well documented in the House, not least by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) —I have just learned that I have been mispronouncing his constituency the entire time, but he is such a gent that he has not even told me.
This has been an important and informed debate, as it always is, and the House is better informed as a result. We look forward to the results of the mini defence review and to engaging with it. As the Secretary of State knows, the Scottish National party hopes that there will be a particular focus on the activity, or lack of it, in the high north. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in his winding-up speech.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I welcome this opportunity to debate the MOD budget, and I thank the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for his part in securing it and for his excellent opening speech. We have heard a number of thoughtful contributions this afternoon, and I hope that Members will forgive me if I do not mention them all individually owing to the lack of time.
It is clear that there is deep dissatisfaction at the state of the defence budget on both sides of the House and a real desire for proper investment in our armed forces and our nation’s defences. We are all used to hearing from Ministers that the defence budget is growing, and I am sure that there will be more of that this evening, but the truth is that years of deep cuts by the coalition and Conservative Governments mean that the defence budget is now worth far less than it was when Labour left office.
Defence spending has been cut by nearly £10 billion in real terms between 2010 and 2017, and the defence budget will fall in real terms next year according to the Government’s own figures. Our purchasing power has been cut dramatically due to the sharp fall in the value of the pound, and then there is the gaping hole in the Department's defence equipment plan. It was truly shocking to read the National Audit Office’s recent report which concluded that the plan is simply not affordable and that the funding gap may be as large as £20.8 billion. That conclusion was not particularly surprising since the affordability of the plan has been in doubt for some time, but that should not detract from the seriousness of the situation. The plan represents the £180 billion of equipment and associated costs that are required by our armed forces over the next 10 years in order to keep this country safe, yet it is clear that the MOD does not know how on earth it is going to pay for it.
That is the disastrous legacy of the decision to make deep cuts to the defence budget in the 2010 SDSR, and the belated attempt to row back five years later without having the necessary funding in place. It also serves as a warning about how difficult and costly it is to replace a capability once it has been cut, as we are now seeing with the maritime patrol aircraft. The result is a plan that, in the words of the NAO,
“does not provide a realistic forecast of the costs the Department will have to meet over the next 10 years”.
That would be unacceptable for any Government programme on such a scale, but it is deeply worrying in the context of the many pressures already facing the defence budget. Notably, the plan does not even include the cost of the Type 31e frigates, nor does it address concerns about the cost and affordability of the F-35 programme—concerns that have grown as Ministers have repeatedly been unable to supply adequate cost estimates for the F-35s, something which the Defence Committee described as “wholly unsatisfactory”. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the Department’s response to the NAO’s conclusions and outlined what urgent steps will be taken to address the issue of affordability at the earliest opportunity.
The equipment plan is also heavily reliant on billions of pounds of efficiency savings. We all want value for money for the taxpayer, but Ministers have been keen to make assumptions about savings without sufficient evidence that those savings are achievable. The Select Committee concluded in respect of last year’s plan that
“it is extremely doubtful that the MoD can generate efficiencies on the scale required…or detail how it would proceed to do so”.
Sadly we seem to have exactly the same issues with this year’s plan, because the NAO again finds
“a lack of transparency on the full amount of savings included in the Plan and the Department does not have evidence to support all the savings it has claimed to date.”
We all agree that every effort should be made to maximise efficiency savings, but the Government’s consistent over-reliance on projected savings to fund key programmes—savings that they are patently failing to achieve—suggests either a shocking naivety or a poor attempt to disguise yet more cuts.
That is also one of the biggest risks facing the modernising defence programme, as three of the four work strands focus so clearly on generating efficiencies through reforming the management of the MOD. As I have said previously, the Minister and his colleagues will have support from both sides of the House if the review results in proper investment for our defences and our armed forces, but there will be deep disquiet if it merely results in yet more cuts of the kind that have been widely briefed in the press in recent months.
That brings me to the potential cuts to our amphibious capabilities. I was in Plymouth with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on Saturday, and there is real concern in that city about the fate of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. Ministers, including the Defence Secretary just last week, have repeatedly failed to address speculation that those ships will be taken out of service earlier than planned as a way of generating short-sighted savings.
Although I appreciate that the defence review is ongoing and will not report until the summer, the Minister is not precluded from stating categorically that the review will not result in cuts to our amphibious capabilities—cuts that will leave us with significant gaps—and I sincerely urge him to say something this evening.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for visiting Plymouth at the weekend. Does she agree that we not only need to provide certainty for the crews of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, and for the Royal Marines, but we also need to recognise that the sale of HMS Ocean to Brazil has hit morale in the city and is damaging retention in our armed forces?
Nia Griffith
My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
It is clear that the work strands of the review will look in detail at the way in which industry does business with the MOD, which is an area where progress can and should be made. It is apparent from responses to the consultation on the defence industrial policy refresh that there is a desire for the MOD to be more flexible and collaborative in setting requirements, as well as in engaging with industry at an earlier stage in the procurement process.
Opposition Members would also like the definition of “good value” to be expanded to include wider employment, industrial or economic factors when making procurement decisions and awarding contracts. There have been a few nods in that direction from Ministers, and we welcome the reference to it in the national shipbuilding strategy, but the defence industrial policy refresh is extremely disappointing, in that it fails to make any such changes.
The Select Committee also called for a broader definition of “value for money”. This call has received the support of the trade body ADS, as well as defence trade unions such as Unite and Prospect, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the MOD has decided not to pursue such changes.
There is also strong support within industry for fair and open competition, wherever possible, when making procurement decisions. The Secretary of State reflected that in general terms before the Select Committee recently, but there has been no firm commitment that the contract for the new mechanised infantry vehicles will be subject to open competition. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm this evening that this really will be the case.
The MOD budget has also taken a substantial hit due to the sharp fall in the value of sterling following the EU referendum. The Department faces a real challenge given that so much of the equipment plan is denominated in foreign currencies. That is made worse by the fact that the MOD has, for some reason, used exchange rates that do not reflect current market rates—something that the NAO identifies as a risk to the plan.
Of course, one reason for the collapse in the value of the pound is a clear lack of investor confidence because of how this Government are handling the Brexit negotiations. The Opposition firmly believe that a clear commitment to negotiating a customs union with the European Union would provide the certainty that industry and investors need that they will not be hit by burdensome and unnecessary tariff barriers when Britain leaves the EU.
That is particularly important for defence companies, which depend on pan-European supply chains and simply cannot afford to see barriers to trade imposed between Britain and our European partners. But the Government have recklessly decided, point blank, to rule out a customs union, in a move that seems clearly designed to appease the hard right of the Conservative party rather than reflect the interests of our economy and workers in the defence industry.
Finally, as well as the severe challenges to the MOD budget in the here and now, there is also the spectre of massive potential costs coming down the line for forces accommodation. As the NAO’s recent report highlights, the Conservatives’ decision to privatise the housing of service personnel and their families in 1996 has been a disaster from start to finish.
The Conservatives ignored repeated warnings at the time, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), that this sell-off of public assets would not deliver value for money, and now we learn that the deal may have cost the taxpayer up to £4.2 billion. That has left us in a ridiculous position whereby the Government now rent back the same accommodation at increased cost. The MOD will be held over a barrel if the company demands costly rent rises when the lease is up for renewal in 2021. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out exactly how the Government plan to manage the lease renewal process in a way that does not simply result in further unnecessary costs to the taxpayer.
There is support on both sides of the House for real investment in our national security and for an end to the short-sighted and painful cuts that have marred the last seven years. We cannot do security on the cheap. It is time for this Government to deliver the proper investment in defence that the British public expect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. As others have done, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for securing the debate. I believe the Procedure Committee and the Liaison Committee were both involved in setting this new precedent for discussing estimates.
It is interesting that this debate was preceded by an urgent question on the situation in Syria. A number of options, ideas and proposals were put forward by Members on both sides of the House, and we should remind ourselves that we are able to make such proposals only because we have the hard power that allows us to stand up in this world. There is a question as to whether we use that hard power, but it does allow us to affect the world around us as a force for good.
In praising our armed forces, it is important that we pay tribute not only to those in uniform but to those who support them: the wives, the partners, the husbands, the children and the entire armed forces community. We, Parliament and the nation, pride ourselves on their incredible professionalism and sense of duty. They are among the best in the world—disciplined, reliable, committed, brave and very well equipped and trained—and we thank them for their incredible service.
The majority of people come out of the armed forces better for it, and our nation is certainly better for their service and for what they do in civilian life once their work is complete. It has been mentioned that we perhaps do not pay tribute to or acknowledge the work that is done across the world. Operations are taking place not just in the obvious—Iraq and Syria—but in Afghanistan and Africa. We are helping to stabilise nations, and we are helping those nations to become strong so that they can make a mark on their own future.
As we have heard today, the MOD budget sits at about £36 billion this year, and it will increase by 0.5% above inflation each year. We have the largest defence budget in Europe and the second largest in NATO, and we should remind ourselves that not all NATO countries are meeting the target. Fifteen out of 29 NATO members spend only 1.5% of their GDP on defence.
Toby Perkins
The Minister is right in what he says, so what pressure is the UK putting on those other NATO nations, both diplomatically and publicly, to get them up to the 2%? I would like to see a lot more done, when the Prime Minister is stood with other leaders, to put pressure on them to achieve that.
Mr Ellwood
I am pleased the Defence Secretary is in his place, because this is very much of concern to him, as it is to all of us in the House, and it gets raised regularly. The last time he was in Brussels he raised it, and our allies in the United States are concerned about it too. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Let us be honest: we know that, for varying reasons, the financial year has been tough. We are grateful to the Treasury for recognising the fiscal pressures the MOD is under and providing an extra £200 million window to allow us to close the books on the financial year 2017-18. I make it clear that this is new money; it is different from the £300 million that has been brought forward to assist with the continuous at-sea deterrence programme.
Looking ahead, there continues to be a lot of debate, as has been expressed today, about the pressures on and size of the armed forces, their annual budget and the 10-year spending plan. I thought it would be helpful to place things into context following the defence and security capability review and the defence modernisation programme, and to flag up some realities that are not for this budget, but which are coming around the corner. The Defence Secretary has spoken of the need to look at outputs, rather than inputs. We must not just set out the number of tanks, ships or personnel that we need; we must first ask ourselves what we actually want to achieve. That leads us to determine the size of our armed forces and the defence posture we wish to show. This should reflect our duties, both domestic and overseas; our ambitions as a force for good; and our international responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and lead member of NATO.
We also need to adapt to the changing circumstances, as the threats we face become complex and intertwined. We must recognise that the world has become more dangerous since the publication of the 2015 SDSR. The risks and threats we face are intensifying and diversifying faster than expected, hence the purpose of the defence modernisation programme. It will allow more time to carefully consider how defence works, as well as what defence needs; it will aim to improve how defence operates; and it will focus on achievable efficiency and create different arrangements with suppliers. This modernisation will allow us to take the necessary long-term decisions about our military capability.
For clarity, let me say that the defence modernisation programme consists of four workstreams: the delivery of a robust MOD operating model, creating a leaner and more efficient MOD; a clear plan for efficiencies and business modernisation; a study of how we improve our commercial and industrial strategy, building on, for example, the shipbuilding strategy and the recently announced combat air strategy; and a focus on our defence policy outputs and our military capability—arguably the most important of the four.
John Spellar
That is all well and good, and all long term. Given that, why are the Government not sorting out the Capita contract on recruitment, which is clearly, visibly, obviously and lamentably failing the country, our armed forces and the recruits?
Mr Ellwood
The right hon. Gentleman touches on something that I am not going to disagree with, but it is pertinent to and included in the workstreams I have just mentioned; we will be seeking more efficiencies and business modernisation. That means looking at our relationship with the contractors we work with, in order to improve the service we need to provide for our service personnel.
The work I have described will be led by the MOD, working closely with the National Security Secretariat and the Treasury, and engaging widely with Parliament, think-tanks, academics, defence experts, international allies, the media, devolved Administrations, the defence industry and, of course, the public.
John Spellar
Having all of those other worthy people involved does not get to grips with the problem of the here and now; it is pushing everything off to the right and over the horizon—again. Why will the Department not get a grip of just this programme and sort it out, because it is crippling to our armed forces?
Mr Ellwood
We have a programme—it is not fiscally neutral, as the last study was. This will allow us to make the changes and the recommendations that we need to take forward. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to get behind that, in order to make sure we can provide the service and the changes that we need to make, and which our armed forces deserve.
Vernon Coaker
What the Minister has just said is very important. Will he confirm what he just said: this modernisation of defence programme is not fiscally neutral?
Mr Ellwood
I can say it again and I think I am going to say it a bit later, because it is in my speech: I am happy to confirm that it is not fiscally neutral. That is exactly why we are doing this. I am not saying this just because the Defence Secretary is in his place, but the first thing he recognised was the fact that the capability review was fiscally neutral and it was prohibiting us. We saw a lot of the stuff that came out in the media and so forth. The challenges that that would have imposed on our armed forces were exactly why there was a requirement to look in more detail at what our armed forces are doing. We now have that opportunity and we have to make the case as to what changes we need, what our defence posture is and how we move forward—
Mr Ellwood
I am not going to give way again. If I may, I will make some progress.
Let me make it clear that this approach will allow us to deliver a better understanding of the implications of the new threats. It will confirm what conventional capability is critical and it will place the MOD on a more sustainable, affordable long-term footing, optimising our relationships with the private sector.
Mr Ellwood
I am not giving way at the moment. As I have said, as has the Defence Secretary, the programme is not fiscally neutral. It allows us to expand and propose changes. It will assess the capabilities and the force structure we need to deal with the threats the UK faces. We will then consider the implications for funding.
When the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary met in December to confirm a way forward on the national security capability review and the defence modernisation programme, it was agreed that no changes would be made to our capability until the modernising defence programme was complete. With one eye on next year’s 2018-19 budget, I very much hope that that is still the case. The requirement for the defence modernisation programme is making sure that we understand the financial pressures affecting defence and looking into the future. If it is not the case, there would be no requirement for a defence modernisation programme. As the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff for Military Capability told the Defence Committee last week, we are, unfortunately, seeing cuts to training exercises and
“a general suppression of some force generation across…frontline commands”
I stress that this is being managed without affecting prioritised units which are heading on operations, but if units are not training, it builds up a backlog of diminished capability.
Another issue raised in the Defence Committee last week related to the National Audit Office report on equipment, which cited a £20 billion deficit over the next 10 years. I make it clear that that makes some significant assumptions of risk, many of which will not be realised, and does not factor in the efficiency recommendations that the defence modernisation programme might make. Nevertheless—
Mr Ellwood
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not listen to what I am saying, because it is important and pertinent. Perhaps he can hold on to his seat for a second and allow me to finish this important point about the NAO report. Is that okay with him?
The NAO report does not factor in the efficiency recommendations, but nevertheless we must acknowledge the financial pressure on our equipment programme. As has been mentioned, there are also new and emerging factors, such as cyber, space and complex weapons upgrades. We must respond to them all, which of course adds to the bill.
Mr Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He says that this is fiscally neutral. He knows what the problem is now—[Interruption.] What was agreed in 2015 was fiscally neutral. It was unachievable because the efficiencies were unachievable and the land sales were unachievable. That is not my opinion; that is what the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), said. If we know that, we know that in reality the only way that we can fix this is with more cash.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman should refer back to Hansard to understand what I have actually said. I shall make some progress.
Mr Ellwood
Let me finish this part of my speech, then I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman. I am surprised by the way interventions are being made, because I am going through a series of acknowledgements of where things have gone wrong, another example of which is the challenge of flexing—the spending of future defence budgets today—which should be the exception, not the norm. CASD is a £31 billion programme and it has been necessary to bring forward some of that spending, which is why the budget has been increased by £300 million this year.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
On the equipment plan, the Minister is right to say that the £20 billion black hole is the upper end of the estimate. He talked about taking that seriously, so what will it be this time next year?
Mr Ellwood
We have only just completed the budget for 2017-18, and I should be clear that we have yet to embark on the annual spending round for next year. Perhaps this differs from other Departments because we have an opportunity to make a case for additional spending. We have the opportunity to make the case for a defence posture and to say what is appropriate for Britain. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s point at the moment, but the purpose of this entire process is for us, hopefully with the House’s support, to make the case to the Treasury and to the Prime Minister. That is what the modernisation programme is all about.
Dr Julian Lewis
I fully understand the direction of my right hon. Friend’s argument and I realise that it has been a great success for him and the new Secretary of State to regain control of the process for the MOD. If, as a result of the MOD’s examinations, the minimum recommendations on what the country needs to be able to deter threats and defend itself successfully require a significant increase in the defence budget—frankly, that is the assumption that has underlain many of today’s speeches—can we rely on the whole ministerial team to stand together as one and say to the Prime Minister, “We simply must spend more on defence”? That is what is required.
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend hypothesises, but it is absolutely the case that we stand together to put forward a programme that will allow for the defence posture that we believe the country absolutely deserves. It is not just about asking for more money, which is obviously simple to do, and we will be lining up with other Departments doing exactly the same thing; we should also recognise that there are efficiencies to be found in the MOD itself. Indeed, as outlined in the 2015 SDSR, we are realising £7 billion of efficiency savings and moving to a more commercial footing, seeking to sell more of our world-class military equipment.
The most important reason for doing this now rather than waiting for the next SDSR in 2020 is that the world around us is changing fast. That raises important questions —arguably more so for Britain than for other countries—about exactly what role we aspire to play as a nation. The outcomes and recommendations of the defence modernisation programme will provide the evidence for how to answer the big questions. We are experiencing a chapter in which the conduct of war is changing at a furious pace. As the world gets more complex and unpredictable, ever fewer countries have the means, aspiration and, indeed, authority to help to shape it for the better.
As the Prime Minister said in her Mansion House speech last year, we are seeing resurgent nations ripping up the international rules-based order. Left unchecked, the growing threats could damage the free markets and open economies that have fuelled global growth for a generation, at the very time, post-Brexit, when we are seeking new trade deals around the globe. The task of a global Britain is clear: to defend that rules-based international order against irresponsible states; to support our partners in unstable regions by repelling the threats that they face; and to back visions for societies and economies that will prosper and help the world.
My concern, which I think is shared in all parts of the House, is that there is a tragic collective naivety about the durability of the relative peace that we enjoy today. That point has been repeated again and again in the debate. Our country, economy and values are vulnerable to a range of growing dangers, both state and non-state, that have no respect for our borders, including the rise of so-called sharp power—the deceptive use of information for hostile purposes and the manipulation of ideas, political perceptions and electoral processes. It is a model that is not new, but because of the speed and the low cost, which come thanks to the internet and so forth, it is far easier to procure.
My belief, which I hope is echoed around the Chamber, is that it has always been in our nation’s DNA to step forward when other nations might hesitate and to help to shape the world around us. However, to continue to do so will require investment, so I end by repeating my thanks to the Treasury for its support. It has to endure all Departments seeking to increase their budgets. We often say that it is only with a strong economy that we can consider any increase in any budget, but I politely add that without a strong defence, a strong economy cannot be guaranteed.
Last week, the Secretary of State spoke of 2% of GDP being spent on defence as a floor, not a ceiling. The message has to be clear: if we want to continue to play an influential role on the international stage, with full-spectrum capability; if we want to provide the critical security that post-Brexit trade deals will demand; and if we want to remain a leading contributor in the fight against extremism in the middle east and elsewhere, we cannot continue to do all that on a defence budget of just 2% of GDP. Two per cent. is just not enough. This is a question not just for the Government and parliamentarians, but for Britain: what status, role and responsibility do we aspire to have as we seek to trade more widely in a world that is becoming more dangerous?
Sir Edward Leigh
This has been an historic debate. For the first time in nearly 60 years, the House of Commons has discussed estimates on estimates day. I have been campaigning for this for 10 years, and the quality of this debate has vindicated the decision to discuss money on estimates day. I am so pleased that I persuaded my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee to make the Ministry of Defence the subject of this first estimates day debate on money.
Everybody has spoken with one voice. This has not been a party-political debate in that sense. Whether from New Forest East, Gedling, Moray, Aberdeenshire, Glasgow, Aldershot or Rayleigh, everyone has made the point—and the Minister has just echoed it, one of the first times that I have heard it from the Front Bench—that spending 2% on defence is simply not enough.
In the spirit of consensus, I echo what the Opposition spokesman said—that we cannot get security on the cheap. I also echo what the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said, and I tell the Secretary of State to go back to the Treasury and No. 10 Downing Street and say that every single Member, from the SNP, the Conservatives and Labour has made this point—[Interruption.] And the Liberal Democrats. How could I forget the great speech about the contribution of the local regiments in Caithness? Members spoke with one voice. The Secretary of State can go back and say, “This is not like the 1930s. This is not like the Fulham by-election when we were worried about public opinion on disarmament. We have the support of the whole House.” He should go back, get the money and make sure that we defend our country.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Department for Exiting the European Union
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I extend my thanks to colleagues across the House who have backed this debate this evening. This is an important debate. The Department for Exiting the European Union is obviously a relatively new Department, but it is not an insignificant spending Department, as we have seen recently.
We have some sympathy for the Government of the day—the House will not hear me say that very often—given that they are trying to find a solution for leaving the European Union on the back of a leave campaign that told us precious little about what leaving the European Union would actually mean. There was no White Paper and no manifesto. Two years on from the EU referendum, however, the excuses are wearing a little thin. The Government increasingly seem to have not much of a clue and any analysis they conduct—at the taxpayers’ expense—is hidden from view, in spite of what this place says and others might argue.
What is clear is that the Government are taking each and every part of the United Kingdom down the road to ruin. Tomorrow we will vote on the estimates, a vote that will take place before we even know what the UK Government’s plan is for leaving the EU. The Government tell us that this is a big negotiating strategy—not to tell anybody anything. But even Baldrick could tell us that simply not having a plan, cunning or otherwise, is not much of a strategy. I fear that, just as the EU referendum was held to try and keep the Conservative party together—and then we had a general election for the same reason—so too is every announcement on the subject. It is the Government’s raison d’être—if I may be forgiven for using French in this debate. This is clearly a failing Government when the risks are so high for us all.
The situation is having an impact on public services. If GDP decreases, obviously less cash will be available for public services, unless taxes are increased or further cuts are made. We are all mindful of that. We have just had an excellent debate about the 2% GDP commitment for defence spending. But if GDP is not what we think it will be in 2030, that will mean less money for defence, in the same way as the red bus pledge seems to get further and further away from the £350 million a week that was promised for the NHS. The Government’s own leaked analysis shows that GDP will fall as will investment in public services.
The Chancellor has set aside £3 billion for Brexit preparations—greater than his additional cash allocation for the NHS in England. That is spending even before we take into account the devastating impact of the loss of EU nationals on the NHS and other public services—and, frankly, on our society in general.
The overwhelming departmental spend shows an increase. Jon Thompson, the chief executive of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, said in November that he would need an extra £450 million a year for personnel and infrastructure—spending money to throw up barriers, rather than to take them down. That money could otherwise be put towards frontline public services. As well as this expenditure that we do not need at the moment, we saw in July 2017 that the Department for Exiting the European Union is spending money on legal costs, including litigation, to stop this place having a say. Again, that is money taken away from frontline public services, and another way in which Brexit is costing each and every one of us. The expenditure for DExEU and the Government’s plans will be absolutely brutal. I have a message for the Government. In spite of what they might believe, there is no magic money tree. It does not exist and it has never existed. Every penny spent on leaving the EU—including the eye-watering bill of reportedly £40 billion just to leave—is cash that we will not have to spend on other services.
If I may say so for a moment, the issue goes beyond finances. This Government are so hell-bent on keeping themselves together and somehow trying to find a way a through the morass that they have created for themselves that other policy areas are being left behind. In normal times, we should be looking at the future of our NHS, and working with our European partners to tackle issues such as climate change and the ongoing conflicts that have been debated in this House that affect many of Europe’s neighbours.
As I saw just this morning, higher education is one area that will deeply affected by the UK leaving the European Union. Yes, it will be affected in terms of funding, but it will also be affected when it comes to personnel. This morning I spoke to academics who have gone on strike over their pensions at the University of St Andrews. Believe me, it is a cold time of the year to be striking; it is pretty chilly out there. Those academics want to see a Government who are committed to securing an end to this crisis. This is just one of many difficult issues, yet at a time when that area should be a priority we are having to debate these Government plans that suck cash out of our frontline services. Instead of tackling the issues that matter such as higher education funding and the strikes in that sector, we are trying to clear up a mess of the Government’s own making.
The UK Government should take the advice of almost all economic experts, businesses, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments who incidentally—unlike DExEU—have actually published their analysis. Staying in the single market and customs union would protect the economy and give the Government consistency in trade policy. While we are talking about how much money we are spending on these areas, it would remiss of me not to mention the official Opposition. It was welcome to see some movement from the Labour party after almost 20 years of glacial movement, but there is still a long way to go. When the Labour party talks about a “jobs first” Brexit, it is perhaps mindful of the Government’s analysis showing that staying in the single market is a better option, but still the least worst option.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman not feel an annoyance that the Labour party has ignored its Labour base, especially in the north-east, and that it has tried to move forward with an acceptance of the customs union that people do not want? Does he not accept that we will get £8 billion back from the EU that we will then be able to use for everything else? Where is his argument on that?
Stephen Gethins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, as usual, but every economic analysis that we have seen, including the one from the Scottish Government, shows the devastation that would be wrought on GDP. That means billions of pounds disappearing out of the public purse. That means billions less in Scotland and the rest of the UK. It means billions less in Northern Ireland, which is why I am not surprised that the people of Northern Ireland voted so overwhelmingly to remain part of the European Union.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Speaking as a St Andrews graduate, may I point out to the hon. Gentleman that when we leave the European Union, the University of St Andrews will no longer have to give free fees to people from the European Union, which currently results in discrimination against people from England?
Stephen Gethins
If only the good people of England would vote for a Government who believed in getting rid of tuition fees. What an argument by the hon. Gentleman! The University of St Andrews is a fine educational establishment, despite his best efforts to prove otherwise. Twenty-five per cent. of its funding comes from funding for research on issues like kids who have learning difficulties or treating dementia. It does this because it pools its resources with other European universities and with some of the finest EU nationals who have made St Andrews their home—if this Government gave them certainty, they could continue to call it their home. The hon. Gentleman’s argument is one of the weakest I have heard in this place, given the huge amounts of benefits that the University of St Andrews, like the entire education sector in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, derives from our being part of the European Union.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Apart from the financial implications, and regardless of having tuition fees or not, there is a cultural element. We could be facing damage to educational quality throughout the United Kingdom if we lose the students who bring that cultural element from other parts of the EU and provide us with the ability to learn from other cultures. When I went to university, the word “university” meant “universal”. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are in danger of losing that?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I benefited personally from our membership of the European Union through being able to study at the University of Antwerp. The educational experience is the richer for having students who come from elsewhere, as well as the opportunity that students have to go elsewhere. I urge Ministers to look at this, because the cost of these programmes is not that much, especially given the benefits that they bring. Building on her point, I think we should all be ashamed of the fact that right now, as things stand, this Parliament will be one of the first that we do not leave with young people having more opportunities than at its start. That is something we should reflect on and that is quite shameful.
Going back to DExEU, the Public Accounts Committee’s recent report on exiting the EU said:
“DExEU has identified 313 areas of work, or work streams, that departments need to complete as a consequence of the UK leaving the EU…However, we are concerned that DExEU has been too slow to turn its attention to how departments will put those plans into practice and that the plans may not be sufficiently developed to enable implementation to start quickly.”
Despite the cash, the Department is being held back because of the Government’s lack of plans. I hope that the Minister will touch on that. In January, the National Audit Office released a verdict that the International Trade Department is struggling to meet deadlines, recruit enough specialist staff or retrain its existing workforce as we start from scratch after losing all the trade relationships that we have built up as a part of the European Union. That means jobs, investment, and cash for Departments to spend in the future.
None of this has stopped the Chancellor giving the Department an increase of almost £30 million for preparations. And there is more: the number of times that the Chancellor will have to spend out money. The UK Government will have to spend out money as we lose the European Medicines Agency from here in London. The Government have allocated £250 million of spending for Departments to prepare for a Brexit with no deal. As I said, they have spent £1 million fighting the case to stop this place from having a say, after the Brexiteers told us how much they wanted democracy to return to the House of Commons. Is it right that this Government are blowing money on stopping Parliament from having a say? They are preventing us from analysing and publishing their own statistics, and the extra money they are having to spend will hit public services. This shows how little confidence this Government have in their own plans, and rightly so.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Brexit is an area where it is quite hard to estimate. Brexit has been mis-served by the media. It has been played out in a soap opera of personalities, parliamentary arithmetic and party political advantage, when in fact it should be played out under the lens of trade, the economy and what it will mean. When the Prime Minister says that our best days are in front of us, that is a news story, but if vets say that there will be 325% more checks at borders because of this, that is not a news story. This is a costly step that is going to be taken, over and above anything else we might need at ports in years to come. Clearly, to even a very untrained eye, Brexit is going to be costly, and anybody who does not think that is in severe denial.
Maybe the best comment that I have heard about this was not made by Peston, Marr, Andrew Neil or any of our so-called professional media. It came from “The Mash Report”, a current affairs comedy programme, and said that Brexiteers have to tell us now what Brexit is, not what it is not, because they are very strong at telling us what Brexit is not.
At least we know one thing that Brexit will be. We have to be grateful for the efforts of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and his civil servants for this: we know that Brexit will not be a “Mad Max” dystopia. It may be a dystopia, but it certainly will not be a “Mad Max” dystopia.
We know, because it was leaked from the UK Government and has been verified and cross-checked by the Scottish Government and the Irish Government, that staying in the customs union and single market is a 2% hit to the UK economy. That is a strong estimate of the hit. A free trade agreement is a 5% hit, and WTO rules is an 8% hit.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Maybe the hon. Gentleman has not had the opportunity to see the report, but it is quite clear that none of these figures should be treated as forecasts or quoted in isolation. The report is full of caveats showing that many things influence those figures, and therefore they are really rough guides to compare one situation with another but should never be used as forecasts.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman makes a case for all reports, but the report is the best estimate we have to go with. The report was kept secret for a long time, but it seems that it chimed with more than one person when it had to be leaked in the end.
It has emerged that the UK Government have decided on the middle road. They are looking for a free trade agreement, which is the option of a 5% to 6% hit on GDP—those are the Government’s own estimates—although some of the Tory party would go for the 8% hit of WTO rules. They have made political choices with severe economic consequences that they probably will not personally have to face. In a funny, humorous and ironic twist, they expect the European Union not to respond in kind. They expect the European Union to react with complete economic rationale, even though their politics are ones of irrational economic actions.
As we know, the EU and the UK have already taken actions based on principles, for a higher purpose, and that was in Crimea because of Russia’s annexation of it. The EU’s principle of the four freedoms means that it will take a smaller hit than the UK and a smaller hit than they all took with Crimea, or about the same. The point is that, in the bigger picture, the European Union is going to lose effectively about a toenail here, while the UK debates how many bullets are to go through its feet. That is the difference in the damage that will be done.
From the principal parties, we have had slogans. The slogan from the ruling Conservative party has been the illuminating “Brexit means Brexit”, as well as “It’s going to be a Brexit for Britain” and “It’s going to be the best trade deal possible”. We can look at this as an analogy. The Government have crashed their Rolls-Royce and are going down the second-hand car shop looking for the best second-hand car possible. Will it be a second-hand car that is 2% less good, 5% less good or 8% less good than the one they currently have?
On the other hand, we have the principal Opposition party, Labour, talking about a Brexit for jobs and a Brexit for the people. Labour—or at least its leader—has thrown another variable into the works: it want a customs union. I do not see an estimate for that either. What does that mean? If hon. Members are familiar with national newspapers that run fantasy football activities for statheads and football fans, they will know that readers can pick and choose players from a variety of teams and compose their own team based on that fantasy—perhaps called Team Corbyn; I do not know—but it is notable that this need not bear any relation to the reality of football other than the statistics, and even the players do not need to know that they are in somebody’s fantasy football team. Similarly, what is now emerging is a fantasy customs union—it bears no relation to the views of the 27 other partner countries—and they can pick and choose elements from the newspapers to their heart’s content.
The estimates in the leaked statistics show that this option—it is not the customs union or the single market—will lead to a hit of between 2% and 5% to 6% to the UK economy. The current Labour leadership should be very clear about that.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I have listened to the very pessimistic overview taken from the part reports. I read them today in the reading room, which was awfully secure, rather bizarrely, I thought. The reports make it clear that they are not finished estimates, but crystal-ball gazing. I take it that the hon. Gentleman has no desire to respect the people by way of referendums. He has never really got to grips with the referendum in 2014 and I am hearing tonight that he has not really got to grips with the referendum of 2017. Does his party disrespect the people and referendums?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The other referendum was actually in 2016, but in both referendums—of 2014 and 2016—the Scottish people voted clearly to remain in the European Union, so, yes, I do respect the two referendums. I want that opinion to be checked again in the further referendum on Scottish independence within the European Union that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is coming down the tracks in jig time.
A customs union, as currently suggested by the principal Opposition, can have myriad or infinite permutations. Have no estimates at all been made for that? All in all, this is one of the areas where the estimates are huge, the variabilities are massive and it is very unclear where the chips will fall.
The overall message that should be going out is that when boardrooms and when the people of Scotland look at the two parties in this Chamber—the Government and the principal Opposition—they have to start thinking and, particularly in the boardrooms, they have to start speaking. They do not have to enter into political debate, but they have to start to become very strident indeed in what they are saying. I meet too many of those from companies who come to me with their fears and their estimates of what might happen. In reality, they have to start saying what they want, because otherwise it will be too late.
I am reminded of the book, “On the Psychology of Military Incompetence”. In a number of military events that occurred, whether in Crimea—the charge of the Light Brigade was in Crimea of course—with the Boers in South Africa, in Mesopotamia or in Afghanistan, the common theme running through them all was the fact that the rank and file could not believe their commanders could get it so utterly wrong, and it was only when hot lead ripped through bare flesh that people then understood. There are companies that are too afraid to move and that, for one reason or another, will not say a word, but when they are taken down by the 2%, 5% or the 8% damage of Brexit, I tell those companies now that it will be too late to do anything about it then, so speak now.
Recently, my Committee went to the USA and Canada to look at the possibility of trade deals. The farmers lobby asked us why. Ford said a UK-US deal would be incremental, but that a UK-EU one would be existential. Certainly, when I saw the border with other Committee members, it was not as fast as the border at the moment between Ireland and Northern Ireland or as the border between France and Spain. These are some of the realities that are coming our way.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am very glad to give way to one of the Select Committees colleagues who were with me. I predicted at the border that some people would see what they wanted to see, so let us see what happens.
Mr Fysh
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we saw the border between the US and Canada. The US and Canada have different regulatory and customs systems, yet they have a just-in-time, integrated supply chain that works perfectly well, so it is possible. The forecasts that he referred to earlier take no account of the possibility of such just-in-time supply chains continuing to work in a free trade agreement scenario.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
We were told that the average wait time was 15 minutes and just-in-time takes cognisance of that. If two minutes at Dover becomes four minutes, that will result in a 17-mile tailback. And, of course, no embarkation of ships takes place on the US-Canadian border after they have passed, or just before, the border point.
In summary, this Government exercise is costing about £250 million a year. It will cost the Scottish economy, which concerns me most, between £3.6 billion and £12 billion a year by 2030, and the way in which the two main parties are going at it means that the figure will probably be closer to £12 billion than to £3.6 billion. It really is time that the UK took a short, sharp look at itself. I predict that Brexit will probably collapse on itself. The economic reality will hit the rhetoric head first, and when it does so the rhetoric will just vanish into a pile of dust and be trampled by the economic reality, which is that the people want their jobs and they want the economy running, not the ideological purity of some Members of this House.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
May I begin by saying that I welcome the fact that the House now has the opportunity to debate estimates? Like many Members who previously served in local government, I was astonished when I first arrived that the House of Commons appeared to spend no time at all discussing the Government’s expenditure, when many of us would have sat through many hours of committee meetings poring line by line over the expenditure plans of the local authorities of which we were members. I doubt that this debate—this is already evident—will feature the kind of consensus we saw in the last debate on the need for more expenditure. I have to confess that this is one area of Government spending where, to be frank, I wish we were not spending anything at all, but we are where we are following the referendum result.
I will, however, just pick up on one point made by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), whom I congratulate on having secured this debate. Perhaps if the Government had not wasted so much time repeating the mantra, “No deal is better than a bad deal,” we would not be spending so much money on preparing for no deal, which would be clearly disastrous for the British economy and, frankly, I say to the Minister, would never get through this House of Commons. That is a consequence of choices that the Government have made.
It is fair to say, and not to be argued with, that relatively little preparation had been made in government for a leave result in the referendum, but clearly the establishment of DExEU was a logical and necessary consequence. I have to say, however, that the civil servants and, indeed, the Ministers who work in the Department face a really substantial and highly complex task, because for 45 years our trade, laws, relationships, rules and standards have been inextricably intertwined with those of our European friends and neighbours. The task we now face is the process of pulling out the plug of that relationship while trying to fashion a new plug in the course of negotiation, and everyone is wondering, when we stick it in the socket and press the switch, what will still work and what will not. The honest answer is that, as things stand, we just do not know.
The Department, of course, has been established from scratch and has recruited very able people from all across Whitehall. Lots of civil servants wanted to work in DExEU because of the nature of the challenge, which is a once in a generation—probably a once in a civil service career—opportunity. The Department has been set the task of both understanding the implications of Brexit and of advising Ministers on the choices that might be made in how to handle it.
On the first of those tasks, drawing on my experience as Chair of the Select Committee, I know that, in truth, the more we look, the more we encounter questions that currently have no answer. On the second, it was clearly sensible of DExEU to, in effect, subcontract to other Government Departments the task of talking at the start of the process to stakeholders about the important issues that Brexit raises, but I have to say that, when it comes to development of policy, I have a great deal of sympathy with civil servants. Unusually, they are not suffering from a lack of money; they are suffering from a lack of clarity from the people who head the Department, Ministers, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet about what the UK Government want.
In my experience, if you give direction to the civil service, it will get on and do the task using all the expertise, energy and ability for which it is highly regarded in this country and around the world. However, all those qualities cannot make up for a lack of leadership, let us be frank, caused by the divisions—open secret—in the Cabinet on what the right thing to do is. It is not surprising that the Prime Minister sought to move Olly Robins, who was the permanent secretary in the Department for Exiting the European Union, across to the Cabinet Office to work directly to her rather than remain in his role as permanent secretary.
Looking at the scrutiny that has taken place thus far of DExEU—reference has been made in part to some of it—the National Audit Office said in July last year that the Government had failed to take a unified approach to talks with the EU. The Comptroller and Auditor General commented, in a rather unusually colourful way, that the Minister had left hopes of a successful Brexit at risk of falling apart “like a chocolate orange”. I suspect that when the history of Brexit comes to be written there will be a special footnote for chocolate oranges, “Mad Max” and this week’s favourite phrase, snake oil. Frankly, they could remain in the dustbin of those footnotes as far as I am concerned.
In November, the NAO reported on DExEU and the Government’s preparations for Brexit. It said, as we heard from the hon. Member for North East Fife who opened the debate, that 310 work streams had been identified. Some mid-sized Departments, in particular the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but also the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, have a lot of issues they need to grapple with. Not surprisingly, there is a lot of work to be done. They have to formulate policy, draft legislation, consult with the devolved Administrations and, in some cases, new systems and processes have to be invented. One task facing the Home Office is how to document 3 million European citizens when, because of the system of free movement we have operated, we do not know who some of them are. The Treasury always starts by saying to Departments that they will have to do all that within their existing budgets, but we know that last summer and autumn it had to review and agree bids for additional funding for 2017-18.
There is a very complex structure across Whitehall for dealing with Brexit, but the Public Accounts Committee suggested:
“No one in the civil service is clearly responsible for making sure that arrangements overall are fit-for-purpose for Brexit.”
In its report of 7 February, the PAC concluded that
“Government Departments have got to face up to some very hard choices”
and that
“the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) and the Cabinet Office do not have a robust enough plan to identify and recruit the people and skills needed quickly.”
I note the high turnover in staff in DExEU. It said there was a need for
“much greater transparency from DExEU, HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office on formally setting out who is responsible for what and on the progress that is being made.”
It said that accountability was unclear and that that
“risked undermining speedy decision-making”.
I will come back to that point. It also said that there was a
“paucity of information in the public domain”.
On that last point, it is frankly extraordinary that so many decisions have been made about the kind of Brexit the Government wish to pursue in the absence of any estimate, any evidence or any analysis whatever. When the Secretary of State admitted to me, in testimony to the Select Committee, that when the Cabinet decided to leave the customs union it had done so without having before it any assessment whatever of the economic impact, that said it all. Having given Parliament the impression that detailed impact analysis was being done on different sectors of the economy, we were—I think the whole House was—astonished to discover that this was not the case. It was not a lack of money in the estimates that caused that; it was a lack of policy and an apparent lack of interest.
We have before us the exit analysis, which the latest Humble Address instructed the Government to pass over to the Select Committee and which has been shared in confidence with all Members of this House and the other place. We have had the chance to see it, and the public have had a chance to read part of what it says, courtesy of BuzzFeed and the Financial Times. We know that for the first time it has attempted to look at some costs of the different choices when it comes to our future economic relationship with the European Union, although Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box—indeed, they were at pains to point it out when we debated the Humble Address—that it does not include the Government’s preferred option. I presume the reason is that those who were doing the modelling did not know what the Government’s preferred option was at the time they undertook that work.
The Brexit Committee has decided that it is minded to publish the Government’s EU exit analysis, but it has asked the Secretary of State whether he would wish any specific details to be redacted on the basis that they would either be sensitive to the negotiations, market sensitive or commercially confidential. As a Committee, we have always argued in favour of as much transparency as possible in the process, without damaging our negotiating position. If we are going to be able to do that, we need as much information as possible.
If the press reports of what the exit analysis has to say are correct, it is clear that the economy will be less big and less strong than it would otherwise have been, because of Brexit. Incidentally, that assessment is shared by many other organisations that have done their own economic impact assessment.
Peter Grant
It is now in the public domain, I think for the first time, that the Committee intends to publish as much of these documents as possible. Does the right hon. Gentleman see the contradiction in the two claims that have been made by those who oppose publication? On the one hand, the documents contain information that would be very useful to our negotiating partners or opponents in the Brexit negotiations, but on the other, they are so unreliable that they are no good to anybody. Does he accept that there is a blatant contradiction that the Government have to address?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman anticipates exactly the point that I was going to make. I should point out that the information about the Committee taking that decision last week came into the public domain when our minutes went up on our website, so it is available for everybody to see.
I was just about to say that the assessments of the economic impact of some policy choices that the Government face have been hotly contested by some. Civil servants have been accused of producing figures to support views that they already hold, rather than undertaking an objective examination of the evidence. I have to say that to attack civil servants and Government economists in this way is both wrong and unfair. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is also a member of the Select Committee, was absolutely right to make the point that the analysis is, rightly, heavily caveated. That is important, because trying to forecast what the future holds is a difficult business, as we all know, and there is a strong argument for saying that if the information is going to be in the public domain, the nature of the caveats should be too.
Hilary Benn
I made the point a moment ago that Government economists and the Treasury are not the only people who are trying to look at the economic impact of leaving the European Union and what the alternative models might produce. I presume that all the other ones have already been published; they all show the same picture. Indeed, the best indication we have had since the referendum result of what the world thought of the British economy’s future value came the day after, when the pound fell. The world looked at the United Kingdom and said, “You’re not going to be as well off as you were. The economy is still going to grow”—let us not get that wrong—“but it will grow less than it would have done had you not left.”
All I am arguing is that we should make the effort to try to understand. Having been a Cabinet Minister and having looked at many impact assessments when legislation was coming forward, I know that we do this for all sorts of things that are really quite minor by comparison with this absolutely fundamental change that the country is facing. That is why, for me, it is inexplicable that so little work has been undertaken by the Government in an attempt to assess the situation so people can then look at it. The other point I would make is that if that assessment had shown that the British economy would be better off, the report would not only have been published yonks ago, but would already be gathering dust on our bookshelves.
Mr Fysh
I have looked at forecasts for many years as a professional. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about these impact forecasts, but perhaps for different reasons. They have absolutely no value as a decision-making tool. Frankly, I am shocked at how poor and poorly constructed they are. I encourage all hon. Members to read them in detail and see exactly that.
Hilary Benn
Different Members will draw different conclusions from what they read. It sounds to me that the hon. Gentleman is making an argument in favour of openness, so that everybody can make a judgment. In the circumstances, that would be a very wise thing to do.
My last point is that the argument we are currently having in the political world about membership of the customs union as opposed to leaving it, which is the Government’s policy, is all about what is in the best economic interests of the United Kingdom, our businesses, and the jobs and communities that depend on them. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), who occupies a position as shadow Brexit Minister, that I unreservedly welcome the fact that there is now a growing consensus in the House in favour of remaining in a customs union with the European Union after the transition period. As hon. Members will know, I have been arguing for that for a very long time. It is supported by, among others, the CBI; it would remove any risks of a return to tariffs and help to ease concerns about supply chains; it would be an essential first step, but not the complete answer, to ensuring a free and open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic without infrastructure; and it would also save money—the hon. Member for North East Fife made the point that, if we are in a customs union, we will not need to recruit a load of new customs officers.
The House will face that choice in due course, however long the Government delay the Trade Bill. To the two SNP Members who have spoken, I should say that, despite their slightly ungenerous characterisation of the policy position announced by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Brexit Secretary over the last two days, I trust that, when the vote comes, the SNP will be in the Division Lobby with Labour Members and others.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The confirmation I would need is this: what is the difference between “a customs union” and “the customs union”? I said that there are many other possibilities—an infinite number—but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what it means.
Hilary Benn
I hope that that is not a caveated expression of support. My interpretation of “a customs union”, as opposed to “the customs union”, is that it would bring all the same benefits—
Hilary Benn
Indeed. There is a legal argument about whether one can remain a member of the customs union if we are not a member of the European Union. But SNP Members need to be careful: if we go through the Division Lobby and discover that they are sitting on their hands when we have the chance to say to the Government with one voice—we should not weaken—that the view of those who think that staying in a customs union is right—
Stephen Gethins
As usual, the right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point and is making an excellent speech. I agree with much of what he has said and look forward to defeating the Government in due course. However, one challenge we have is this. The Government are on the ropes; will he gently nudge Labour Front Benchers to get behind the single market as well as the customs union?
Hilary Benn
I take that as an endorsement of the development of our policy announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Brexit Secretary over the past two days. I notice the slightly different approaches of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). I want us to continue to develop our policy. I have always said openly that the single market issue is more complicated because of free movement, but where we can find common ground with some Conservative Members, we need to maximise that unity of purpose and strength. In the end, if the Government are forced to realise that they cannot get policies through the House of Commons, they will have to change their mind. As I said in my last speech in the House, if the Government will not do their job, the House will have to do it for them.
Hilary Benn
Other Members want to speak. I have given way already, and I am about to bring my remarks to a close.
It seems to me that the estimates we should really be discussing are our best estimates of the economic impact of Brexit. We are now running out of time. It is 19 months since the referendum, and there are nine months to go in the negotiation, but, crucially, there is one month until the European Union draws up its negotiating guidelines for the new economic relationship. If we do not get a move on, we run the risk that options that the House—or, heaven knows, the Government, if they change their view—might want to pursue are closed off by the EU in the negotiating guidelines for want of clarity about what the United Kingdom is seeking.
Bill Grant
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I am standing up without holding on to the ropes at the moment.
I am thoroughly enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s balanced and informative speech, but should he not consider the possible thoughts of, for example, the Dutch flower growers, the Italian Prosecco producers, the Italian winemakers and the German car manufacturers? I am sure he agrees that they will wish to do business with the United Kingdom, because we are a good country to do business with.
Hilary Benn
The Prosecco and BMW car analysis of our future economic relationship with the European Union—we heard a lot of it during the referendum—simply fails to understand the sheer complexity of the task that we now face. The customs union, in one sense, is the easy bit. When it comes to our future relationship with the internal market and the whole question of divergence, which we may hear more about from the Prime Minister when she speaks on Friday, I can tell the House, following our discussions in Brussels a week ago with the Select Committee—colleagues who were there can confirm this—that the moment the Government start to talk about divergence, two things happen with the European Union.
First, the EU asks, “Divergence where? How? What will it mean? How will we manage the process?” It has experience of the Swiss-type deal, which is basically 60 deals, which it loathes because of the complexity of the task and the need to continue to negotiate and, in effect, renegotiate with Switzerland how the relationship will work. The second issue that the EU raises is this: it is afraid that we will use freedom to gain the competitive advantage of being able to sail through the door that the Government are asking it to leave open for us when it comes to trading goods and services.
We are now learning that after the simplistic promises—“You can have your cake and eat it”, “There will be a deep and special partnership”, and all that sort of stuff—we have come to the end of that approach to Brexit. Now is the time for choices. The Government will make their choice, and we will have to live with the consequences, but it will be very apparent to Ministers—not least, I am sure, from the exchange of views around that room in Chequers—that there are trade-offs to be made, depending on what it is that we want.
I have argued passionately for remaining in a customs union not only because I think that it is in the best interests of British business, but because of the question of Northern Ireland. Believe you me, if we are to meet the very high bar that the Government have rightly set for maintaining an open border—the Select Committee made this point in its report at the end of last year—I do not see how that can be reconciled with the Government’s current policy of leaving the customs union and the single market. What we need now are clarity and certainty, and we need them with speed. Above all, however, we need the right policies for the economic future of the United Kingdom.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I hope to respond in a minute to some of the points that he made about the customs union. However, before I start to talk about DExEU and Brexit, I want to make some general observations about the process in which we are engaged during our two days of debate on the estimates.
When I, and most of my colleagues, came to the House in 2015, we were quite shocked by the lack of financial scrutiny of the Executive in the Chamber. Since we became the third party, we have pressed for change in the way in which the estimates are considered. I therefore welcome the baby steps taken this year, in that we are at least able to focus on a set of figures that relate to a Government Department and what it is doing, rather than discuss random topics that may or may not be related to budgetary matters. However, we still have a long way to go in holding the Executive to account financially and in terms of their policies.
I firmly believe that if we were the board of a large charitable organisation, the charity regulators would find us wanting in terms of our procedures for financial scrutiny and accountability. I also believe that if we were the board of a large corporation, our shareholders would be demanding action to improve our processes. I therefore hope that the steps we have taken this year are the beginning of a process, and we might one day get to a situation where the Government are required to produce a programme plan charting their future policies and their effects, and then each Department has to produce a programme plan, which each Select Committee can scrutinise along with the budget that goes with it. That is the process that the Scottish Government are engaged in, in terms of how they govern the responsibilities under their remit, and it is one that we could learn from and try to develop here in the years ahead.
What happens when we combine a rudimentary process of programme planning and financial planning with the complete absence of a set of policy objectives in the first place? The answer is DExEU, because here we have combined an absolute lack of planning and a financial mess. DExEU was set up in the summer of 2016 by a shell-shocked Government who frankly did not know what to do in implementing a referendum result that they did not expect. In a desperate desire to be seen to be doing something, they set up a brand, spanking new Department, with lots of new letterheads and people to write memos to each other, and lots of people employed to research and analyse something, the only problem being that there was no plan to be implemented.
In the absence of a plan to be implemented, we have gone from one chaos to another, and I share the Minister’s embarrassment. This must be the only Department in history that underspends its budget not by a couple of percentage points, but by 50% in its first year, and it has had to go to the Treasury to scale down its estimates of spending in the next financial year.
That is a phenomenal metaphor for the Government’s Brexit policy, because they do not know quite what they are doing. In the absence of their being able to play a co-ordination role in planning for Brexit, individual Departments have had to be allowed to do their own thing and try to deal with the consequences as best they can. That is why 90% of the amount of money being spent on Brexit preparations, or the lack of them, is not to be found in the Department supposedly responsible for co-ordinating preparations for Brexit. That is a ridiculous situation.
This, of course, is from a Government who have said not only that they will set up a brand new Department, but that money is no object for that Department. This is a Government who cannot find the money for our health service; a Government who are determined to squeeze down wages by pay restraint in the public sector and reduced living standards; a Government who have, for heaven’s sake, taken £30 a week of employment and support allowance from the most vulnerable people in our community—yet they can find £4 billion over the next few years to spend on preparing for Brexit. The problem is that the plans are so incomplete, and they do not know what they are doing, so they are even unable to spend the money.
Tommy Sheppard
I will certainly give way, and hopefully we will hear what the plan is.
Bill Grant
I remind you, in case you have forgotten, that this Government created and increased the living wage and took millions of people out of tax, and your Government in Scotland asked that the wages cap be lifted in the public sector simply so you could tax people more.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is becoming a bit of a habit that there are exchanges across the House with Members saying “You” and “you” and “you”. We must observe the courtesies of the House; one goes through the Chair.
Tommy Sheppard
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to point out that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention had a tenuous link to the subject of debate and no connection whatever to what I was saying, but he has none the less made his point for the record.
What does this lack of preparation mean for financial planning? I shall give the House two quick examples. The first is the customs union—or the customs arrangements, as the Government will call them. I might be wrong, but it seems overwhelmingly logical for our global trade that if we are leaving the European Union, we should first immediately try to seek an arrangement with those countries that are nearest to us and with which we have the greatest trading links. That ought not to be a matter of controversy. The only reason that it is controversial is the existence of an unreasonable number of people on the Government Benches who are so Europhobic that they will not countenance anything that looks like a cut-down relationship with the European Union. The idea of having a customs union should not be controversial, however, and I very much welcome the fact that Her Majesty’s Opposition now seem to be on a course towards coming round to that point of view.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
At one stage, the Labour party was against “the customs union”. Now it is for “a customs union”. The Conservatives are clearly against the customs union, and the Opposition are rallying around it, but we now have a third option from Labour, apparently dividing the Opposition, in favour of a customs union that it cannot fully explain. Does my hon. Friend see a difficulty in what Labour is proposing?
Tommy Sheppard
I am going to be uncharacteristically kind to the Labour party and take the right hon. Member for Leeds Central at his word. He seemed to be suggesting that we were moving towards a situation in which the difference between “a customs union” and “the customs union” might not be that great. In fact, I think he said that he viewed “a customs union” as having to replicate the procedures of “the customs union”.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
This is becoming one of the most pointless, tedious and repetitive conversations. May I help the hon. Gentleman out? There is not really any difference; it is all about how it is embedded in the treaty. We cannot be part of “the customs union” because it is part of the treaty that we are leaving, so we will need a new one. Therefore it will be “a customs union”. There is, in essence, no difference.
Tommy Sheppard
Well, if there is no difference, welcome to the party! It is good to have the hon. Lady on board, and we look forward to her walking through the Lobby with us next time this comes to a decision.
The debate about customs arrangements is relevant to the budget because the clock is ticking and we are now only just over a year away from Brexit day. We still do not know what customs arrangements we are going to have with the EU27, yet the Department for International Trade is allowed to run round the world meeting everyone and talking about all manner of global trading arrangements, even though everyone knows that if there is a set of legacy arrangements involving the European Union that will probably place conditions on or compromise any arrangements we can make with anyone else. What a waste of money it is to engage in the process of pretending that we are going to have unfettered global trading arrangements with the rest of the world while at the same time discussing the need for preferential trading arrangements with the European Union.
Let me just take one more minute to talk about the second aspect of Brexit and DExEU that illustrates the lack of co-ordination and the financial waste involved in this process—namely, clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Unless that clause is corrected, it will drive a coach and horses through the principle of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, yet at the 11th hour we still do not have the amendments that the Government admitted in debates in this Chamber were necessary to make the Bill work.
The question is this: who is at fault for that? Is it the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister? Someone needs to tell us why they could not achieve the simple thing of preparing legislation that would allow a coherent withdrawal Bill to be presented to the House. That is not something that we can blame on Brussels. Michel Barnier does not really care what clause 11 of our European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is or what the post-Brexit arrangements for devolution are. This problem is self-made and self-inflicted, because the Government are so incoherent and unable to plan. I hope that in the months and years to come we will have rather more coherence in Government policy and therefore rather better financial coherence as a result.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Unlike most contributors to this debate, I do not believe that we are spending the money in these estimates to take the United Kingdom into some dismal future. Rather, it is essential that this money is spent in order to ensure that this country has a bright future. I do not want to debate the reports about our future economic prospects, other than to say that 15-year economic reports do not mean a great deal. We can dispense fairly quickly with 15-year economic reports that are full of caveats that highly uncertain figures should not be used as forecasts or given any weight as single-point estimates. None of the reports made to date have come to fruition. In fact, all the gloomy forecasts have been totally dispelled in the short run.
The money that we are spending in these estimates to exit the EU is money well spent. It will release billions of pounds in the future from our EU contributions. It will open new horizons to do trade deals with the parts of the world economy where 90% of future growth will happen. It will enable us to stop the imposition of the red tape from Europe that stifles innovation and new industries in the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is the established industries that most hanker after the directives, because they influence the regulations from Europe in order to cut out competition, so that should indicate that we are going in the right direction. The money is essential to open up a bright future.
It is important that we are prepared. People have commented on the unpreparedness and the fact that we have a lot of work to do in the negotiations. Yes, the establishment and the elite may well have found the referendum result unexpected, but that was because they were all so cosy in their little arrangement. However, the people voted in a certain way and now the Government must act, which is why we have the Department for Exiting the European Union, and it is important that we prepare for all the different scenarios, including for no deal.
When we look at how European bureaucrats and negotiators are treating the situation, they still do not believe that the views that people expressed in the referendum will actually be implemented. We therefore get the kind of nonsense that we have had from Michel Barnier over the last couple of weeks. He has threatened us with things like, “If you do not behave, you will be punished,” and now that has to be put into legal language that will almost tie us to an option that keeps us in the single market and the customs union. It is important not only that the Government send out a signal, but that they are prepared to walk away on WTO rules if there is no good deal for the United Kingdom. That should be used as the basis to negotiate a future free trade arrangement.
Mr Fysh
One of the concerns I have is that we might have a political agreement on a transition or implementation period in the next six or nine months, but if that falls over at the last minute, it will be essential that we have made the preparations now. I am concerned that we are not getting on with appropriate speed with some of the infrastructure that could alleviate the potential trade issues at the border.
Sammy Wilson
Not only are these preparations needed in case there is no deal; many of these preparations will be essential whether or not there is a deal. Of course we have to spend money on registering EU citizens who already live in the United Kingdom, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), mentioned. The Home Office needs to spend money on the borders as it prepares for our exit. Whether we have a deal or no deal—or whatever scenario there is—IT infrastructure or surveillance infrastructure, or whatever, will be needed to monitor the trade that goes back and forth. It is essential that we spend that money.
Reference has been made to an underspend. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said that the underspend is a metaphor for Brexit, and maybe it is. Yes, we will save an awful lot of money when we leave the European Union. We will save our contributions to the EU budget. If the underspend is a metaphor for Brexit, it is simply due to efficiency. That is well and good.
The Department is entering uncharted waters. Given the work streams that need to be done, do the underspend last year and the reduction this year reflect the true resources that the Department needs? Given the nature of the people, as was explained to us at the start of the debate, have there been difficulties in getting the needed expertise? If so, what plans does the Department have to ensure that we have sufficient resources to do the important work we have talked about? The Minister has made an assessment of future needs; is he convinced that other Departments have sufficient money? Finally, £365,000 has been spent on legal fees in Northern Ireland. Have those costs arisen as a result of action taken by the known fraudster in Northern Ireland who is now a serial litigant?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful for the chance to sum up this debate. Given that we are short on time, I will keep my remarks brief.
There has been interest in this debate from everyone but Tory Back Benchers—it is noticeable that none of them wanted to speak—so I hope we might have even more time next time around. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said that this is the first time we have had anything like a proper chance to examine Government estimates. Who knows? Maybe by the time this Parliament is 321 years old we will have financial scrutiny procedures as inclusive and as thorough as those that the Scottish Parliament put in place before it was one year old, assuming this Parliament ever gets to 321 years old—I would not bet on it.
Peter Grant
I cannot take interventions from Members who chose not to put in to speak. There is limited time for the three Front-Bench speeches, and I want to give the Minister time to answer the questions that have been asked.
When it comes to Brexit, DExEU is practically the only Department that has not seen its budget increased during the year. The Home Office needs more money to cope with an immigration system that will do who knows what because we do not know what immigration will look like. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs needs money for a customs system to deal with who knows what customs arrangements we have after Brexit.
It was interesting that we heard from the Labour Front Bencher that being in a customs union with the customs union is no different from being in the customs union except that it is not enshrined in the treaties. Given that that distinction first appeared in the Tory party’s White Paper shortly after the Brexit referendum, I hope the Minister will be able to confirm tonight whether that is the Government’s understanding: being in a customs union with the customs union is not any different in practice from being in the customs union. Good news it is, partly because it simplifies things and partly because it saves Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about £400 million of unnecessary expenditure.
Interestingly, despite all the other expenditure we have seen in relation to Brexit, a proper analysis has not yet been done as to the likely impacts of all the different scenarios we could be faced with. We keep getting told that the few pages that have been done are so full of caveats that they are not particularly worth while. What does that say about a Government who committed themselves to a hard Brexit—to leaving the customs union and the single market—without a single paragraph of analysis about what the economic impact would be? That is especially the case as we see now that the economic impact is a 5%, 10% or 15% fall in economic growth over the next few years, with billions of pounds wiped out of the economy. The Government have committed themselves to that without even stopping to think about the impact. If that is not complacency and incompetence to an almost criminal degree, I genuinely do not know what is.
The most optimistic noise that the Brexit Secretary has been able to make recently has been to tell us that leaving the European Union will not be quite as bad as “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome”. Previously, the Foreign Secretary predicted that it would be as successful as “Titanic”. That has prompted a bit of a Twitter storm, with people trying to suggest what disaster movies would best describe the process of leaving the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) tried to broaden the description by talking about soap operas. I do not know whether it should be “That’s when good neighbours stop being good friends” or perhaps “Home and Away”, because the Prime Minister tells one story when she is at home here and a very different story when she is away in Brussels trying to woo the European Union.
Rather than talking about a blockbuster disaster movie, it may surprise Members if I say that the Government are actually heading for a real blockbuster of a Brexit. On 1 January 1973, the UK officially joined the Common Market, as it was then known. Wee Jimmy Osmond was at the top of the charts, but a few weeks later he was displaced by those immortal glam rockers “The Sweet”. Those of us lucky enough to be growing up in those times, which were an epitome of a combination of the best possible taste in music, fashion and television, will never forget the lyrics of that immortal song, the only No. 1 they ever had. Its chorus reads like a press statement coming out at the end of a Brexit Cabinet meeting:
“Does anyone know the way?
There’s got to be a way…
We just haven’t got a clue what to do.”
Or, as a constituent more pithily said to me a few days ago about Brexit:
“They couldnae make a bigger bahookie of it if they tried”.
I should explain that that guid Scots word does not mean “elbow”, although given the Government’s performance to date I am not sure they would know the difference.
The only question to be asked on the Brexit estimates today is: if this is how much we have to take away—hundreds of millions of pounds—from our health service, from desperately needed investment in social housing, from our welfare system and from our understaffed and under-equipped armed forces, and spend to create a machinery for a failed Brexit, can we imagine how much we would have to spend to make it work? No Government could make it work, and this Government certainly cannot. They have to change. They have got to get back around the negotiating table and get us away from a cliff edge of a hard Brexit. Otherwise, the amounts of money that have been included in the expenditure estimates for the Brexit Department will be a drop in the ocean compared with the overall cost to the people of these islands.
Douglas Ross
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) mentioned at the opening of his remarks that there had been no Conservative Back-Bench speakers and he criticised Conservative Members for that. May I ask, through you, whether he would agree that that would therefore be a criticism of the Scottish National party, which in a four-hour defence debate immediately preceding this one could not muster one Back-Bench speaker?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation. He has made his own point in his own way, with his usual force and alacrity. It is on the record.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Today, Parliament is asked to consider an underspend by the Department for Exiting the European Union. We might as well, as it is far from clear what we have been getting for our money anyway. The Government wasted £1.4 million on fighting Parliament’s right to vote on the decision to trigger article 50. Around 75% of the cost derived from the Supreme Court appeal that Labour opposed at the time as a waste of money.
It gets worse. The Government decided that, for show, it would look good if Sir Tim Barrow could be photographed hand-delivering the article 50 letter from the Prime Minister to the European Council. The two business-premier class return tickets cost around £1,000. Apparently, it took two people to deliver the letter, which is surprising given how understaffed the Department is.
Will the Minister comment on the Department’s unusually large staff churn? The National Audit Office recently found that churn at the Department is running at 9% per quarter. The civil service average is 9% per year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said in his, as ever, excellent speech, the Institute for Government thinks that that degree of churn in the Department at the forefront of co-ordinating the complicated task of leaving the EU should cause concern both within and outside the Department. It certainly causes me concerns.
Perhaps the Department is not so much at the centre of co-ordinating this complicated task after all. In December 2017, Oliver Robbins left his role as permanent secretary at the Department to focus on his role as the Prime Minister’s European adviser. Robbins was joined at the Cabinet Office by his own team and a unit of around 30 staff. An answer to a Labour written question revealed that Robbins’ new unit includes five deputy directors, on up to £118,000 each; six Cabinet Office band As, on up to £60,500 each; and seven Cabinet Office band Bs, on up to £38,500 each.
In December, we found out that one in four DExEU posts was unfilled, including 81 policy roles, and that 44% of DExEU staff plan to leave within the next year. Jill Rutter, programme director at the Institute for Government, put it like this:
“They’ve been losing people at a higher rate than any civil service department. It obviously makes your task harder of filling up that bucket, it’s like filling up a bucket with a bit of a leak”.
Can the Minister explain how much of the Department’s underspend is because of an inability to recruit and retain staff? Why is it that the Department struggles to find and keep hold of good staff? What is it about the Department that is so off-putting to talented civil servants? Perhaps it is because there is a Whitehall turf war over Brexit, leaving the Department effectively neutered and paralysed by the division in government.
With such excess resources available, how is it that the Department made such a pathetic job of pretending that it had conducted sectoral analyses of Brexit’s impact on the economy? When they were finally made available, they were an embarrassing copy-and-paste waste of paper. I will not go over the whole shoddy tale again, but it proved just how disorganised and under-powered the Government’s Brexit operation is. It is chaotic.
The worst part of all of this is that amid the chaos, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has turned his face away from one of the most important issues that his Government faces: the impact of Brexit on the border in Northern Ireland. I have visited Northern Ireland on three occasions in the past three months, because the impact of the reintroduction of a hard border would be a catastrophe for all communities in Northern Ireland. I agree with the Government’s assertion that Northern Ireland should be treated the same as the rest of the UK, but Labour will never support a Brexit deal that results in any customs infrastructure whatsoever on the Northern Ireland border.
The Secretary of State has not visited Northern Ireland once since September 2016, and I do not think he has ever visited the border. That is neglectful. He ought to go there so that he can correct the Tory former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), when he says that the Good Friday agreement has outlived its use. Such outrageous, casual ignorance is frightening. Will the Minister assure the House that there is no circumstance in which the Government would countenance establishing any infrastructure on the Northern Ireland border?
Can the Minister identify for the House a single example of an open border between two countries operating different customs regimes? Anywhere—Norway and Sweden, or the USA and Canada? It cannot be done. Therefore, because there are no credible alternatives that would safeguard the Good Friday agreement, and because of the need to support manufacturers throughout the UK, the Labour party has said that it would seek to negotiate a new customs union with the EU.
The Government are failing in so many of their responsibilities, and the excuse that is so often given is that they are focused on Brexit. Maybe if Brexit was going well, if the Department was not so unstable, if there was clarity of position or a sense of energy and purpose, or if the Prime Minister could articulate with any certainty where the country is heading, Ministers might be forgiven for their lack of progress on so many issues. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke of metaphors, but sadly an apt metaphor for the entire Government can be found in the Department’s rapid decline into chaos, division, irrelevance and incompetence.
Mr Speaker
We are joined this evening by the Prime Minister of Kosovo, who is supported by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). We are most grateful to the Prime Minister for his attendance at the House of Commons and we wish him and his country all the best.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on opening the debate and I thank the hon. Members who have contributed. I am proud to serve in and represent the Department for Exiting the European Union, which—despite having been established for only two years—has achieved a great deal.
As the House knows, the Department was set up in response to the referendum, one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history. Turnout was high at 72%, with more than 33 million people having their say. Turnout was higher than in any general election since 1992, and it was the second highest popular vote of any form in our long and distinguished democratic history. More than 1 million more people voted leave than voted remain.
The Department was established at pace from a standing start. It has grown considerably to more than 600 staff today, plus more than 150 people based in Brussels at our permanent representation to the EU. DExEU staff are drawn from more than 40 Departments and public bodies, and 180 staff have joined us from outside government to ensure that we have the range of expertise to deliver our objectives. If time allows, I will respond specifically to the Chair of the Select Committee, but I join him in paying tribute to the quality of our staff, and I was glad to hear him do so. I am extremely proud to work with them.
As many hon. Members observed in the debate, and as many others have done here and in the Lords, the scale of the Department’s task is immense, but its objectives are clear. One of DExEU’s primary objectives is to lead and co-ordinate cross-Government work to seize the opportunities of Brexit and to ensure a smooth process as we leave, including the required domestic legislation, on the best possible terms.
Delivering EU exit is, of course, a cross-Government effort. Our work in DExEU means that we come together with the devolved Administrations, Parliament, EU member states and institutions, and a wide range of other interested parties. The Department is small and agile in Whitehall terms, with just over 600 people. We are focused on co-ordinating activities towards our EU exit in Brussels, in Whitehall and beyond across the UK.
For 2017-18, our original budget for the year was £106.1 million. Following a supplementary estimate, we have reduced this budget to £80.6 million. The Department transferred £1 million to the Cabinet Office in relation to supporting the transfer of the role of the Europe adviser to the Cabinet Office, and a further £0.8 million to other Departments to support activities directly related to our exit from the European Union. A further £20 million of the original budget was returned to the Treasury to be transferred to and used by other Departments for critical work relating to Brexit. Our Department has sufficient funding in current and future years to deliver its objectives.
We have achieved a tremendous amount already. We have put in place a major legislative programme to make sure our statute book continues to function smoothly as we exit the European Union, and to cater for the full range of negotiated and non-negotiated outcomes.
DExEU has set out the Government’s future vision in 14 position papers, supporting the keynote speeches delivered by the Prime Minister at Lancaster House and in Florence. Officials from my Department have engaged in negotiations and supported the Secretary of State in the Brussels negotiations, which ran from June to December. That culminated in our publication, with the EU, of a joint report on 8 December last year, setting out the significant agreements that we had reached on the three key areas of citizens’ rights, the budget and Northern Ireland.
A fair deal on citizens’ rights is one that will allow for the UK and EU citizens to get on with their lives broadly as they do now in the country where they live. The financial settlement honours the commitments that we undertook as members of the EU, as we said it would. It is a fair delivery of our obligations in the light of the spirit of our future partnership and it is one based on reasonable assumptions. The settlement is estimated to stand at between £35 billion and £39 billion in current terms, which is the equivalent of around four years of our current budget contribution, around two of which we expect to be covered by the implementation period. It is far removed from the figure that some had suggested of £60 billion.
We have an agreement in relation to Northern Ireland that commits us to maintain the common travel area with Ireland, to uphold the Belfast agreement in full and to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland while upholding the constitutional and economic integrity of the whole United Kingdom. On that point, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) asked about visits to Northern Ireland. I checked just moments before I rose to speak. The answer is that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is responsible for engaging with Northern Ireland, has made three visits and has another planned.
We want to honour the agreements set out in the joint report. The important thing now is for talks to move forward so that we can agree the terms of our future relationship with the EU in order to provide vital certainty to businesses and citizens. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked what signals we wanted to send. Although I agree with him that a responsible Government should prepare for all scenarios, the signal that this Government wish to send is that which I have just set out: we wish to fulfil the withdrawal agreement; we wish to agree an implementation period; we wish to agree a co-operation on security and defence because our commitment to peace and security in Europe is unconditional; and, of course, we want to move forward to agree a future economic partnership that is in all our mutual interests.
Negotiations have been continuing at pace in the last two months to ensure that we secure a deal on the time-limited implementation period that both we and the Commission want to agree by the March European Council. The Prime Minister has advocated this implementation period from the start, and first mentioned it in her Lancaster House speech. The implementation period will provide greater certainty for individuals and businesses, meaning they will only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. The business community has been clear on the importance of this to its planning, and the period will ensure a smooth exit and transition to our future partnership after the UK leaves the European Union in March 2019. We have of course published a legal text on the arrangements for the implementation period and we look forward to taking further significant steps.
As I have said, a key part of DExEU’s role is to lead and co-ordinate work across Government. We have been working with Whitehall Departments to help them to plan for all scenarios, sharing assumptions and scenarios and making sure we have the right legal and administrative systems in place. The Department returned £20 million of original Budget allocation to the Treasury to help to fund other Departments, with an additional £2 million being transferred to other Government Departments as a result of a transfer of responsibilities. In terms of wider financial support for EU exit, over £250 million has been approved by the Treasury as needed in 2017-18 to prepare for EU exit work across a range of Departments. The Chancellor announced at the 2017 autumn statement that a further £3 billion will be available to Departments.
Time has run short in this debate. I will just pick up one or two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Darlington regarding the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser. The departmental and ministerial responsibilities are set out clearly on gov.uk. The Europe unit supports Olly Robbins in his role as the Prime Minister’s EU sherpa. As such, it supports him as the lead official and the Department is glad to work with him.
As time has run so short, I will finish by simply saying that I have listened extremely carefully to the debate, in particular to the points on the customs union, but the Government’s position remains as stated.
Stephen Gethins
I thank all Members for their contributions. This is a big undertaking, and it is incredibly important that Members have the opportunity to analyse as much information as possible. I note the remarks by the Chairman of the Brexit Committee. I also note the remarks of the Minister acknowledging the work of civil servants. I hope that he will shine a light, as far as possible, on their economic analysis and what it means.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).
Business without Debate
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Diabetes
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this very important health issue. I should first declare an interest as an active member of the all-party parliamentary group on diabetes, ably chaired and led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).
We have come a long way with the treatment of diabetes since 1921, when Banting and Best isolated insulin from dog pancreases, and then, working with Scottish physiologist J. J. R. MacLeod, purified a form of insulin that was suitable for human treatment from cows’ pancreases. This was at the time, and remains, a major scientific and Nobel-prize winning breakthrough. Before insulin therapy was discovered, diabetes was a deadly illness. The first medical success was with a boy with type 1 diabetes—14-year-old Leonard Thompson, who was successfully treated in 1922. Close to death before treatment, Leonard bounced back to life when treated with insulin.
Now, almost 100 years later, we understand a lot more about diabetes. We are able to explain the difference between type 1, an autoimmune disorder that is treatable by insulin; and type 2, insulin resistance or insufficiency, much more influenced by other health factors such as obesity and physical inactivity. We also know that a diagnosis of diabetes is no longer a death sentence. Nevertheless, diabetes remains a serious illness that affects 4.5 million people in the UK.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the excellent work she does as vice-chair of the all-party group on diabetes. She mentioned those who have diabetes, but there are still about half a million people who have type 2, as I do, but do not know that they have it. Does she agree that prevention is the most important thing that we can do to try to help those who have type 2 but are not aware that they have it?
Liz McInnes
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I think he must have read my speech, because I will be talking about the prevention of type 2 diabetes, and how important it is that we are aware of that and also make the population aware of the measures they can take.
There are more people living with diabetes in the UK than with any other serious health condition—more than dementia and cancer combined. The complications of diabetes are many. They include eye, foot and skin complications; anxiety and depression; hearing loss; gum disease; neuropathy; infections; slow wound healing; strokes; heart failure; heart attacks; lower limb amputations; renal problems; and early death.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The diabetes crisis is one of the fastest growing health crises of our time. As the hon. Lady says, the physical consequences are well known, but recent research by Diabetes Scotland has shown that the stress, isolation and trauma of managing an invisible but life-threatening condition can have serious implications for a person’s emotional wellbeing. Does she feel that we need to look at offering support and increased provision of psychological support for diabetes sufferers?
Liz McInnes
I absolutely agree. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and I will cover that later in my speech.
As the hon. Lady says, the number of people living with diabetes is rising fast. Every day, around 700 people are diagnosed—that is one person every two minutes. It is estimated that by 2025, 5.2 million people will be living with diabetes. With 10% of the total NHS budget being spent on diabetes every year, it is important that we talk about treatment, prevention and the future of diabetes care, particularly as 80% of these costs are spent on the complications of diabetes, many of which are avoidable through better care.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I declare an interest, as a type 2 diabetic, like the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). There are some 100,000 people with diabetes in Northern Ireland at present, and we have the largest number of type 1 child diabetics in the whole of the United Kingdom. The issues in Northern Ireland are very acute. Does she agree that the NHS should widely fund not only insulin pumps for children with type 1 diabetes, but training, to ensure that children can use those pumps, to make their lives better? I think it is important that we do so.
Liz McInnes
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will talk about the technologies that are available for the treatment of diabetes and about education and information, so I hope I will answer his question later in my speech.
The hon. Gentleman emphasises the point that I was going to make, which is that it is really important that we listen to the voices of those living with diabetes. The charity Diabetes UK recently published a report entitled “The Future of Diabetes”, based on a consultation with more than 9,000 affected people. Those people said that, as well as a need for a better understanding and awareness of diabetes, there are a number of ways in which diabetes care can be improved.
In 2016 the Care Quality Commission produced a report entitled “My diabetes, my care”, based on a survey of a smaller number of people, but it came to very much the same conclusions. People living with diabetes want more support for their emotional and psychological health. The effect of varying blood sugar levels on mood and the relentless need to manage the condition can affect mental health.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; she has been very generous. Is she aware that some young type 1 diabetics manipulate their insulin to get rapid weight loss, and that they struggle to get treatment because on the one hand, they need psychological support, and on the other, they need advice from diabetologists? Does she agree that, if we started to bring all those different support services under one roof, it would make the route to dealing with young people who have that problem much easier?
Liz McInnes
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. In the APPG on diabetes, we have discussed the issue of young diabetics self-medicating with insulin to keep their weight down. That emphasises the point I was going to make, which is that all healthcare professionals should receive training so that they can routinely support emotional and mental health and, importantly, know when to refer to specialist support.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Young people find it incredibly difficult to do glucose testing. The FreeStyle Libre device is a mechanism through which young people can have regular testing without that fear. However, they have to go through an individual funding request to access that. Should that not be available on the NHS?
Liz McInnes
I completely agree, and I will discuss FreeStyle Libre patches later on. I am beginning to feel like everybody here has had sight of my speech before I have even delivered it.
The next point arising from the survey is that people living with diabetes want better access to healthcare professionals who understand diabetes. Many respondents said that they felt they were being treated as a condition and a set of symptoms rather than as a human being.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I feel I want to ask a question just to participate. Given that lifestyle choices play a big part in type 2 diabetes, what value does the hon. Lady put on the information courses that are made available to people to help them to manage such lifestyle choices?
Liz McInnes
The information and education courses are really important in helping to manage the condition. I will come on to talk about that very subject later in my speech.
To go back to the role of specialists, I know from my involvement with the all-party group on diabetes that the role of the diabetes specialist nurse is valued by many. Evidence shows that diabetes specialist nurses are cost-effective, improve clinical outcomes and reduce the length of stay in hospital. With rising numbers of diagnoses of diabetes, I ask the Minister to encourage employers to respond to this with appropriate workforce planning.
The third point from the survey is that people want better access to technology and treatments. Diabetes treatment is ever evolving and advancing, but 28% of those who took part in the survey reported problems in getting the medication or equipment they needed to manage their diabetes. The Minister may recall that last year the Prime Minister was seen at an event wearing a FreeStyle Libre glucose monitoring device, which has already been mentioned. It is this type of non-invasive device that makes life so much easier and more manageable for those living with diabetes, and it is a great example of the technological advances taking place today. This device is designed to liberate patients from the hassles of routine finger prick testing. However, so far, only one third of CCGs and health boards have placed FreeStyle Libre on the formulary, demonstrating the problem faced by many in obtaining access to new technology.
The fourth point is that there is also a need for education and information to be widely available. No one should be given a diagnosis of diabetes without also being informed of where to go for information and support. People’s ability to self-manage is essential for the successful management of diabetes. Self-management reduces the risk of complications and demand on health and care services.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that children with type 1 diabetes require particular understanding from the teachers in their school if they are to stay safe, and a proper dispensation to eat when they need to eat and to do blood tests when they need to do so? Will she join me in urging the Department for Education to make the guidance to schools on type 1 diabetes more prescriptive?
Liz McInnes
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is actually the fifth point of the survey—support and understanding at work and school—and I will go on to talk about that. He explained the whole point very well, and I totally agree with him.
To go back to the education programmes, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends that people should be offered a course around the time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, and six to 12 months after diagnosis for people with type 1 diabetes, with annual reinforcement and review. The Care Quality Commission survey found that, in general, people who had attended structured education courses were very positive about their experiences. The majority of people said that it was helpful in improving their knowledge and ability to self-manage. People identified benefits, including improved understanding and knowledge about their condition; improved self-control and management, such as diet and exercise; and the opportunity to discuss concerns and share information with other people. However, there was a clear theme of people saying that, although the courses were helpful, they wanted more opportunities to attend refresher sessions.
The fifth point is that people living with diabetes want more support and understanding at work and school. Good care at school is vital and all schools should have an effective care plan in place. For those in work, an understanding and informed employer can make the difference between that person being able to continue in productive work, and being forced to leave because of difficulties in managing their condition while at work.
Finally and most importantly of all, people living with diabetes want hope for the future. Once diagnosed, people live with diabetes for the rest of their lives. They want to know what is being done to work towards a world where diabetes can be prevented and cured. It is for that reason that I asked for this debate—so that we can discuss research, funding, awareness, treatment, support, information and education for those living with diabetes.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that groups such as the Bristol South Diabetes Support Group are really important in bringing together volunteers to support people across the country? Does she support those volunteers, who not only supplement the work of the NHS but give people the confidence to manage their work?
Liz McInnes
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is up to healthcare professionals to encourage those voluntary groups to get together, to enable people to give each other support. That was one of the findings of the Diabetes UK survey: people wanted to come together to offer each other support.
Jim Shannon
Further to that point, this morning’s news reported on the millennium child and an increase in diabetes as a result of diet. Does that not underline exactly what the hon. Lady has argued today, which is that we need to do something now? If the millennium child—the adult of tomorrow—is going to have high levels of obesity and diabetes, there is a real need for a strategy right now.
Liz McInnes
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s very important point. I was struck by that item on the news first thing this morning. It is coincidental that it was announced today and I will refer to it in my concluding remarks.
For type 1 diabetes, research priorities include reducing hypoglycaemic episodes, exploring the effectiveness of different insulins and technologies, and research into the artificial pancreas, which monitors blood sugar levels and automatically injects the right amount of insulin.
For type 2 diabetes, people want to know whether their diabetes can be cured, for example through surgery or very low calorie diets. Encouraging work is being done on low calorie diets, and a trial funded by Diabetes UK—the diabetes remission clinical trial—showed that almost half of type 2 diabetics who took part were in remission after 12 months.
We need to help people to reduce their risk of developing type 2 diabetes, and that means tackling the reasons for the increasing rates of obesity, particularly childhood obesity. The PREVIEW project—prevention of diabetes through lifestyle, intervention and population studies in Europe and around the world—showed that a weight loss of 10% of baseline weight can decrease insulin resistance, which is a causative factor in diabetes, and this is expected to reduce by 85% the three-year risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
In conclusion, I have two requests for the Minister. The first is that we build on progress being made through the NHS diabetes programme and commit to sustained transformation funding at current levels of £44 million a year until at least 2021. The NHS diabetes programme sets out to improve the treatment and care for people with diabetes. Investing now will allow us to reap substantial financial and social benefits in the future.
My second request is that we strengthen the childhood obesity plan, including measures on labelling and junk food marketing. Just this morning, Cancer Research UK called for the same action. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that taking steps to tackle childhood obesity will improve the health of the nation and have an impact on all obesity-related illnesses, not just diabetes. We want mandatory traffic-light labelling on all processed foods and mandatory calorie labelling in the out-of-home sector. We also want a commitment to introduce a ban on the marketing of junk food on TV before the 9 pm watershed.
The childhood obesity plan is key in helping us realise a world where fewer people live with diabetes and where it is easier to live a life with a low risk of developing type 2 diabetes. However, as we heard on the news just this morning, the millennial generation are predicted to be the most obese yet, and it is vital that the Government act now to avoid a diabetes health crisis in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
I thank the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), whom I know well and have worked with already on this in my time as a Minister, for giving us the opportunity to debate such an important issue. The turnout for this Adjournment debate suggests that it is of great interest to the House. It is normally just me, the Member introducing the debate, my Parliamentary Private Secretary and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Tonight’s turnout has been a revelation. In November, I remember the hon. Lady introducing me and leading the event in the Terrace pavilion for the launch of the “Future of Diabetes” report by Diabetes UK, which is the biggest study of its kind. I promised then that I would respond recommendation by recommendation to the report, which I believe I have done. The offer I gave then is the offer I repeat now, which is to work with the all-party group and the charity on each and every one of those recommendations. I hope she knows I am sincere in saying that.
I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to Diabetes UK—led by the excellent Chris Askew, whom I have known for many years wearing other hats when he used to lead the breast cancer charity Breakthrough—which continues to work both with us in government and independently to improve the lives of so many people who are at risk of this increasingly common condition.
Diabetes is one of the biggest health challenges facing the country, and the figures are truly sobering. There are currently 3.5 million people in the UK who have been diagnosed with diabetes. If nothing changes, by 2025 more than 5 million people will have the condition. That is a significant public health challenge. Type 1 diabetes affects 400,000 people in the UK and its incidence is increasing by about 4% a year. It is not preventable, so the emphasis is on improving the lives of people with type 1 diabetes and helping them to manage their condition. During half-term recess, I paid a visit to a brilliant charity in your constituency, Mr Speaker, called Medical Detection Dogs. I met a brilliant dog who looks after a lady with diabetes. As if on cue, when I walked into the room to meet her he sat and put his paw on her knee, which was him assessing her levels and indicating that she needed to take action. It was incredible to watch. If Members are not familiar with Medical Detection Dogs, please do look it up.
Type 2 diabetes, as we have heard, is much more common. It is a leading cause of preventable sight loss in people of working age and a major contributor to kidney failure, heart attacks and strokes, among the many other conditions the hon. Lady read out in her cheery list. Diabetic foot disease, including lower limb amputations and foot ulcers, accounts for more days in hospital than all other diabetes complications put together. According to Diabetes UK, 11.9 million people in the UK are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which is largely preventable.
Aside from the human impact on people’s lives, the financial cost of diabetes and its complications is huge. It already costs the NHS in England over £5.5 billion a year and that figure continues to rise. Managing the growing impact of diabetes is one of the major clinical challenges for us in the 21st century. That is why, as the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) who chairs the all-party group so well rightly say, preventing type 2 diabetes and promoting the best possible care for all people with it is a key priority for the Government.
The hon. Lady mentioned the child obesity plan. She was absolutely right to do so. She knows I am passionate about delivering part 1 of the plan. We always said that it was the start of a conversation and that it was called part 1 for a reason. I am absolutely committed to taking further action if necessary, particularly across marketing, reducing portion sizes and price promotions, to help young people and to make healthy choices become the easiest choice of all. I think she knows me well enough to know I mean what I say and I say what I mean. If we need to take further action we will do so and she should watch this space.
Karin Smyth
I just inform the House that this morning, Committee D of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am vice-chair, had a session in Portcullis House on childhood obesity with Members from all parts of the islands. We produced a report recently and are doing further work. If I may be so bold, I will make sure that the Minister has a copy of that report. He will be interested in some of the reflections that we are bringing together from across the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and they might help to inform that work.
Steve Brine
That would be very interesting—if the hon. Lady did that, I would be grateful. We are working hard to improve diabetes services. The Government are strongly committed to taking action to prevent diabetes and to treat it more effectively. The Government’s mandate to NHS England for 2017-18 includes an objective for NHS England to
“lead a step change in the NHS in preventing ill health and supporting people to live healthier lives.”
Mr Howarth
The Minister will be aware that an algorithm exists whereby it is possible to create an artificial pancreas, and that the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation is heavily involved in research at the University of Cambridge to bring that concept to a workable proposition. Will he give a commitment that the Government will fully support that work so that we can end up with something that will help type 1 diabetics to monitor their condition?
Steve Brine
I will not give a commitment at the Dispatch Box, but I know the JDRF well. I have supported it in my constituency through various events, including the Alresford music festival, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with. I will take a look at what he said and if he wants to chat to me offline about that, I would be very happy to do so.
The diabetes prevention programme has been mentioned. Wherever possible, the aim is to prevent type 2 diabetes from developing in those most at risk. I am proud to say that NHS England, Public Health England, for which I am responsible, and Diabetes UK have had some success working on the NHS diabetes prevention programme—the first such programme that we have delivered at scale nationwide. I know that a lot of other countries are looking at what we are doing.
The programme is putting in place support for behavioural change in people who have been identified by their GP, or through the NHS health check, as being at high risk of developing diabetes. Individuals can then get tailored, personalised help to reduce their risk of developing the condition, including bespoke exercise programmes and education on healthy eating and lifestyle. It is incredibly positive.
I am aware of the time, so I will move on to treatment and care programmes. After successfully securing significant new investment in diabetes through the spending review, NHS England has developed a diabetes treatment and care programme, which is aimed at reducing variation and improving outcomes for people living with diabetes. As part of that, NHS England will invest £42 million in proposals from individual CCGs, collaborations and sustainability and transformation partnerships to improve the treatment and care of people with diabetes.
Steve Brine
I will not take another intervention, because I will conclude in just a second. The spending review made provision for significant transformation funding through to 2020-21, and I expect that to be spent in line with the priorities set out in NHS England’s mandate, including for diabetes.
We have talked about the childhood obesity programme and the national diabetes prevention programme. I am responsible for other public health initiatives, such as Change4Life and the One You programme. People like me with young children will see the Change4Life branding coming through in book bags for them. It has been an incredibly successful campaign. The programmes are crucial in both encouraging a healthy lifestyle and promoting exercise among young people, as are such things as the Golden Mile, which is almost universal in primary schools across England. The benefits of such programmes should be acknowledged in reducing not only the incidence of diabetes, but other debilitating and life-threatening conditions such as cancer and heart disease, in which I also have a great interest.
Rachael Maskell
Very quickly on the issue of exercise, children are now reduced to just one hour of PE. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Department for Education about increasing that?
Steve Brine
I am not responsible for the Department for Education, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that I talk to it. I was in the Department with the Secretary of State and a Minister just last week talking about what further action we need to take on school food standards and the Golden Mile, because I want children to be more active. It is not just about what happens in school, though: the exercise through the Golden Mile in schools should be mirrored in out-of-school activity. There is so much more that we can and should be doing to help to prevent diabetes.
In conclusion, diabetes is emblematic of many challenges that the health and care system and my desk face. Prevention is critical, as is working in partnership with people in a way that tailors support and intervention. I, this Government and this Prime Minister are committed to improving outcomes not only for the millions of people in this country who are living with diabetes, but for the many more who are at real risk of developing the condition. We need to help both.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Renewable Transport Fuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations 2018
(6 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Renewable Transport Fuels and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulations 2018.
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. The regulations contain important changes to two existing schemes that place requirements on suppliers of fuels. The schemes are provided for by the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007 and the Motor Fuel (Road Vehicle and Mobile Machinery) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Regulations 2012. Those require suppliers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fuels supplied in relation to transport, including through the supply of biofuels, and to report those reductions accurately.
The proposals before us today are the result of extensive consultation and input from industry, fuel experts and environmental organisations. In 2015 my Department and the low-carbon vehicle partnership’s transport energy taskforce, comprising more than 50 organisations, reported on how the UK might meet its EU 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction and renewable transport fuel targets. The taskforce’s report also considered how low-carbon fuels could help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from UK transport in the period to 2030 and beyond. That work informed public consultations on the proposed amendments.
In September 2017 the Government set out a 15-year strategy for renewable transport fuels, including biofuels. I want to pay particular tribute to my colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who I hope will make a barnstorming intervention from the Back Benches, for his contribution as the Minister responsible for that work. The strategy will support investment to develop sustainable advanced fuels for the automotive, aviation and road freight sectors. It also aligns with UK carbon budget commitments. The regulations are the product of that strategy and are crucial to its implementation, and would also align UK schemes with the requirement in EU legislation.
It may be helpful if I provide an overview of the regulatory framework that we propose to amend. Under the RTFO order, suppliers of fossil fuels have an obligation to ensure that a percentage of their fuel supply comes from renewable sources. The obligation is currently equivalent to 4.75% of the volume of fossil fuel that is supplied for use in road transport and non-road mobile machinery. There are built-in protections for smaller suppliers, in that the obligation applies only to volumes above a 450,000-litre threshold, and there is a deduction for the first 10 million litres of relevant fuel.
Suppliers of biofuel meeting the sustainability criteria are rewarded with certificates. Those renewable transport fuel certificates can be traded on the open market. Biofuels made from wastes and residues are awarded twice the number of RTFCs given to biofuels from crops. Under the RTFO scheme, motorists are protected from exceptional spikes in the cost of supplying biofuel through a mechanism that enables suppliers to pay a buy-out rather than having to acquire certificates. That effectively caps the cost of the obligation.
The greenhouse gas reporting regulations currently require designated fuel suppliers to report the amount and type of fuel that they supply, and its greenhouse gas intensity. The regulations operate in parallel with the RTFO scheme. As a consequence, information reported by suppliers under the RTFO order is for the most part sufficient to discharge a supplier’s obligation to report.
Since the RTFO was introduced in 2008, the greenhouse gas emissions savings of the renewable fuels supplied have improved year on year. Last year the average greenhouse gas saving of a litre of renewable fuel was 71% compared with petrol and diesel. That is in no small part due to the approach that the Government have taken to encourage the supply of renewable fuels from wastes and residues. The most recent statistics show that 66% of biofuels supplied in the UK were made from a waste or residue, and so they did not compete for land with food crops.
The draft regulations before us would build on that success. They would amend the RTFO order to increase the targets for renewable fuels to 9.75% of fuel supplied in 2020, with further incremental increases to 12.4% by 2032, providing long-term policy stability to industry and investors. They would also set sub-targets, starting in 2019, for the supply of renewable fuels classified as “development fuels”. That would increase incentives to supply new types of advanced fuels that are of strategic future importance to the UK. In line with that strategy, the draft regulations make certain renewable aviation fuels, renewable fuels from non-biological feedstocks, and renewable hydrogen eligible for reward under the RTFO order. They mitigate the risk that biofuels supplied will not deliver reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by placing a limit on the contribution that biofuels produced from food crops can make to meeting targets to supply renewable fuels. That limit is set at 4% in 2018, 3% in 2026, and 2% in 2032. Finally, they ensure that wastes that would be disposed of are eligible for greater incentives than those with other productive uses.
The draft regulations propose extensive changes to greenhouse gas reporting regulations in order to create a new GHG credit trading scheme. The new scheme will be familiar to suppliers as it copies many aspects of the RTFO scheme. The two schemes will be administered jointly, and the Department is aligning much of the reporting required so as to minimise burdens on suppliers.
The new GHG credit trading scheme will replicate the protections afforded under the RTFO scheme, both to smaller suppliers through equivalent deductions in obligation, and to motorists through a buy-out mechanism. Key features of the new GHG credit trader scheme include a greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligation on suppliers of fuel and energy for use in road transport and non-road mobile machinery, and suppliers will be required to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel they supply, compared with 2010 levels. They must achieve a 4% reduction in 2019, and a 6% reduction in 2020. The scheme also provides incentives to suppliers by rewarding GHG credits for the supply of renewable and fossil fuels that have lower greenhouse gas emissions than ordinary petrol and diesel, for electricity use and electric road vehicles, and for reductions in upstream emissions from the extraction of crude oils. The GHG trading scheme aligns with the strategic objectives of the RTFO by offering rewards for the supply of renewable fuels used in aviation.
The Department has taken on board consultation responses in modifying the targets proposed in the regulations, which have been extensively reviewed and discussed. In particular, it has addressed concerns that it should set longer-term, more ambitious targets by proposing that the RTFO will reach 12.4% in 2032. The Department has also adjusted proposals to limit the contribution that biofuels made from crops will make towards the targets. That limit is also referred to as the “crop cap”. Rather than set a 2% cap from the outset as per the consultation, the regulations propose to set that cap at 4% in 2018, and reduce it gradually from 2021 onwards to 3% in 2026, and 2% in 2032—I am beginning to get a sense of what the Chancellor has to put up with on Budget day, when he or she has to read out these numbers.
It is the Department’s intention that that will provide the sector with flexibility to meet the 2020 obligations, while providing a clear signal for future investments in the biofuel industry as we make the transition to more sustainable renewable fuels. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has noted that Vivergo Fuels made a representation on these regulations. Vivergo supports the increase in the RTFO, but it is concerned that demand for its ethanol may be constrained by the crop cap, and that there may be further constraints if the Government do not mandate the move to E10 fuel.
Let me address those concerns. The crop cap is designed to mitigate the risk that biofuels that cause indirect land use change will be supplied in the UK. Due to those concerns, the Department is focusing further growth in that sector on the most sustainable fuels made from waste that do not compete with land use for fuel. We therefore propose a cap that balances the risk to land use with the needs of the ethanol industry. In the UK, the RTFO scheme has been successful in promoting waste-derived biofuels. We have therefore been able to propose a cap that is below the maximum 7% level, and below that in many states where higher proportions of crops are currently used. To put those numbers into perspective, total UK bioethanol production capacity is equal to a little over 1% of transport energy, and the current proportion of crops used in biofuels is less than 2% of UK fuel supply—significantly lower than the 4% cap proposed for 2020. The changes proposed in the regulations do not reduce the size of the market for bioethanol made from crops—indeed, they continue support for it.
Secondly, the draft regulations will increase the level of obligation under the RTFO order, which drives a market for all renewable fuels, including bioethanol. That will increase potential demand for E10 among obligated suppliers.
The draft regulations do not mandate E10, in the sense of requiring that 10% bioethanol must be blended in petrol. Instead, they allow fuel suppliers to determine how best to meet their obligations. Moving to E10 fuel could make achieving our renewable energy targets easier and provide an economic boost to domestic producers of bioethanol and UK farmers in the supply chain. The Department therefore remains committed to working with industry to ensure that any future introduction of E10 is managed carefully, and that E5 remains available for vehicles that are not compatible with E10.
To round up, the draft regulations will begin the implementation of the ambitious strategy for renewable fuels that the Government set out last September. That strategy seeks to accelerate the delivery of sustainable alternative fuels for aviation and other sectors that are hard to decarbonise, thus enabling the UK to lead in developing and deploying those fuels. The draft regulations also take into account the wider economic importance of existing UK biofuel production and seek to maintain that market. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. The Labour party is supportive of the draft regulations and very much welcomes them.
The Minister and I met briefly before the Christmas recess, I think it was, and I lobbied him very hard. I am grateful to him for doing what he said he would, which was to work hard to ensure that the draft regulations were brought forward swiftly. That is very much what has happened. The draft regulations are a step in the right direction for the UK to decarbonise transport. As hon. Members will know, transport is the single largest greenhouse-gas-emitting sector. This is a worrying issue, and we must deal with it as soon as we can.
However, this legislation has been delayed for several years—already at least three—which has caused real worry in our renewable fuel industry. In the UK, an estimated 50,000 premature deaths each year are linked to this issue, so it is crucial that the legislation is brought into effect by April.
The Opposition support the growth and development of our renewable industry, in order to support high-skill, high-wage jobs across the UK, particularly in the north, where there are already various renewable fuel producers, in areas such as Hedon, which is very close to my constituency, and in Teesside. Our renewable transport fuels industry is worth £1.5 billion to our economy each year, and the Government need to support it to turn the northern powerhouse into a reality. Actions speak louder than words.
The draft regulations set out to increase the target level for renewables to just under 10% in 2020 and well over 12% by 2032. That will satisfy existing renewable fuel providers. However, I think it is fair to say that the proposals lack ambition. Perhaps the Government can look at further increasing the targets in the very near future. They aim to incentivise the development and take-up of new types of green fuels, as well as revising a crop cap for these types of biofuels. We are aware that the Government have taken that decision because these fuels could eventually result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The Opposition would therefore like the Government to answer some brief questions and clarifications that I will place on the record. I do not expect the Minister to respond fully today; perhaps he could do so in writing.
I will briefly mention why this has caused concern for our biofuel industry in the medium term and why it believes the Government should regularly review the cap. The industry has raised particular concerns about the steadily declining crop cap; the proposed cap would be the lowest in the EU. It may restrict UK industry and farmers when we should be supporting and encouraging domestic industry as much as possible. I am aware that the regulations provide for a review and further amendments could be proposed later down the line.
I would also like to hear from the Minister about what the Government are doing to support the introduction of E10. He mentioned it briefly in his opening speech, but what are they doing to support the introduction of E10 and when will it be moving forward? It is already used successfully in other countries. We should be at the forefront of adopting new, environmentally friendly fuels in order to tackle climate change, but the Government seem to be dragging their feet on that important issue. Currently, the option of adopting E10 is open to suppliers in meeting their targets under the obligations. Previous Governments have shown the way in mandating unleaded petrol and low-sulphur fuels. Perhaps the Government should look at that model.
To conclude, there are areas in which the regulations can be improved, but we are supportive on the basis that they are a step in the right direction. I hope that some of the brief concerns that I have raised are considered very carefully by the Minister further down the line after the instrument is implemented.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It is a delight to serve on this Committee, Ms McDonagh, and to contribute briefly to the consideration of these regulations, which, as the Minister generously reminded the Committee, I was involved with as a Minister at the Department for Transport. The anxiety that he expressed to get this right, which was reflected by the shadow Minister’s words, is why the Government consulted widely and considered this over a considerable time.
It is right that we address emissions from transport—as the shadow Minister said, they are significant—and the principal way of doing so is to move to low or zero-emission vehicles. However, there is a strong case for biofuels, and it is perfectly possible to continue with our ambition to encourage the purchase of low or zero-emission vehicles—electric vehicles being the obvious case in point—while taking a generous view about the contribution that biofuels can make. That is not only because the biofuels industry is, as has already been said, significant in particular places, but because it is increasingly well established and invested.
I want to add only three things, given the broad agreement about those principles. First, it is important that we make this case in a way that has the most powerful resonance. For me, that is about the welfare of people who have to deal with emissions as they go about their daily lives. I spend considerably more time thinking about the air that children breathe, particularly in congested parts of our country—cities and so on—than about the rather more ethereal, remote and distant matters that sometimes dominate in the debate about gases and emissions. It is in those bread-and-butter terms, those fundamental terms—the quality of life that comes from the air that we breathe—that we should have this debate and conduct this argument. When we do so, suddenly people realise just why this matters so much and why the Government—alongside others; the Opposition have been just as forceful—are devoting so much time to these issues.
Secondly, thinking about the detail of the regulations, I was keen that there was a step change and that it took place over time. Indeed, the regulations now reflect just such an approach in respect of the production of biofuels from crops. That was because the industry is geared up to deliver biofuels by certain means and has invested accordingly, and it is important that we do not make a radical change that does irreparable harm to the biofuels industry. That step change will allow the industry to adjust in a practical way. However, it is really important that we look, with ever closer attention, at the production of biofuels from waste. The ability to turn waste into biofuels requires both technology and investment, but the industry is making that. I was able to visit some of the companies concerned and saw how they were taking waste and turning it into fuel. There is nothing more efficacious, because simultaeneously the waste is dealt with and people benefit from that.
We need to do much more of that, but I have to say to the Minister that that will require a really close association between our waste policy and our energy policy. At the heart of that will be the work done by his Department, the Department for Business and Energy—I cannot quite remember what it is called; hon. Members know what I am getting at—and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I am not sure that, historically, that collaboration has been well enough co-ordinated or as effective as it might have been. Waste policy can drive the alternative means of producing biofuel: obtaining it through crops.
With all that in mind, it is important that the Government understand that they can make all this happen only by working in partnership with the people who will deliver it on the ground; working with the biofuels industry and the manufacturers so that we can achieve the objectives of the draft regulations through a close association between what they want to achieve, their commercial interests and the interests of the Government in protecting the welfare of the people. Disraeli said that the Government have no greater purpose than the welfare of the people, and the welfare of the people is at the heart of the draft regulations.
Government can be a force for good, but only really when it is bold enough to know what needs to be done and modest enough to know that it can achieve what can be done only if it works with others. I know that the Minister both embodies—indeed, epitomises—that boldness and personifies that modesty.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the shadow Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings for their useful, important and valuable contributions. I will respond to them in turn.
The shadow Minister raises the questions of whether we lack ambition, whether the target should be increased and whether there should be regular reviews of the cap on crop usage and the like. Let me say a variety of things. There is always a balance involved in legislation of this type, as he will absolutely appreciate. There is a risk to land use and there is a desire to stimulate the use of biofuels from all possible sources. Of course, an attempt is made to take that balance in the right way.
As he will know, this has been the product of—and is reflected in the delay he describes—considerable months of consultation in reaching the draft regulations and the balance that they strike. As he will be aware, the draft regulations have changed, as regards the crop cap; it has gone from being 2% to, as my right hon. Friend said, a stepped process, from 4% to 3% to 2% over time. I have had assurances, as I think has the industry, that given the level of utilisation at the moment, the draft regulations will not act as any kind of constraint on the growth of biofuels well into the next decade. Of course, they are being regularly reviewed, and we can look at that in further detail if such a constraint applies.
On the introduction of E10, I absolutely understand that it is a live and important issue, and my officials continue to work closely with the industry, as the shadow Minister will know. The taskforce did not recommend a mandate. There are conflicting views on these issues, as he will appreciate. It is important that we do not fetter suppliers even further, having done so a little bit in order to support the industry as we have done through the fuel obligation. One lesson from looking at international experience is that it is not merely, in some cases, an argument that there may be value from a mandate, but that the clear projection of information is important. We continue to look closely at that. It would require legislation, which raises a further question about how that consultation would take place and when legislation could be introduced. For all those reasons, we are not minded at the moment to move further in the direction that the shadow Minister described, but it is a matter for continued consultation and discussion.
With regards to the comments of my beloved colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, he is absolutely right to focus on the people who work most closely with those fuels and who are most directly affected by them. He rightly mentioned the step change that he engineered in the crop cap and pointed to the need for continued co-ordination across Departments. I hope he agrees that that has significantly improved in recent years. Whether on air quality, clean growth, connected and autonomous vehicles or ultra low emission vehicles, we continue to work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Mr Hayes
I certainly acknowledge that—our work on air quality is evidence of it—but I am not yet convinced that we have waste right. I am not sure that across national and local government, in co-operation between local authorities or in collaborations between Departments, we are yet far enough advanced to ensure that waste policy ties to what the Minister has very sensibly set out today.
Jesse Norman
I take my right hon. Friend’s point, which has landed well with my officials. It is a two-dimensional problem: there is the question of whether Departments are co-operating and the question of how they interact with local authorities. I thank him for that. My officials have taken it on board and we will actively pursue it.
These regulations begin the implementation of a 15-year strategy for renewable transport fuels, which is designed to support investment in sustainable advanced fuels for automotive, aviation, road freight and other sectors; to maximise the industrial opportunities to be gained for the UK; to maintain public confidence in the value of renewable fuels; to provide certainty to UK producers and to the farms that supply them that their existing installed plant capacity for biofuels from crops will be fully utilised; and to continue to support the transformation of wastes into fuel where that gives the greatest economic and environmental benefits. That is no small challenge.
So far, UK suppliers have responded to the challenge by supplying renewable fuels that have increasingly higher greenhouse gas reduction benefits and are sustainable. My Department is confident that suppliers will also respond to the opportunities presented by these regulations.
We recognise that policy in this area is not without controversy and that the gestation period for these regulations has been long, as the shadow Minister mentioned. The proposed changes are not a surprise to industry—how could they be after such a period of time?—and there is broad agreement about the direction that these regulations will set, which emerged from extensive consultation. The debate has been very useful and I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2018
(6 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Sir Henry.
The Construction Industry Training Board plays a central role in training the construction industry workforce. It is led by industry and provides a wide range of services and training initiatives, including by funding strategic industry initiatives and by paying direct grants to employers who carry out training to approved standards. Its core activity, established under the Industrial Training Act 1964, is to invest the money that it receives from the levy in skills training for the construction workforce. It develops the skills of the existing workforce and of new entrants into the industry by providing training grants and implementing strategic initiatives that will benefit industry in the long term and secure a sustainable pipeline of skills.
The construction industry recognises the important role that the CITB will play in helping to achieve its ambitions of increased investment in skills development, a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to recruitment, and equipping workers with the skills they need for the future. The draft order will enable the CITB to raise and collect a levy on employers in the industry. The CITB provides grants that incentivise employers to take on apprentices and that support travel and accommodation costs. In 2016, it helped to support over 8,400 employers and train more than 24,600 apprentices.
The construction sector will be at the forefront of the delivery of T-levels, with three pathways available from September 2021. The investment of £500 million per year for the delivery of T-levels underlines our support for reforming technical education. In the autumn Budget, we also announced a new retraining scheme, including an additional £34 million to help adults to retrain and develop the necessary skills to work in the construction industry. We expect to launch this construction skills fund in the coming months.
The Government also want the construction sector to increase the gender and ethnic diversity of its work- force and to ensure opportunities for all those who wish to pursue construction careers, regardless of their background. The CITB has taken practical steps by developing a cross-industry fairness, inclusion and respect programme, which will invest in activities to make the sector a more attractive place to work for people of all backgrounds. The funding will be used to grow a network of 500 ambassadors, who will promote that fairness, inclusion and respect. In addition, the CITB’s careers hub, “Go Construct”, provides online guidance and case studies for prospective employees and employers on a range of diversity topics, including gender and race. We are working with the industry to see how further improvements can be best achieved, which we expect to be driven forward through the sector deal for construction that we announced in our Industrial Strategy White Paper.
Under the draft order, the CITB proposes to continue with the levy assessment method used for the levy period ending 31 March 2015, which was approved by the House in 2015. Recognising the prevailing economic conditions and skills needs of the sector, however, it proposes to decrease the levy arising from emoluments relating to people directly employed by the employer from 0.5% to 0.35%. The liability for levy arising from indirect employment will remain at a rate of 1.25%, and the CITB will continue to use information about net construction industry scheme payments to determine it.
The draft order will give effect to a proposal submitted to us for a levy to be raised by the CITB for the levy periods ending 31 March 2018, 31 March 2019 and 31 March 2020. The order can be made only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the amount of levy is appropriate in the circumstances, that the proposals are necessary to encourage adequate training in the industry, and that more than half the employers who together are likely to pay the majority of the levy also consider the proposals necessary to encourage adequate training in the industry. The Secretary of State is satisfied that those conditions have been met.
The Industrial Training Act 1982 requires the board to include in its proposals an exemption from the levy for small employers. The order can be made only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the thresholds set out in the proposals exempt employers who ought to be exempted in view of their small number of employees. The Secretary of State is satisfied that that condition has been met.
As I said earlier, small firms are not required to pay the levy, and therefore employers whose combined payroll and net expenditure on subcontract labour is less than £80,000 will not have to pay. Of all the establishments that are considered leviable by the CITB, it is expected that about 40% will be exempted from paying the levy. In addition, with the support of industry, the CITB has tried to mitigate the impact on employers who are just above the small firm threshold by applying a 50% reduction in the levy payable if an employer’s expenditure on payroll and subcontract labour is between £80,000 and £400,000.
In line with the requirements of the 1982 Act, the Secretary of State is also satisfied that the CITB has taken reasonable steps to ascertain the views of employers who are likely to be liable to levy payments in consequence of the proposals. The CITB consulted on its proposals and obtained the support of the majority of employers in their respective industries. Some 76% of companies in scope of paying the levy, who together are likely to pay 69% of its value, are in favour of the CITB proposal.
Over three years, the CITB’s proposals are expected to raise about £600 million of levy income. The draft order will enable the CITB to continue to carry out its vital training responsibilities, and I commend it to the Committee.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry.
The Opposition welcome the introduction of the levy. It is probably—I don’t know if this is the right term to use—the most venerable of the instruments of its kind, in the sense that it was first introduced in 1964, when we were getting rid of 13 years of Tory misrule and getting in Harold Wilson and the white heat of the technological revolution. Whether it was introduced by the outgoing or the incoming Government I do not know but, most importantly, it has stood the test of time.
Times change, of course, and one reason the construction industry has come to the Government to set the levy at this rate is the introduction of the general apprenticeship levy. That was an important issue for the CITB to communicate to its members, and the Minister has said that it did so effectively. As the CITB’s briefing reminds us, 99.7% of the construction industry comprises small and medium-sized enterprises, and they find it more difficult to train than larger employers. The Minister has gone through the details of the small employers who will be exempted. The exemption is not a token one; it is absolutely essential.
I have some questions for the Minister about what she said and its implications. Incidentally, I note that the CITB’s briefing mentions the challenges it faces, including productivity, future skills and the implications of Brexit. All I will say about that is that the Minister and I both represent relatively small towns, and it is in relatively small towns across the country that this issue will be a particular challenge, as I am sure she understands.
The levy process was informed by the Government’s Farmer review, which made clear the range of challenges—including structural fragmentation, low productivity, workforce size and demographics—that a reformed CITB is critical to addressing. On demographics, the Minister mentioned that money will be put aside for adults retraining in the construction industry. That is welcome, but I must voice a concern that has been raised with me in constituency surgeries and raised by other hon. Members in debates on the levy. Construction industry workers who may be in their 30s or 40s face great difficulties when they want to take on a new project, often with new technologies, only to find that their qualifications are not sufficient. It is not even a question of adding to their existing qualifications, but a question of having to go right back to square one. I raised that point a couple of years ago, although not with this Minister.
I hope the Minister will consider how to future-proof qualifications, which is very important given the process that will be necessary for implementing the standards in the new frameworks. I ask her to say a little more—if she cannot answer this evening, it would be helpful if she wrote to me—about how her Department, and indeed the Institute for Apprenticeships, will use the CITB’s strong in-depth knowledge to implement those standards.
Another important point made to me by the CITB about its construction training is that 24% of qualifications are acquired by people from deprived areas. The construction industry is one of the biggest employers of people from deprived and disadvantaged backgrounds. That is welcome, but I remind the Minister of the cuts introduced a couple of years ago by the Government to 16-to-18 funding in disadvantaged areas. Her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), stepped back from and revised some of those figures, but they are still a drag on the area, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) would tell us if he were here. It would be interesting to know how the Minister will monitor that issue in the context of the CITB.
I have discussed workforce demographics and push/pull factors for people in the construction sector, but I must also ask the Minister about the interface for promoting careers in the industry with the Careers and Enterprise Company, which of course is challenged in that area. Will she also say something about the impact of the levy not just on people who are employed directly, but on the supply chains? As we saw after the recent collapse of Carillion and the excellent work that was done by the industry to reassign apprentices, supply chains are critical in major areas and still need consideration.
Subject to those concerns, the Opposition are content for the draft order to be passed. We hope that it will have the effect that the Minister and the CITB hope for, but we also hope that her officials will keep a watchful eye to ensure that any problems that result from a lower rate of levy are addressed sooner rather than later.
Anne Milton
Although we have strayed slightly from the levy, I will pick up some of those important points. The shadow Minister’s point about future-proofing is really important—even more so in industries such as the digital sector, where there is almost constant change. I have had discussions with the Institute for Apprenticeships to ensure that we continually review standards. There needs to be a continual cycle of auditing what is needed in the sector.
In 1964, when the levy was brought in, the world was a very different place. The construction industry has possibly been one of the last to realise what it needs to do—Brexit highlights that to some extent. I assure the shadow Minister that I have already had those conversations with the IFA, and we need to ensure that it continues to operate well. There is a lot of talk about new ways of building houses, for example, and the in-depth knowledge of the CITB and its contacts in the industry will be very important.
The shadow Minister rightly raised the issue of funding for 16 to 18-year-olds, as did several other hon. Members. Apprenticeships offer opportunities. I was at an apprenticeship fair last Friday, and I was massively impressed by people from the construction industry picking up young people who were not sure what career they wanted to go into. We all know that we need to build more homes, so there is a fantastic opportunity in construction for young people and for people who are retraining, possibly because their job is disappearing because of automation.
The shadow Minister also mentioned the critical interface between the industry and the Careers and Enterprise Company. Construction tends to be the last option for somebody who does not know what to do, but we want young people to think of it as the first option, particularly if they want to enter a growing area, because we want more construction to happen around the country.
The shadow Minister rightly praised the CITB for its help with the collapse of Carillion. The CITB has been absolutely brilliant, but I will not go into the details here. I was not sure whether he was referring to the apprenticeship levy or the CITB levy, but obviously some of the big employers will pay the apprenticeship levy. From April, their ability to transfer 10% of their funds into their supply chain and elsewhere will be very important.
I praise the work of organisations such as Women into Construction, which have done a great deal to ensure that we include people who would otherwise not have thought of going into the construction industry, perhaps because they are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds or because they are women. Those opportunities are really wide open now.
It continues to be the collective view of the majority of employers that training should be funded through a statutory levy. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Public sector workers
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 8 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
Leaving the EU: Live Farm Animal Exports
(6 years, 8 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
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 200205 relating to ending the export of live farm animals after the UK leaves the EU.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I thank everyone who signed the petition, and especially its proposer, Janet Darlison, who for many years has shown a tireless devotion to pursuing the issues around live animal exports and to calling for those exports to be ended. Through her consistent efforts, and together with her husband, supporters and many others, she has raised public awareness about the issue, which is one of the reasons why the petition received such support.
I am leading the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. The petition did not quite meet the threshold of 100,000 signatures that would usually trigger a debate, but the Committee felt that it was such an important issue and that there is such public awareness about it that it was right and appropriate to call a debate on it.
It is clear that exporting live animals is a complex and emotive issue. There is a variety of views about it, some of which are held very strongly. As I considered this debate and looked at the many representations and documents that were sent to me about it, which expressed a variety of views, one clear theme emerged: anything we debate today is at the moment covered by EU regulations and law, and any changes we choose to make will have to wait until we actually leave the European Union. That brings the situation that we face into sharp focus.
We all understand and agree that Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and has a proud history on animal welfare. I am sure that all hon. Members would testify to the sheer volume of correspondence we receive whenever an issue relating to animal welfare arises, whether it be about bees, puppies or live farm animals being exported. As a nation, we care deeply about our animals.
Sadly, for far too long, the animal welfare regulations that we have been forced to apply, particularly with regard to farm animals, have been determined by the EU. In many cases, they do not reflect the widely held views and values of the British people. We hope to change that. This issue is one of many good reasons for the UK to free itself from overburdening EU regulation and bureaucracy. It is worth noting that the UK’s animal welfare standards are among the highest in the world. From farm to fork, our farmers care deeply about the animals that they rear, as do the vast majority of people.
Last year, the Conservative party manifesto made the commitment to take early steps, as we leave the European Union, to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter. I absolutely support that position, and we should seek to take those steps soon after leaving the European Union.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to be clear that when animals are ready to be killed, they should not travel to be slaughtered, or be taken anywhere? They should be slaughtered right next to where they were reared. However, we do not want to get muddled: animals can be transported for further fattening, if they are transported in the right vehicles—with the right air conditioning and in the right type of vehicle for that species. We need to differentiate the two.
Steve Double
My hon. Friend pre-empts a point that I will make later. We need to differentiate animals that are exported and slaughtered shortly after they arrive—I see no point in that—and those that are exported for other reasons, such as for breeding stock or for fattening on. We need to consider those two different categories.
With the Conservative party manifesto commitment, the amount of support that this petition received, and the ten-minute rule Bill that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) has proposed, it is clear that this is a timely debate and an opportune moment for us to consider these issues—not least because of the awareness and concern among the general public.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, many people accept that there are differences between exporting animals for slaughter and for other reasons. At times, there are many good reasons to export animals, such as for breeding stock or for rearing on, but there seems to be no good reason to export an animal that is simply destined to be slaughtered soon after it reaches its destination. I can find no good or valid reason for that type of export to continue.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
We may not be able to legislate before we leave the European Union, but we could certainly suggest a good code of practice, to be followed with immediate effect.
Steve Double
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we should certainly consider that. If, for any reason, our opportunity to make those changes is delayed longer than we would like, some intervention along the way might be appropriate.
Many people agree with the reasonable proposition that animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to where they are raised, and that the carcases should then be exported. We should seek to apply that; it is not only far more efficient, but clearly better for the animals. If we were to do that, there would also be an opportunity to up-sell and to create more jobs in the UK, rather than exporting the value-added part of the process with the live animals. A ban may have an impact on some trade, and we need to accept that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
If the hon. Gentleman accepts, as I think he does, that transporting live animals for long periods in poor conditions is wrong and not good from the point of view of animal welfare standards, what difference does it make whether they are slaughtered at the end, or going for fattening? Surely it is the transit that we ought to look at, regardless of what happens to the animals in the end.
Steve Double
From researching the issue and speaking to many people in the industry about it, I think the reality is that when animals are exported for breeding stock or for fattening, they are usually far more cared for, and are transported in far better conditions, because there is a higher value on them, than if they are being exported to be slaughtered. The market, for want of a better word, takes care of that issue. The problem is acute when animals are exported long distances to be slaughtered, because they tend to suffer the worst conditions. I do not think that applies when a higher value is put on the animal being exported.
As I was saying, a ban may have an impact on trade. For instance, our trade in sheep, as opposed to lamb, relies on exports because there is a very limited market for mutton in the UK; some may think that we should look into changing that, but that is the situation. Mutton sheep fetch £70 to £80 a head when sold in the UK, but up to £200 a head when exported live to parts of the EU with higher demand. Even in that example, however, we need to consider whether that additional profit is right, or whether we should do the right thing for the animal, despite the impact on the market. We need to do everything we can to stop the unnecessary suffering of exported animals .
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the matter is currently regulated by EC Regulation No. 1/2005. Is he saying that that regulation does not ensure the necessary levels of animal welfare? I have to say that my experience, and that of farmers in my constituency and elsewhere, says otherwise.
Steve Double
There are genuine concerns. A lot of documented and anecdotal evidence suggests that the existing EU regulations are not always adhered to, and that animals sometimes suffer unnecessarily in transit, despite the current regulatory framework.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Surely it is not just about the conditions—grim though they may be—in which animals are transported; it is also that the conditions at their destination are likely to be of a lower standard than we would expect in this country. Our animal welfare standards are generally higher, and given all the noises coming from the Government over the last few months, they are likely to rise, not fall, which will make the issue even more critical. It is not just about the transport, but about the conditions that animals live in.
Steve Double
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The petition calls for a ban on the export of live animals, but wider animal welfare considerations are also relevant. We have very high standards, and many of us want them improved once we leave the European Union. We should expect those higher standards to be adhered to, because we should be setting an example in this country. That is what many of us want.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear that he understands the desire to look into the issue as we leave the European Union, and that he is committed to restricting this trade. The Government are preparing proposals on live exports for consultation, and are looking very seriously at a ban in the near future. Even within the current restrictions, we have seen some progress, as the records show: as recently as 2000, more than 750,000 live animals were exported for slaughter or fattening, but by 2016 that figure had fallen to 43,000. The direction of travel is already changing, but many of us agree that we want the trade to end altogether.
Tougher regulations and public awareness have led to a switch to exporting carcases rather than live animals. However, there is still a busy trade in live animals between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and I see no reason why that should not continue, post Brexit. Dairy cattle are routinely sent to the Republic, and the milk they produce is sent back to Northern Ireland. Calves cross the border for fattening, too. Concerns have been raised that to circumvent a ban, a trade might develop whereby live exports are shipped to Northern Ireland, then sent on to the Republic, and then sent on from there. Apart from that being hugely expensive, and thus unlikely, there is already legislation on onward journey times, conditions and the need for approved and posted journey plans. Limiting journey times further might address the issue and prevent any chicanery aimed at circumventing a future ban. There are clearly far wider issues and decisions to be agreed on with regard to the Irish border, but I certainly do not intend to get into them today. With regard to animal movements, I believe we should leave Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to continue as they are, without fear of creating loopholes, post Brexit.
I have taken into account and looked carefully at a range of proposals and concerns from several groups, including the National Farmers Union. There are concerns about tariffs being imposed on carcases, post Brexit. I accept that point of view, but we have yet to see how such matters will be settled, and furthermore there will be new and bigger markets for us to pursue, post Brexit. British food has worldwide acclamation. We can and will do better with our food exports, post Brexit. The outcome of the tariff issue is still unknown, but it cannot be a deal breaker when we take our decision on the animal welfare standards that are to apply. It could be argued that tariffs might apply to live exports as opposed to carcase trade, but I see no value in speculating on that. There is no substitute for doing the right thing, on either animal welfare or leaving the EU. There might be choppy waters ahead, but I would rather face that interim phase than be hamstrung forever by the regulations that we are currently subject to.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s mention of choppy waters brings me to my feet. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I are both well aware that cattle are moved from Shetland and the Orkneys in purpose-built equipment on purpose-built vessels, with water and in very safe and good conditions. The cattle and sheep moved from Shetland are shipped for 12 hours on board a purpose-built vessel. I would not want this debate to hide the fact that exporting animals can be—and is— done properly. It is paramount, particularly for islands off Scotland, that we do not get it into our heads that exporting over water is somehow a significant or major problem.
Steve Double
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the local situation in the UK, which has a very well developed market for food. Within the UK, we can ensure that standards are adhered to, that animals are moved about in the best possible conditions, and that their welfare is paramount. Unfortunately, once animals leave the UK, we lose the ability to ensure that those standards are adhered to. His point highlights one of the problems: we can make our regulations as stringent as we like, post Brexit, but even the current rules are all too often flouted because we cannot enforce them beyond our own shores.
The creator of the petition has recorded serious animal welfare shortcomings, in breach of current regulations, as lorries arrive at UK ports ahead of an onward journey. As I said, there is documented evidence that the further animals travel from British shores, the more they suffer in transit. That is not only because of distance and travel time, more alarmingly, they are more likely to suffer heat, a lack of food, water and rest, stress, injury, and even death. There is an unacceptable disparity between the conditions and circumstances of slaughter at their final location, and the high and monitored standards that we adhere to in the UK.
There are arguments in favour of allowing the export of high-value breeding stock to continue post Brexit—a point that has been well made. These prized animals have always fared far better in transit than those destined for immediate slaughter. The live export of animals for slaughter has dwindled dramatically in recent years. It has already been banned for many years in New Zealand, which has had no significant detriment to its meat export market. That should encourage us that achieving a ban is possible.
The UK has never been frightened of doing the right and decent thing, particularly when it comes to animals, and I believe that we can take great encouragement from that, and can be confident that this Government will act. We have already seen clear, positive action taken on animal welfare. For example, there has been a tenfold increase in the minimum sentence for animal cruelty, the banning of the ivory trade, action being taken on puppy farming, and clear action to protect our marine environment from plastic waste. That gives us confidence that this Government are determined to address this issue and make sure that action is taken.
We can be proud of our record, but there is more that we can do when it comes to animal welfare. The new freedoms afforded by Brexit will reinstate our sovereignty over these matters. We can once again do what is right and proper for our nation, our people and our animals, and we can fulfil a manifesto promise regarding live animal exports. Once again, I thank all those who signed the petition. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say at the end of the debate.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Wilson. I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing today’s debate. As has been said, the petition did not quite reach 100,000 signatures—I think there are about 93,000 at the moment, which is a really good effort—but I am very glad that we decided to have the debate anyway. Like the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), I pay tribute to Janet Darlison, the creator of the petition, for all her work in promoting it and for creating the momentum that has brought us here today.
When the Minister comes to speak, I hope that we will have a little more clarity on what exactly the Government’s position is, because at the moment that is lacking. I am certainly none the wiser having heard the introductory speech, but it is up to the Minister to say where he wants to take us. In 2012 I spoke about a ban on live exports, and just last year I supported the ten-minute rule Bill in favour of such a ban, so I am glad that we now seem to be a little closer to a ban becoming a reality. However, I feel that there has been some rowing back on some of the pronouncements that were made during the European Union referendum campaign.
For example, the current Foreign Secretary went down to Ramsgate and I thought that he announced in no uncertain terms that there would be a ban on live exports if we left the EU. I know from the emails I have received that there are people who were persuaded to vote leave simply because of that issue. Perhaps those are the sorts of emails I tend to get from people involved in the animal welfare movement. I tried my best to outline some of the reasons why I thought animal welfare might not benefit from Brexit, particularly if we consider the animal welfare and food safety standards that we might be forced to relinquish as part of a trade deal with the United States. However, many people were adamant and were convinced that a live export ban would be delivered almost overnight if we voted to leave.
It is now being said that such a ban is being considered as one of several options as we leave the EU. As the Minister is here today, I will point out that I asked a similar question about foie gras. At the moment, the production of foie gras is banned in this country, on the grounds that we believe it to be cruel, unnatural and something that we should not tolerate here. The line has always been that imports of foie gras cannot be prohibited, because the dastardly EU would not let us ban them. So one might think that, given we have already established our own moral position on this issue here in the UK, once we are free from the clutches of the EU a ban on imports would be the next step. However, the answer I have just received to my written parliamentary question is:
“Leaving the EU and the single market therefore provides an opportunity to consider whether the UK can adopt a different approach in future”.
To me, that sounds like equivocation taken to the nth degree, and I fear that the same might apply to live exports.
It is also somewhat disingenuous to suggest that such a ban on live exports was always on the Government’s wish list and that it just was not possible to achieve until we left the EU. Ministers who argued during the EU referendum campaign that we would get a live exports ban once we left the EU are members of a party and a Government who in 2012 were instrumental in stopping action at EU level—I think it was being led by Germany—that would have limited the journey time for live animals to below eight hours. In most cases that would have been tantamount to a ban on live exports from the UK. However, the UK went along to those discussions and argued against attempts to limit the hours.
I have raised this issue in a number of debates, including the recent debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as it seems to me to be representative of the verbal and policy gymnastics that the Government have undertaken since the EU referendum, and nobody has come back to me and said that the UK did not take that stance. So let nobody be under the false illusion that we could not have taken significant action to limit —perhaps not ban, but limit—live transit times.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I believe that in 1992 it was a Conservative Government who sought to impose import restrictions, but they were challenged and overturned in the European Court of Justice, so this is something that a Conservative Government have tried to tackle in the past.
Kerry McCarthy
I am talking about 2012, which is far more recent than that, and as I said the Government went along to the negotiations and were not prepared to take the side of those who were arguing for an eight- hour limit.
It is important that the Government are held to account on what I see as a promise to end the practice of live animal exports that was made during the referendum campaign. That is because—as the petition rightly states, although I do not think we have heard quite enough about it this afternoon—the transport of live animals, no matter what the end result is, whether they are going for slaughter or for fattening up overseas, causes a huge amount of unnecessary suffering.
It is important not to forget the tragedy that jump-started the long-running campaign for a ban, which happened many years ago. In 1996 nearly 70,000 sheep were left to die either from heatstroke, suffocation, burning or drowning, after the ship that was carrying them caught fire in the middle of the Indian ocean. Although, thankfully, an incident on that scale has not happened again, countless animals continue to endure gruelling journeys every year.
In 2012, 40 sheep had to be euthanised after being crammed into a truck, and just last August it was reported that 500 sheep spent four days without any access to food or water while they were being transported to Turkey. Also, many people here will have seen today’s story in The Times about how every year more than 5,000 calves—unweaned and discarded by the dairy industry—are sent on journeys of more than 135 hours from Scotland to Spain. That number had doubled from the previous year; I think the 5,000 figure is from 2016.
Zac Goldsmith
The hon. Lady is making a very good speech and I just want to add one more point. I believe that in the past two years 20,000 calves have been sent to Spain. In Spain there is a requirement that a calf should be given bedding for only the first two weeks of its life and not beyond that, whereas a British calf has the right—if I can put it that way—to have bedding for six months. So the standards in Spain are dramatically lower than those in the UK, which is another reason why this issue is about not only whether an animal is going to be slaughtered, but the conditions in which it is living when it reaches its destination.
Kerry McCarthy
As is often the case—perhaps not on the wider Brexit issue, but on this specific issue— I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. Actually, that was a point I was going to make later in my speech: there is a big discrepancy between two weeks’ worth of bedding and six months’ worth of bedding. It is certainly something that we have to take into account.
As I was saying, I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity as to whether Scotland would be exempt from any ban on live exports that was introduced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I understand that that is the case. Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, said this month that Scotland would not participate in such a ban, so I would also be interested to hear from the Scottish National party spokesperson whether the SNP will allow the export of veal calves to continue.
Although the number of live animals exported each year has fallen from millions to tens of thousands, tens of thousands of animals are potentially still enduring cruel, long and painful journeys. Even during routine trips, animals are often exposed to freezing or extremely hot temperatures, with a lack of adequate sustenance, dangerous overcrowding and injuries being common.
One particularly harrowing investigation found that thousands of cattle were being transported via ship, and the unweaned calves were simply being tossed overboard if they became too sickly or died. As was mentioned in The Times story about the veal calves today, with their 135-hour journeys, although there are rules about rest periods, for example on long journeys, that can simply mean that the trucks stop in laybys and the animals continue to be held in very hot and crowded conditions for another hour or so, which for them is really no rest period at all.
The Government continue to proclaim their global leadership in animal welfare and even talk about legislating for higher standards but, as has been touched on, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce standards effectively when it comes to the current live transit. Even the EU, in its 2011 review, admitted that effective enforcement is near impossible. Whenever animals continue to be exported live, there will continue to be suffering and violations of welfare. Unfortunately, the EU review did not come up with any changes to the standards. It seemed almost to accept that cutting corners to save space and money will always be attractive for companies that transport live animals, which will always be to the detriment of the animals involved.
It has been mentioned, not least by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), that when animals are transported beyond the UK they move beyond the Government’s reach, into countries with much lower standards than ours, and not just far-flung countries but our closest neighbours, including Spain and France, as we have heard. Many UK sheep are sent to France, and a 2016 French National Assembly report concluded that there were serious and widespread welfare problems in French abattoirs. Members might have seen from recent parliamentary questions that I and others have tabled, or from The Guardian’s excellent “Animals farmed” series, that conditions in our own slaughterhouses and food production lines are not always as we might desire, but there is certainly widespread concern about overseas conditions also—we have already mentioned the situation in Spain. The problems are exacerbated by many animals being re-exported even further away, meaning that their re-packing is covered only by the standards of the country acting as the middleman, not by ours. It goes without saying that we cannot assume that after the animals have endured the awful journeys they will be killed quickly or humanely.
If the Government are serious about being known as a world leader in animal welfare, they must put their money where their mouth is and announce their clear commitment to banning the export of live animals, for slaughter or for further fattening. The Labour party has called for that in its recently published animal welfare plan, and for the Government to ensure an exemption for livestock crossing the border on the island of Ireland, with which I think everyone would agree.
Colin Clark
I have spoken about livestock moving the significant distances between the islands, from Orkney and Shetland and the islands on the west coast of Scotland. Does the hon. Lady accept that that transport reaches a standard with which she would be comfortable?
Kerry McCarthy
I cannot comment on the standard, as I have never looked into it, but I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s assurances—he is a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee. I was talking about exceptions outside the UK. We accept that live transit would continue to be allowed within the UK, but we also need to ensure that decent standards and proper monitoring are in place. The one exception would be across the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland; I do not think anyone would argue that that should be subject to an export ban.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Once we leave the EU, we will completely lose control over the welfare standards of any animals that go from the UK into southern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady accept that those animals could continue their journey on to Spain or France?
Kerry McCarthy
If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue for not having live exports across the border from the north of Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, he is welcome to do so. This goes to a much wider issue that the Government have not yet managed to address: what do we do about the border between the north and the south once we leave the EU? Many people want it to continue in its current form, but the practicalities of leaving should mean that a hard border is established. That is one for the Government and perhaps not one that we in Westminster Hall can grapple with today, but the fact that we need to address the issue of animals being transported between the north and the south ought not to be used as an excuse for not addressing an export ban outside the British Isles.
Mr Carmichael
The difficulty with the hon. Lady’s argument is that we either ban exports or we do not. A ban is a ban, and she is arguing for a ban that is not a ban. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) says, once animals are in southern Ireland they can be exported anywhere.
Kerry McCarthy
If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that we need a hard border with Ireland, which will then prevent us from implementing anything else we would desire to see in the relationship between the north and the south, he may do so, but I think we must consider that relationship a special case. We need to look at how many animals would go on in transit. The Minister perhaps can enlighten us on that, but I suspect that it is not a significant number.
I conclude by talking about something the Minister needs to advise us on, and that is World Trade Organisation agreements. Colleagues will be aware that under WTO agreements countries cannot, under normal circumstances, discriminate between trading partners. The principle is known as most favoured nation treatment, and in practice it means that the UK could not allow for the live export of animals to the Republic of Ireland while excluding the rest of the EU. Therefore, it is wholly possible that a ban on live animal exports could contravene WTO rules—a view shared by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, among others. Any WTO member can challenge another member on its trade policy, which could then be ruled as breaching the organisation’s rules.
However, as a member of the EU, the UK is already party to several trade bans that have never been challenged at the WTO, including the import ban on cosmetics tested on animals and the ban on fur produced from cats and dogs. When the Government consider their future options, they can look at the 2009 EU seal import ban as an example of how to pass the WTO test. I hope that the Minister can explain how he feels we will pass that test if we introduce at least a partial ban on exports.
Finally, I understand that the Command Paper for the Agriculture Bill might be published tomorrow—the Minister might like to enlighten us on that. It presents a perfect opportunity to introduce proposals to ensure that a ban comes into force as soon as possible after the UK leaves the EU. Both before and after leaving, the Government should push the European institutions and member states to strive for greater co-operation. I do not want us just to walk away from the problem. It is one thing to say, “When we leave the EU we can make our own rules; we can have standards that are truly excellent—gold-plated.” I do not want us to walk away from the EU, full stop. I would like us to remain a member and be able to influence animal welfare standards across the continent, but even if we cannot, we still need to use what influence we have and what trade discussions we are having to try to ensure that those standards that are not what we would like to see, in France and Spain and further afield, are improved.
We have an opportunity to improve animal welfare. I said at the start of my speech that Brexit offers very few opportunities, but if we are to leave the EU I hope that the Minister seizes this one and does something to ensure the better welfare of animals for years to come.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on his introduction to the debate.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has a wonderful record in animal welfare measures, but I have to say immediately that I am absolutely delighted we are leaving the European Union, as are my constituents, and one of the biggest beneficiaries will be the animal kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and I, for 35 years, have consistently championed animal welfare measures in this place. For a while, it seemed that we were rather few in numbers on our side of the House, which could have been because many Conservative Members represented farming communities. When I was Member of Parliament for Basildon I had 28 farms in my constituency; now I am the Member for Southend West I have no farms, so there are no farmers lobbying me. I understand that if a Member from any party has a farming community in their constituency this is possibly not an easy issue to consider, but as far as I am concerned, we can judge life generally on the way in which we treat animals. Mrs Lorraine Platt and others, through the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, have absolutely transformed the way in which colleagues—certainly Conservative Members—see these matters.
From 1997 to 2010, a number of animal welfare organisations supported the Labour party with their money, but as far as I am concerned the only good thing that Tony Blair did was ban foxhunting. On all other animal welfare measures, he let the British people down badly. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the marvellous reception he gave in the Jubilee Room a short while ago celebrating pasties, and I am delighted that we have a Minister who is doing a splendid job on animal welfare. His boss, the Secretary of State—he was an outstanding Secretary of State for Education, too—is saying everything that I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet have wanted to hear for so many years. I hope that more and more colleagues who are joining the campaign will support the Minister and the Secretary of State in their mission.
As the hon. Member for Bristol East said, in 2012 we took part in a debate on animal welfare exports. At the time, live animal export numbers were dwindling, and I held out hope that a future debate on the subject would not be necessary. It is obvious that the industry has grown again since then. I associate myself with the views of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I know the RSPCA has had a number of internal difficulties, but as long as Lady Stockton remains one of the trustees, I have great faith in that organisation, and I hope it will continue to promote sensible animal welfare measures.
The RSPCA is concerned that, as the hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned, millions of farm animals transported around Europe for fattening and slaughter are suffering from stress, exhaustion, thirst and rough handling. I cannot believe that these animals enjoy the way they are transported.
Bob Stewart
I have always understood it that if animals are worried or hugely concerned, it has a direct impact on the quality of the product after they are dead. It would be much more sensible to move them quickly before they get too concerned.
Sir David Amess
My hon. Friend, as ever, has hit the nail on the head. He is absolutely right. Government figures show that 20,000 calves were exported from Northern Ireland to Spain in both 2016 and 2017. Those young calves are being packed into lorries and sent on journeys lasting up to 135 hours. A review of the scientific literature concluded:
“Scientific evidence indicates that young calves are not well adapted to cope with transport.”
Frankly, I do not think human beings would cope with being transported for a tiny fraction of that time. It continues:
“Their immune systems are not fully developed, and they are not able to control their body temperature well, thus they are susceptible to both heat and cold stress.”
It concludes that
“transport should be avoided where possible”.
Compassion in World Farming—at one point it was not very popular on the Conservative Benches, but I think that has changed, and I admire that organisation—believes that a large number of calves do not survive the journey and that the remainder are likely to spend the rest of their short lives in barren pens. Such cases exemplify why the RSPCA is rightly calling for an end to the long-distance transport of live animals in favour of a carcase-only trade.
It is such a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, has left his place, because there are some things that concern me slightly.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that it is preferable to move all meat on the hook rather than on the hoof. There are long journeys up and down the backbone of the United Kingdom—it is not just about the distance involved with exports into Europe. There is a serious problem with the geographical spread of abattoirs not only in England, but in the devolved regions. We need to get a better spread of abattoirs, bringing them closer to the markets and thereby allowing us to shorten journeys.
Sir David Amess
I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. There are a number of Scottish Members here. I am not an expert in abattoirs, and I need to reflect on precisely how he thinks we should deal with that matter, but I understand. He represents constituents, however, who would feel that the issue is not so straightforward.
Sir David Amess
Yes. The RSPCA is lobbying for a maximum journey time of eight hours for all animals travelling for slaughter or further fattening across the European Union. I am sure that many like-minded colleagues will join me in supporting that initiative.
Another reason why it is right to pursue the end of live exports is that even if we manage to transport live animals effectively and safely, we cannot ensure that the countries animals arrive in live up to our high standards. We have wonderful standards in this country—I challenge anyone to find better in the EU. Of the 28 members of the European Union, it is this great country of ours that has the highest standards possible. That is why, when we leave the wretched European Union next March, we will improve standards even further.
Bill Wiggin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about leaving the EU, but he is not right about our standards. Listening to the anecdotal evidence of the people who watch the lorries going from Ramsgate, they complain that inspections are not rigorous enough. We can do a lot more here.
Sir David Amess
I am not going to fall out with my hon. Friend on this issue, particularly as he is a tropical fish fancier, but the Minister will have heard what he said. When the Minister sums up the debate, he will put my hon. Friend right on his criticism of how these things are managed.
The fundamental problem with the current EU regulations is a lack of political willpower in member states to enforce them. That does not just relate to animal welfare; that lack of willpower applies to so many other dealings with the EU. In November 2016, Sweden, with the support of Denmark, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, presented a paper to the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council highlighting numerous examples of infringements and a general lack of enforcement. For example, Compassion in World Farming has found that we export approximately 40,000 live sheep for slaughter to the continent each year. France takes a considerable number of those, yet it was only in 2016 that an inquiry by a committee of the French National Assembly found there to be serious concerns about welfare standards in French abattoirs. Is that something that our nation of animal lovers would be proud to be associated with? I think not.
More locally, veterinary costs are of concern to many constituents. Goodness me, vet bills seem to grow weekly. There are a lot of senior citizens in the area I represent—we have the most centenarians in the country, and I hope to be one of them one day. Animals are their lives. They are everything to elderly people who are on their own, and we should not trivialise the importance of animals to such people. Veterinary bills can be high, and the taxpayer foots the bill for veterinary checks in live transportation. If that cost was shifted to those involved in the industry, not only would the taxpayer save money during these hard times, but the industry would be incentivised to look after its animals well, as the cost of veterinary bills could be high.
I hope I have convinced the House about the issue of the live export of animals. Some 94,000 people signed the petition. What is particularly exciting is that unlike in 2012, the change I want is no longer an impossible dream. When we investigated a ban before, it was found that because of freedom of movement within the European Union—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was a Member of the European Parliament, knows far better than I do how our hands were tied behind our back—it would be unlawful to stop the practice. Once we leave the European Union, that will no longer be the case. As the Minister said in 2017,
“there will be nothing standing in our way of placing an ethical ban on the export of live animals.”
I believe him.
I was further encouraged by something in the Conservative manifesto last year—one of the few things I was encouraged by, but the least said about that the better. My party committed the Government to continuing to improve animal welfare and specifically mentioned taking steps to control the export of animals for slaughter. The Secretary of State has also made positive noises about that inside and outside the House.
In summary, I want us to address the suffering of animals. The public are overwhelmingly with us—we have only to think of the Prime Minister’s little aside on foxhunting during the dreadful general election campaign and all the damage that that did. We are a nation of animal lovers, and political parties and Members of Parliament should get real on that, because animals are by and large grateful for everything we do for them, and they are not quite as moody as human beings can be.
We must look after animals to the best of our ability. We should enforce maximum journey times, end long-distance travel for slaughter, ensure that British animals are treated according to British standards, which I believe are high despite what my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire said, and prevent the public purse from paying for veterinary costs. Let us make this issue one of the first great steps as Britain takes back control from the European Union. As Gandhi once said:
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
As we leave the European Union next year, not only I and many of my constituents but the whole of the animal kingdom will be celebrating.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who I think is wrong about rural as opposed to urban communities. We have only to listen to the RSPCA to hear about unspeakable acts of vicious cruelty that take place against domestic animals in our urban areas to know that cruelty is not divided by region, people or nations, but by wickedness in individuals. It is absolutely the road to hell to ban things because we do not like the proper process that should be followed. I am particularly passionate about this because my amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 would have seen the sentence for cruelty increased, but it was voted down by the Labour Government who took the credit for the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West for revealing my fondness for tropical fish, although I am not sure that they are completely relevant in this debate as they tend to be flown in from Singapore on very long journeys. However, the problem with a ban is that we are all here because we want to see less bad treatment and better treatment of animals in transit, irrespective of where they are coming from or going to and irrespective of whether they are for slaughter or for breeding stock.
I had to pass exams to be allowed to transport my animals. It is wrong to say that there are not rules on what we are allowed to do. There is an eight-hour limit. We have to have tests and we can drive our animals only within 65 km of where we live without any regulation whatsoever. So what the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said is wrong. She should look it up on the DEFRA website
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Gentleman has just said that I said there were not any rules, but I said nothing of the sort. I accepted that there are rules in place, but I said that they are not being adhered to. For example, calves being held in a truck in a lay-by technically counts as a rest period, but most of us would agree that is not much of a relief for them. I did not say that there were not any rules.
Bill Wiggin
I thought the hon. Lady said that we tried to object to the eight-hour limit in the European Union.
Bill Wiggin
I have given the matter a great deal of thought and it occurs to me that we should not ban live exports. If we do that, we will lose control through the Irish border and the animals whose welfare we seek to improve could end up travelling from southern Ireland to Spain or France on journeys that are considerably longer than they need to be. We need to improve the standards of transport within the United Kingdom, and when they arrive in Kent ready to cross the channel they must be properly inspected by vets. That means there needs to be lairage and unloading of the animals, and they need to be checked. Then they should be loaded into approved-only transporters. There are penalties for any suffering that happens on the journeys, but at the moment there is not an owner.
The lorry driver is not the owner of the animals in the back, so if a sheep’s leg is sticking out of the back of the truck, nobody suffers financially for that. If one of the animals is found to be suffering when they are unloaded, it gets put down and then there is a penalty, because that life is lost and that animal is no longer fit for human consumption. The whole purpose of its export has been taken away. That is the penalty that hangs over all livestock producers all the time. If someone is found to have put the wrong medicines in their animal, it is condemned. That is how we deal with and enforce rules.
If we have proper policing all the way along the transport route, it is perfectly reasonable to continue to send animals 22 miles over the seas as opposed to thousands of miles around the edge.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I think my hon. Friend has missed the entire point of the debate. The point is not that animals should be transported under good conditions, but whether they should be slaughtered, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) said in opening the debate, as close to the point of production as possible and exported on the hook and not on the hoof. In that context, it is immaterial how they travel within the United Kingdom. There are 135 hours between the Scottish islands and Spain, and that is unacceptable under any circumstances. It is the principle that we object to, not the quality of the export.
Bill Wiggin
I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but if he reads the petition, he will see that it states:
“The transport of live animals exported from the UK causes immense suffering.”
So he is wrong. It is not about whether we kill the animals near to where they are born. We all agree on that: of course we should slaughter and export on the hook. If we cannot, or if something else is going on, such as fattening, we have to be careful, because large numbers of animals will be put in lorries for breeding purposes and they will arrive in France and be slaughtered, and there is nothing we can do. So we ought to correct where the suffering occurs and not try to blame foreign people for standards that they may or may not be more passionate about than some of our people.
It is much more important that the Government focus on removing any suffering on the journeys that we can control.
Zac Goldsmith
Does my hon. Friend think it is possible to transport in a civilised manner very young calves from the Scottish isles to Spain, for example? Obviously anything is possible in a world of fantasy, but in the real world does he believe that is a possibility?
Bill Wiggin
At the moment we have got the worst possible case where the roll-on/roll-off ferries will not take live exports because of the protests, so the animals end up going on slower ferries. Can we export and travel safely? Yes, we can. We fly racehorses around the world to appear in horseraces. We do all sorts of things with animals, but the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act was to name the five freedoms so that we would have basic frameworks for animal welfare, and breaking those is against the law. It is vital that we enforce the laws that we all like and support, rather than allow exporters an excuse. So can we transport calves abroad? Yes, we can.
Zac Goldsmith
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Surely if one were even to come close to applying the standards applied to racehorses, or to extremely valuable breeding stock, to animals that are transported for slaughter or fattening, the whole economic dynamic would change to such an extent that it would never make sense to transport animals on a large scale for those purposes? The standards for animals transported for slaughter or fattening will always necessarily be far lower than those in the example that he provided.
Bill Wiggin
It is far better to achieve a ban by making it economically difficult because the standards are so high than to apply a legal ban, which people get around by sending their animals to Northern Ireland, southern Ireland and to Spain. Let us get what we really want, which is a reduction in cruelty, rather than an export ban.
Theresa Villiers
In my ten-minute rule Bill, I proposed an exemption for north-south exports on the island of Ireland, so long as there was no onward transport overseas. My hon. Friend sees this as a great flaw in the proposal of a ban, but there is a technical solution that deals with the flaw that he has identified.
Bill Wiggin
It did not stop horsemeat getting into our supermarkets either, and that is the problem. Once we lose control, because the animal is in another sovereign nation, it is out of our hands. Therefore, let us get right the bit that we can. At the moment, a ban would fail. We would get illegal activity and, in the end, promote and improve the lot of the worst people—not the most caring people, such as those who are prepared to be hauliers who are properly policed, have proper veterinary inspections and will lose their licence to be an approved haulier if there is any case of abuse. That is how we can achieve what we really want, which is better animal welfare. I hope that if we can do that, the roll-on/roll-off ordinary ferries will allow proper, speedy channel crossings, rather than the slow boats that animals currently have to take. However, that cannot happen without better enforcement by British veterinary inspectors, and they cannot achieve that in Ramsgate because there is no lairage. If the animals are not taken off the trucks, they cannot be inspected properly. If they cannot be seen, they cannot be given the proper veterinary inspections, and if we do not do that, we will not get the improvements that we all want.
Sir Roger Gale
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is being very generous. He just said that once the animals leave these shores we have no control over them. He is absolutely right, and that is precisely why we do not want them transported halfway across Europe alive.
Bill Wiggin
Unfortunately for my hon. Friend, that will not be possible, because we are not proposing an export ban on all animals, but just on those that are for slaughter—and how will anyone know whether they are for slaughter? Who can tell what will happen to a sheep after it has arrived in France? It may be breeding stock that is downgraded to fattening, and then downgraded to immediate slaughter. Once it is out of our sphere of influence, it has gone. Equally, when animals come into the UK, they fall into our sphere of influence, and we must ensure that we have properly resourced policing, and the standards that we hope to achieve in this well-intentioned but, I think, slightly vulnerable petition.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I would hazard a guess that, unusually, this afternoon’s petition is probably supported by the vast majority of UK citizens. I noted that one of the areas with the greatest density of replies, as we can see from the information published by the House, was South Thanet, and for good reason. Part of South Thanet has been mentioned in the debate: the very small commercial port of Ramsgate, which is part of my constituency. It has the very dubious honour, which I want to get rid of as soon as possible, of being the only UK port through which lamb and sheep are transported across an international sea border for slaughter abroad.
If the inappropriate means of transport across the channel—up to three hours on a small, ageing Russian tank transporter called the Joline, which plied the Volga river in a previous incarnation and is now Latvian-flagged—is not bad enough, we should also be concerned about the long journey times within the UK. The sheep and lambs are often from Cumbria, meaning an eight to 10 hour trip to Kent. The onward journey, after three hours travelling across the channel, could be to somewhere as far as Germany, which would take another eight hours or more, after which they are slaughtered. We are talking about a transport time—without mentioning the problems that we have already heard about regarding veal—for lambs of 24 hours in total. Although exports through Ramsgate can be at any time of year—in winter cold or summer heat—peaks are often seen to coincide with religious festivals, notably Eid, following the end of Ramadan.
The issue of animal exports out of Ramsgate gained national focus because of a truly appalling fiasco on 12 September 2012, as has been mentioned this afternoon. A single lorry carrying more than 500 sheep was declared unfit to travel. Temporary holding pens were set up, as no official lairage was available at the port. Some 43 sheep had to be euthanised due to injury, six fell into the water, and two drowned. Breaches of animal welfare regulations were found, and appropriate fines and a suspended prison sentence were levied against the director of the transport company. Thereafter, Thanet District Council unilaterally suspended the trade through the municipally owned and run port. However, following an injunction by the shippers, the trade was forced to resume again the next month, in late October 2012.
A petition was presented to Parliament in January 2013 by the then MP Laura Sandys, calling for the permanent suspension of live exports through the port. Things then became truly weird, with protracted legal action by the shippers—action that concluded in February 2014, resulting in a claim of more than £4 million in compensation against the local council. It is a small council, so local taxpayers had to bear that cost. Live animal exports could not be prevented in what was a very telling judgment for two reasons. First, section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 allows, in simple terms, free access to goods traffic from any UK port—an historical law that was more appropriate, I would argue, in the age of sail and steam, when navigation was more hazardous. For that reason, I sought to introduce a fairly simple amendment to the old Act via a ten-minute rule Bill in May 2016. My Bill would have allowed municipally owned and controlled ports the discretion to ban the trade. In Ramsgate, it is certainly not a trade that people want through the port, which they own.
In some ways, that Bill was a little bit of devilment, because even if it had passed at that time, it would have been deemed not in accordance with single market rules on the functioning of the EU. That was clearly highlighted in the second part of the High Court judgment, which stated that in any event, notwithstanding the 1847 Act, EU law governing the function of the single market would prevent restrictions of animal exports. I note what the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, but the EU interprets animals as mere “goods”. EU rules still allow the production of foie gras, the existence of veal crates, bullfighting and everything else. I do not think that EU standards are the gold plate that many people see them as.
It was encouraging to see, a couple of weeks ago—and somewhat late in the day, I might add—the Labour party publish its proposals for animal welfare. I warmly welcomed them, but they largely mirrored what we on the Conservative Benches are doing and have been talking about for some time. The Leader of the Opposition spoke today about maintaining membership of “a” or “the” customs union, and maintaining rules and standards very much in alignment with those of the EU, so that we end up in some perpetual membership of the single market. I am afraid that that was where the credibility of Labour’s position on animal welfare somewhat fell to bits in my mind. An independent country would be able to introduce the welfare standards it feels are right, but single market rules have thus far failed us on animal and farming standards.
Just a month ago, I held an event on the parliamentary estate—just next door—with representatives of key animal welfare groups, many of whom are here, and a diverse range of celebrities, including Joanna Lumley, Frederick Forsyth, Sir Ranulph Fiennes, Selina Scott and Jan Leeming. I was pleased to be supported by Conservative colleagues, but there was also support from Members of the Scottish National party—I was grateful that they were at the event. Sadly, not one Labour Member came, and I am somewhat intrigued about that. I am also somewhat intrigued about the fact that the Labour Benches are virtually devoid this afternoon.
Craig Mackinlay
Of course—I am surprised that the hon. Lady has waited so long.
Kerry McCarthy
I did get an invite to that event— I think I was actually speaking at something else that afternoon—but I thought I had been sent it accidentally, because I thought it was Conservative animal welfare event, especially given some of the names that were mentioned. I did not go because I thought I had somehow accidentally got on to the hon. Gentleman’s mailing list, but he should not assume from that any lack of support for the cause.
Craig Mackinlay
I am sorry if there was anything in the invitation that put the hon. Lady off, but it was very much open to all, and some other parties took up the offer.
We live in changed times. We voted to leave the European Union, which means leaving the customs union and the single market and no longer being bound by the EU’s acquis in areas where we wish to diverge. That gives me great hope. We have the opportunity to advance new international trade deals, and for the first time in a generation we are free once more to do what is right and what the people of this country demand. That very much comes under the banner of taking back control, which means taking back control of animal welfare and farming standards.
I and other Members have mentioned the encouraging words in the Conservative party manifesto by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other agriculture Ministers. I fully supported the Live Animal Exports (Prohibitions) Bill proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), and I pay tribute to the 94,000 people across the country who signed this petition. I feel that they will share my view that, post Brexit, we can have a renaissance of animal welfare standards, alongside our commitments to introduce CCTV in abattoirs and increase sentences for those who abuse animals.
I fully appreciate farmers’ concerns about the potential for increased costs, which were ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). He must feel like he is in “12 Angry Men”—one of my favourite films—but I am not sure he is going to win today. The increased costs resulting from the application of the standards that my hon. Friend ably set out may stop this trade in its tracks. The profit from the difference between the farm-gate cost and the price that the farmer receives when the animals are delivered to the market abroad will no longer be realised.
Bill Wiggin
Economic pressure is a far better way of achieving what my hon. Friend wants than legislative pressure. If it does not make economic sense, that is absolutely fine. What is wrong is that, without that potential outlet, supermarkets will simply screw down the price in the UK, and there will be nothing anybody can do. That is where the frustration comes from.
Craig Mackinlay
My hon. Friend made his points very well during his speech, and I was very pleased to hear them.
Let me put the size of the export market in context. Some 14.5 million sheep and lambs are slaughtered in this country each year, and a mere 40,000 are transported across the international sea border through ports such as Ramsgate in my constituency. It is a minor trade and alternatives are available. I have no intention—I say this now, but I suppose things change—of stopping my consumption of meat. I can think of nothing better than a decent Welsh or Kent salt marsh lamb, but the slaughter must be undertaken as close to where the animals are raised as possible. That means, post Brexit, having a national rethink about localising slaughterhouses. We need the Animal and Plant Health Agency to up its game on monitoring, particularly for long-distance transports within the UK. The rule that we should all be aiming for is that our meat should be provided on the hook, not on the hoof.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson.
Animal cruelty always raises passions. I have been involved in farming my entire life, and I have grown up with animal husbandry since I was a little boy. My earliest memories are of inspecting livestock in fields and buildings, no matter the snow or rain. Many farm children help raise cattle or sheep as a project to get them involved in farming. Rural schools in Scotland used to raise funds for the school through family farms, which raised livestock from calves or lambs to be sold at the auction mart.
Rural children grow up surrounded by livestock—farm visits were not contrived, and are still an everyday activity—but society has become disconnected from livestock farming. Fewer and fewer children and adults have a connection to the land and the livestock industry. Growing up in the countryside, I was well aware of where the bacon, eggs, chicken or beef on my plate came from, but I am afraid to say that the vast majority of young adults do not realise where their burgers come from. My young sons are six and two and a half, and they know only too well that their sausages come from pigs, that their burgers come from fat cattle in the fields, and that the chicken in their night-time books are the roast chicken at the weekend. This debate should not be about the morality of eating meat. I respect the opinions of vegetarians, but I resent it if they peddle a myth that eating meat is cruel or unhealthy. This debate should not be about that.
Let us be clear: husbandry, the feeding of livestock, the use of veterinary drugs and the transport of animals are regulated. The care of commercial livestock is paramount to farmers and breeders. We must not confuse this issue with the incidence of neglect, wanton cruelty or, in the case of transport, law-breaking. If we disagree with transporting livestock, it must be for reasons that all of society can agree on, and not simply because of minority beliefs.
NFU Scotland recognises that the standards of transport and slaughter in the EU are equivalent to our standards. Livestock are regularly shipped, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) knows, from the islands to mainland Scotland—to Aberdeen on the east coast from Orkney and Shetland. Several years ago, specialist roll on/roll off containers were manufactured by Stewart Trailers, which happens to be based in my constituency of Gordon. They were designed specifically for long journeys, and they had water and were well ventilated. They were designed to be stable if the crossing is choppy—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the crossing from Shetland and Orkney can be very choppy.
There is a lairage yard at Aberdeen for safe onward transportation to farms in the fertile countryside of north-east Scotland, where I farm. That is best practice, and anyone visiting the facilities and the cattle and sheep auctions would be reassured that it can be done properly. There was a tremendous TV programme, which can still be found, called “The Mart”. Hon. Members may need subtitles, as it was in Doric, which those of us in the north-east can speak. It was about a mart called Thainstone, and it was a wonderful example of livestock husbandry. Anybody watching it would be hard pressed to say that people who look after livestock are not passionate about it; they are therefore concerned about this debate.
If somebody simply does not agree with shipping livestock or eating meat, this proposal will not be good enough. The NFUS is very concerned that any attempt to prevent live export will set a dangerous precedent. Livestock production is the key to farming on Scotland’s islands. There are no processing facilities on the islands—they are long gone—so livestock must be transported safely and effectively to the mainland. Any attempt to restrict those crossings would be catastrophic for the islands, because they cannot grow wheat, broccoli or the fine fruit and vegetables grown in the Kent constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay).
The NFUS said:
“If a precedent is set against permitting animals to undergo ferry journeys based on sentiment, not science, island crossings could be easily targeted…despite the absence of welfare problems on these crossings”.
It is important for us to separate the issues, and I am grateful to the Labour hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who said that she respected the fact that there are higher standards in the UK.
This is the nub of the matter: can exporting over the sea be done properly? Yes, it can. Can it be done with no suffering to animals, given the correct equipment and facilities? Yes, it can. Should concern be shown for higher temperatures in the summer and the length of transportation? Yes, it should. Should this be stopped because of poor practice in the past or internationally? No.
Time after time, we witness on our television programmes the other issue on livestock for slaughter in the EU, and many other Members have mentioned it: illegal slaughter techniques, cruelty and in many cases simple criminality—facilities that should not be allowed and personnel who enjoy being cruel to animals. Abattoirs in the EU where that happens should simply not be operating. Several Members have mentioned that, and I am passionate about it, but it should not be confused with what the debate is about. The industry has to think again about this.
At the weekend, I was delighted to speak at the 53rd dinner of the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland. The institute kindly gave me a tie, which I agreed to wear to this debate; I will register it as a gift as soon as I leave the Chamber. It is a venerable organisation that is immersed in the livestock industry and has stepped up during times of national animal health crisis, such as in the foot and mouth outbreak, when it undertook a task that was essential but few could stomach. Auctioneers are tasked with looking after livestock while keeping the market flowing, in a trade that goes back millennia. After all, as Members know, Rob Roy MacGregor was a drover, although he apparently took ownership by other means as well—but I do not wish to cast any slur on his character. The auctioneers are also responsible for being aware of legislation and ensuring that all those who use their facilities comply with the veterinary drug use, husbandry and transport regulations. They are very much the gatekeepers.
I believe that as many people are concerned about where livestock are processed on the continent as are worried about the transportation. On that point I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said. The whole industry must satisfy the public’s concern about where livestock is destined for. The industry cannot simply load the livestock and forget about them; Members have mentioned that. In the UK, we are broadly satisfied with Government inspectorates and officials inspecting our facilities, and the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs recently announced that abattoirs—in England, at least—will have cameras, but I suggest that the livestock industry consider a code of practice, or an addition to its industry standards, on being aware of the destination of livestock that are exported live.
Livestock and valuable horses are very tightly regulated, and the destination of valuable breeding stock is known, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said. Lower value livestock can end up being passed from pillar to post, but that should not be the case, and this is where auctioneers could shed a great deal of light. Horses and ponies sent to the continent for processing should be an area of shame for horse lovers. Surplus horses have to be dealt with humanely, even in a country where we do not consume horse meat. With recent royal support, it has been advocated that facilities should be provided in the UK, rather than horses being transported to the continent. I absolutely agree with that. If the industry were to produce its own code of practice on the destination of exported livestock, and facilities were verified as suitable, I personally would be a lot more comfortable.
The Minister should look to best practice, and he is very welcome to visit farms in the north of Scotland and the facilities at Aberdeen docks. I am sure that the Member for the islands, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, would invite the Minister as well, although I recommend that he takes a plane and not the ferry; the crossing is very choppy.
I recognise the passion of those who signed the petition, but I doubt they wanted it to be the thin end of a wedge undermining UK farming, which at the moment has the highest welfare standards in the EU.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, and to take part in a debate on such an important issue.
The export of live farm animals can cause great suffering in many cases, as was outlined by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for Southend West (Sir David Amess), and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Last year I proposed a ten-minute rule Bill to implement a ban on the export of live animals for slaughter or for fattening, because I believe it to be unethical to export animals to countries where they can be subjected to treatment that would be unlawful in the United Kingdom.
I am concerned, as are many others who have spoken this afternoon, that the rules regulating the transport and slaughter of animals that are supposed to apply across every EU member state are not always effectively enforced in every part of the European Union once animals leave this country. Many of the sheep exported from the UK are sent to France, but there is clear evidence of inhumane and illegal slaughter practices in a number of places there—a problem acknowledged in a 2016 report by a committee of inquiry in the French Parliament. In my view, that of the people who signed the petition, and that of many of my constituents, it is not acceptable for the UK to send animals to die in such horrendous conditions.
We have had extensive discussion about calves that are exported from Scotland to Spain, and are subjected to a 20-hour sea journey to northern France, and then a drive all the way to Spain. The total journey time can be as much as 135 hours. Morbidity and mortality following transport can be high, and those that survive to reach their destination in Spain can, under the law prevailing there, be kept in barren pens, without bedding, which would be illegal in this country.
Over the years, there have been repeated calls for this harsh trade to be brought to an end. Public concern on the issue dates back nearly 100 years. The 1990s saw mass protests by thousands of dedicated campaigners seeking an end to live exports, but attempts to implement a ban have been blocked by the European Court of Justice as being in contravention of EU law and single market rules on the free movement of goods.
Now that the UK has voted to leave the European Union, we have the opportunity to reopen the question and to decide in this House whether to implement a ban. Although export bans are constrained by World Trade Organisation rules, the WTO appellate body has ruled that animal welfare matters are capable of falling within the “public morals” exception. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the UK would be able to defend a WTO challenge by showing an export ban to be a proportionate response to long-standing, deeply held concerns of the public in the United Kingdom, as illustrated by those many thousands of people who took the time to sign the petition we are debating.
The WTO is not the only potential barrier to delivering an end to live exports, as called for by those who signed the petition. We will only be able to end them if we leave the single market; if we do not, a ban will continue to be beyond this country’s reach, as it has been for so many years. That is another important reason to respect the result of the referendum and leave the single market, replacing it with a new partnership with our European neighbours.
I understand from my discussions with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for which I am very grateful, that the Government intend to consult soon on how implement the Conservative manifesto promise that we will
“take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter”.
I appeal to the Minister to publish that consultation, and to ensure that the options considered include a ban on export for slaughter or for fattening. Like the hon. Member for Bristol East and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, I think that if we are to tackle the welfare concerns highlighted by hon. Members, the ban needs to include exports for fattening as well.
I believe, as others do, that there is a case for allowing exports to continue from north to south, from Northern Ireland. That is essentially local traffic, and I do not think that it raises the same animal welfare concerns. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), if we genuinely want an end to live exports, we are justified in stating that the exemption for north-south exports should not allow onward transportation to destinations outside the Republic of Ireland.
[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]
I would be very interested to hear from the Minister about the status of an export ban in the United Kingdom as a whole. There have been reports in recent days that the devolved institutions in different parts of the United Kingdom would make their own decisions on this matter, but one would have thought that as a trade matter it would be reserved to the UK Government. It would be useful to have the Minister’s view on that. I am also concerned that there are reports that the Minister for rural affairs in the Scottish Government, Minister Ewing, has indicated that he would not support a ban of this sort. I hope that that view may change.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Lady accept that that is a matter for the devolved Scottish Government, and not for Members in this House?
Theresa Villiers
Actually, the question I am posing to the Minister is about whether it is a reserved matter. Whether it is a matter for the Scottish Government or the UK Government, I want to see an end to live exports, because of the suffering that they cause.
It would be very helpful to hear from the Minister when he expects the consultation to be published. I very much hope that it will come out in time for the outcome potentially to be included in the forthcoming Bill on farming, to which the Government are committed. I accept that it is probably too late for a provision on live exports to be in the Bill when it is first presented to Parliament, but I hope it is not too late for the outcome of the consultation on restricting live exports possibly to be added to the Bill through amendment at a later stage. I appeal to the Minister to move forward with the consultation, with a view to ensuring that it is published and completed in time to enable the Government, if they so choose, to add provisions banning live exports to the agriculture Bill before it finishes its passage through Parliament.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I have listened to the debate intensely, but I still have not got an answer on the issue of a trade deal between Northern Ireland and the Republic, to which live animals can be exported, and which is a member of the European Union. How do we control where animals go from there? We have absolutely no jurisdiction over that. We have to be consistent if we want to bring in something, and it is not consistent to say, “Once it goes to the Republic of Ireland, it is not our business.”
Theresa Villiers
There are still risks that the rules we put in place will not be enforced, but that is a reason to make sure that we do everything we can to ensure that they are enforced properly. If we bring in the ban that is advocated in my ten-minute rule Bill, exporting from north to south in Northern Ireland with a view to onward export to other jurisdictions would be unlawful. Obviously, it would be very important to seek to ensure that that aspect of the new legislation was enforced. Just because there are potential difficulties in enforcing some aspects of a ban does not mean that we should throw up our hands and say, “It’s impossible—we can’t do this.” The case has been strongly made for a ban, and we need to look very carefully at how we can make sure that we enforce it as effectively as possible.
Bill Wiggin
My concern is that if the price of sheep went up significantly in France, anybody who wanted to capitalise on that would send their sheep through southern Ireland; at that point, our ban would have made the situation worse for those sheep.
Theresa Villiers
I do not accept that that would be a consequence. It is possible to put together a legal formulation that contains an exemption from the ban for north-south exports within the island of Ireland. Enforcement would not necessarily be easy, but even if there were risks of the ban being evaded, that is not an excuse for inaction.
That is why I support an end to live exports. The case for a ban has been made clear by many campaigning organisations, such as Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and World Horse Welfare. The time has come to put an end to this trade that causes so much suffering. We should put a prohibition on live export in statute now, so that it comes into effect on exit day, when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on introducing the debate. I want to touch on a number of issues very briefly, and to deal with a couple of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). I normally agree with him, but on this occasion there is clearly a little difference between us.
Let us tackle the fundamental difference between live animals for slaughter, live animals for fattening and live animals for breeding stock. We all understand what “live animals for slaughter” means—that is what the petition is about. My understanding is that “live animals for fattening” is a euphemism for exporting livestock from the United Kingdom to France, Spain, Italy or Greece, where they spend a couple of days in a field and are then slaughtered and branded as local meat, be that French, Spanish, Greek or Italian. Effectively, those animals are live animals for slaughter. My view is that any control exercise should embrace those animals, as well as those that are openly and honestly—if that is the right word—exported for slaughter.
Breeding stock is different. Rather like the racehorses that were referred to earlier, they are high-value animals, they are well looked after and they are transported with great care. That is not the case with animals that are exported for other purposes. The standards in the United Kingdom may occasionally be not too bad, but the standards in mainland Europe are unenforced and unenforceable. In theory they are supposed to be high, but in practice, as we all know, they are not. I am not satisfied that even a chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce travelling with one animal, particularly a veal calf, from a Scottish island to the Scottish mainland for eight hours—if that is how long it takes—would be satisfactory.
The issue of veal calves, which has been referred to on a number of occasions, sadly arises from a pyrrhic victory that some of us thought we had won: the banning of veal crates in the United Kingdom. That simply proves that we do not solve a problem by moving it from A to B. That is as true of the testing of cosmetics on live animals as it is of this issue of veal calves. The British market has singularly failed to promote and sell rose veal, as it is known. Veal calves that were raised in the United Kingdom are being shipped under appalling conditions, for very many hours, from Scotland or wherever to mainland Europe, where they are reared in the dark and fed on milk under infinitely worse conditions than they ever had in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire says that we have made it worse, and he is absolutely right—I said it was a pyrrhic victory. That has to be addressed, but not by shipping those animals to Europe to have them raised in sheds in Belgium, Holland, France or wherever, to produce white veal for Wiener schnitzel or whatever. We must consider that matter.
The crux of this issue—as it happens, this was highlighted on the BBC’s “Countryfile” yesterday—is the shortage of abattoir facilities, which arose way back when we shut half our abattoirs and slaughterhouses because we tried to gold-plate European regulations. We have heard that some facilities are no longer available, and that is absolutely right: we have taken away a lot of facilities, particularly in the Scottish islands. The answer, which I would like the Minister to address, is first to preserve local facilities where they still exist.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am a crofter who sells lambs every autumn because I run out of grazing. We have a slaughterhouse on the island, but slaughtering lambs at their different weights and then selling them on is beyond me—it is beyond all crofters—because some are too small to be slaughtered. About half need to go away for further fattening. Even if we had more slaughterhouses, it still would not work. Lambs would still have to be exported off the island, or else there would be a bigger welfare problem: lack of food.
Sir Roger Gale
The hon. Gentleman has greater expertise in this narrow field than me, particularly since he farms. I accept that point, but I do not accept that it is necessary to send those animals to the south of England, which is an eight, 10 or 12-hour journey once they hit the mainland—and he first ships them from the island to the mainland United Kingdom. Even the journey to the south of Britain is very long, but if they are shipped across the channel and then halfway across Europe to Spain, which is what happens, the journey is infinitely longer. I do not accept that that is a necessity. I might accept that there is a case for moving them to the Scottish lowlands for fattening if that is what the economics of the trade demand.
I accept again that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that the local abattoir might not work for everyone all the time. However, we have beset our slaughterhouses not with animal welfare regulations, which I support, but with all manner of other red tape, which is putting them out of business. The Minister needs to address that. Frankly, they are on the borderline of not being able to make a living. Far from closing those local facilities, we need to reinstate them and provide more local facilities so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said, animals can be slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible. That is the key. That is why I do not accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire that this is just a matter of raising transport standards and ensuring that everything is gold-plated in the United Kingdom. As he said himself—I made this point during his speech—the moment an animal leaves these shores, it is out of our control. I see no justification in this day and age for transporting animals alive rather than on the hook.
The Minister will know that people have said, “Ah yes, but the French have a different way of butchering meat.” That is absolutely true, but it is not beyond the wit of man—before we leave the European Union, at least—to hire a French butcher or someone else who can butcher for the French. In fact, it is already done. The idea that something can be shipped across the channel, spend a couple of days in a French field and be whacked off down to the Rungis meat market and sold as French beef, lamb or whatever is a nonsense.
I see no justification whatsoever for the transport of live animals for slaughter. I see every reason why we should take the opportunity, upon leaving the European Union, to ban the transport of live animals—that includes horses, by the way—for purposes other than breeding. I applaud the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has trailed, and I hope very much that we will introduce them as soon as possible.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Hollobone. May I place on the record my gratitude to the Petitions Committee for bringing this debate to the Chamber?
Despite our differences, there has been a large measure of agreement among Members. People have spoken about the need for abattoirs close to the source of production, and I have no problem agreeing with that. The abattoir in Orkney recently failed yet again, so that subject is near to my heart and, Orkney being an agricultural community, to those of my constituents. It also illustrates, though, how insisting on having a facility for slaughter near the point of production leaves people in island communities or even remote rural communities on the mainland open to unintended consequences.
Whatever position we have taken in the debate, I think we are all motivated by a desire to see the highest possible animal welfare standards. No one wants animals to suffer unnecessarily. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said a few things with which I do not necessarily agree. He said that animals are not moody like people. I can only assume that he has never kept a cat. He also said that this is not an easy debate for those of us who represent agricultural communities, suggesting that we are not in a position to put animal welfare standards at the top of the agenda. I passionately disagree. I speak as a farmer’s son who represents an agricultural community. In fact, I should declare an interest given what he said about veterinary fees: my wife is a partner in a local veterinary practice in Orkney and regularly does pre-export checks for animals that go from Orkney to the continent. That does not happen often—the economics are such that live export for purposes other than slaughter, such as breeding, is not straightforward —but it does happen, and the cost of that is met by the exporter, not the taxpayer.
The assertion that farmers care less than other people about animal welfare has to be challenged. It simply is not the case. I invite the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001, when he will have seen on his television set pictures of farmers who had had their entire herds slaughtered. Those were not people who did not care about the fate of the animals they had just seen destroyed; many of them suffer a measure of trauma to this day, and they are by no means untypical of farmers. In fact, although there are exceptions to every rule, they are typical. Farmers care about animal welfare. They invest a lot, not just financially but emotionally, in rearing beasts that they then send off for slaughter. That is a commercial activity, but it is by no means cold-hearted.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) explained the shipping of livestock from Orkney and Shetland to Aberdeen and spoke about the cassette system that is used to transport animals. I was first elected shortly before that system was put in place, and I recall that the construction and design of those cassettes was led by the farmers’ unions and farmers themselves, as well as by the State Veterinary Service and the animal welfare authorities. As he said, the system is the gold standard in animal transportation. If anyone feels, as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) suggested, that transportation cannot be done humanely and with due regard for animal welfare, I invite them to come and inspect it. It is subject to the most rigorous standards and regulation, not just in its construction but in its operation.
As has been said, animal welfare export standards are currently subject to EC regulation 1/2005, which governs loading, unloading, journey length, vehicle standards, temperature, and available food and water. Of course, those rules, like any, get broken from time to time—that is self-evident. That is why we have proper enforcement. If hon. Members are keen on seeing better enforcement, I look forward to their support when I next make a call for better resourcing and governance within the state veterinary service, because that has been allowed to wither on the vine for many years. If we are serious about animal welfare, that is somewhere we should put our money.
Sir Roger Gale
If I accept the idea of cruise liner facilities being offered for cattle shipped from the islands to the Scottish mainland—for the purpose of this argument, I do—will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is then necessary to permit those animals to be transported to mainland Europe in conditions over which we have no control at all, for hundreds of miles and dozens of hours?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman’s question prompts another question: what control is there to be within our domestic boundaries? It is still possible to transport animals for a very long time within the UK. He is right: there is a need for better enforcement across the whole European Union. Part of my unease about some of the arguments that he and others advance is that their attitude is almost, “Well, we’ll be fine—we’ll take the moral high ground and have the best possible standards of animal welfare.” That will not see the end of veal farming in France. That production will go on, but we somehow seem to think we can draw a line on the map and say, “We’re not going to be part of that.”
That also goes to the point I made earlier to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), to which we have not yet had an answer. A ban that does not ban movement across the Irish border is not a ban at all; it is a ban with a most obvious loophole. No matter what terms we may wish to write in about onward transmission, once the livestock has been moved from the north of Ireland to the south of Ireland we have lost control of it. As was said earlier—it might have been by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin)—when market conditions dictate that a significantly better price is to be had for a product in France, that is where it will go. If there is even only one route to that market, that is the one route that will be taken.
Bill Wiggin
There is one other alternative. In that scenario, if we allowed live exports to continue, any animals coming from southern Ireland to France would cross through the United Kingdom, where our inspectors could significantly improve the quality of the transport.
Mr Carmichael
If the objection is to sea transportation, it strikes me as slightly ironic that one possible consequence for animals from Northern Ireland would be that, instead of crossing of a few miles across the border to the south, they would end up being put on boats to go across either the north channel or the Irish sea. Again, I fear the law of unintended consequences is at work here.
What is important? What should we be looking for as we seek to regulate this whole area better? I say to the Minister that in looking at this issue, which will constantly be under scrutiny, and rightly so, there is plenty of evidence and research. It is that evidence and research—not sentiment—that should ultimately govern the decisions that we make.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We come to the Front-Bench speeches, after which Steve Double will have a few minutes to sum up the debate. I call David Linden, for the Scottish National party.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I commend the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Before I move to the substance of my speech and the Scottish National party’s position, I will sum up the comments made by the right hon. and hon. Members who took part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is a passionate campaigner in this area, mentioned the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Ramsgate and the promise he made during the EU referendum campaign. I dare say that if it was not put on the side of a bus, it probably did not mean much.
During my time in this place the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) has spent an awful lot of time talking about Southend West. Last week I had the fortune—I was going to say misfortune—of having my flight to London diverted to Southend, and as we flew across I saw one or two of its farms. I am conscious that, as the Member for Glasgow East, I am probably the most urban MP taking part in the debate—I have a total of one farm in my constituency—but I was grateful for his contribution to the debate.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) is of course an experienced cattle farmer. There was little in the course of his speech that I could disagree with. As I listened to the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), I was further concerned: as a Scottish nationalist Member, it is unusual to find myself in agreement with Conservatives, but he made an excellent speech, nothing of which I could disagree with. I absolutely agree on the importance of teaching our children where food comes from. Like him, I have a son who is two and a half years old, and at the weekend I explained to him the benefits of us having both pig and cow in our pie. As children grow up, it is important that they understand where the food on our plate comes from. Alongside the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), he made a passionate defence of island communities. I was slightly disappointed that, over the course of the debate, island communities were not recognised elsewhere.
The hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who is a passionate campaigner in this area, spoke of the experience in Ramsgate in 2012. I am afraid that we will probably disagree today. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) has introduced a ten-minute rule Bill. She discussed some of the challenges that could flow from World Trade Organisation rules and spoke about reasonable grounds. That does not give me the certainty I would need to give that support.
We also heard speeches from the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who made a powerful point about farmers and crofters. I am well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who is in his place, is a crofter. During the foot and mouth crisis in 2001, it was the farmers and crofters who had the biggest investment here.
I thank the 36 constituents in Glasgow East who signed the petition. In future, it would be helpful if MPs who take part in petitions debates had the opportunity to interact with those constituents. It is deeply disappointing that although Parliament will send us a heat map showing who signed the petition, we do not have the opportunity to follow up with those people who have lobbied us as parliamentarians to come and take part in a debate. That is a point for the Petitions Committee.
It is indeed a pleasure to speak from the Front Bench on behalf of the Scottish National party. I want to outline our position on live animal exports. We are committed to the welfare of all animals during transport within and outwith the UK. I am afraid we cannot support any moves that create further challenges or disadvantages for our livestock sector, or indeed for Scottish agriculture. We feel that current EU legislation is sufficient. Many good measures that protect animals are already in place, including journey logs and, if appropriate, resting at control posts.
In addition, the current regulations make provision for feeding and watering frequencies for livestock in transit. It is important to note, particularly from the Scottish perspective, that very few animals, if any, are exported from Scotland directly for slaughter. Export is largely done for other reasons, namely breeding and production. Long-distance transport of livestock is an important and traditional part of commercial Scottish agriculture. Indeed, the value of exporting is estimated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at £50 million in 2015 alone.
I want to make sure that the voice of stakeholders is heard during the debate. Quality Meat Scotland states that the Scottish industry
“benefits from being able to import live animals with quality genetics to improve blood lines”.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland has been quoted several times tonight, between the speeches of the hon. Member for Gordon and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I too am grateful for the briefing. NFU Scotland is fairly clear about there being no scientific evidence to suggest that animals being transported in current conditions are caused any unnecessary suffering. I acknowledge the previous horror stories, which were outlined by the hon. Member for South Thanet. Those controversies highlight the need for better and more consistent enforcement, rather than a major change in the law. The Government need to appreciate that live exports provide much needed competition within the marketplace, especially at times of peak production or when cheaper imports are placing pressure on domestic prices and demand.
As I have said, livestock production is key to Scotland’s island communities. Without processing facilities on an island, the only option is to transport animals across to the mainland by ferry. In some cases there is a need for animals to leave the island for better forage or winter accommodation, or for finishing purposes. Any attempt to restrict those crossings would be catastrophic to island communities and farmers, and where there is a major supply chain. NFU Scotland’s views on moves to ban live exports for slaughter are quite right and justifiable.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I also want to echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland: there is a welfare issue. Animals cannot be kept all year round on some of the islands and so have to move; it is for the good of the animals. Crofters and farmers are often worried about that, and spend a lot of time almost varnishing their nails—that is the level of work people put in when they have livestock. That must be considered. Any ban would endanger animals’ health.
David Linden
It may benefit the House to know that my wife is from Na h-Eileanan an Iar—perhaps the second best constituency in Scotland. I visit the Western Isles fairly regularly and am aware that, in the context of the deer cull, forage is an issue. My hon. Friend makes the point well.
A proposed UK framework cannot be another power grab from devolved Governments during the Brexit process. That is the point I was trying to make to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. The Scottish Government reserve the right to follow Scotland’s interests. That should not mean surrendering control of a devolved competence to Her Majesty’s Government.
I have already touched on the subject of the WTO. Ministers have not ruled out a ban on live animal exports, and I shall be interested to see what kind of language the Minister uses when he closes the debate. Before deciding what path to take, they should be clear about the economic consequences of implementing the policy. That means not the devolved consequences, but the economic consequences for the farming industry. Conservative Members talk an awful lot about the opportunities to come from Brexit, for animal welfare and farming. I hope that policy development will extend to all strands of agriculture, including the staff who work in abattoirs.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
One of the potential consequences of a ban, if Her Majesty’s Scottish Government do not invoke such a ban, has just occurred to me. Scottish farmers might be in an advantageous position. I am sure that it is not the perverse aim of English Members to disadvantage farmers in England. I should be happy with higher ram prices, I have to say.
David Linden
Without straying into the territory of ram prices, which is not something we routinely discuss in Glasgow East, I think my hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not know whether the Minister has considered that issue—perhaps it is why he is reaching for pen and paper.
I was saying that I want policy development to extend to abattoir staff. The Scottish National party, like most parties, takes the view that most animals should be slaughtered as close to the farm as possible. That is why it is important that abattoirs can continue to function properly post Brexit. A staggering 95% of the official veterinarians who work in our abattoirs are EU nationals, so the greatest practical matter that we should consider is ensuring that those EU nationals, many of whom are from Spain, can continue living and working here, staffing the abattoirs.
On today of all days, and given that this is essentially another Brexit debate, it would be remiss of me not to make reference to the importance of staying in the single market and in “the” customs union—not “a” customs union. Failure to do so will result in queues of lorries, backed up with prime Scotch lamb and beef. The Scottish red meat sector already faces enough challenges down the tracks as we are dragged off the hard Brexit cliff edge. It is for that reason that the SNP cannot and will not support any move that creates further challenges or difficulty for our livestock sector, or for Scottish agriculture.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, as I was to serve under that of Mr Wilson earlier. I congratulate the petition organiser and the many signatories. I shall not go over ground that has already been covered, as that is unnecessary, but we have explored some different approaches to the issue, so I shall start with some direct questions to the Minister, allowing him plenty of time to answer them.
I want to give an immediate answer to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who is not paying attention at the moment, about some things that the Labour Government did. There are not many Labour Members present; there are three of us now. Perhaps Labour could be criticised for not introducing a ban on live exports previously, but we are united: we will introduce a ban on live exports. Obviously we shall have to consult about how we do it, but it is our clear intention. The previous Labour Government made progress on animal welfare, with the fur farming ban, the Animal Welfare Act 2006—I am pleased the Government intend to update that, and we shall support them where appropriate—and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. That is aside from what we did on the foxhunting issue. There are two Conservative Members here who strongly supported the ban—the hon. Members for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who were staunch in their support—but unfortunately many did not. It took rather too long to get the measure through, and we make no apologies for saying that we will look again at some of the implications of the ban.
To begin my questions to the Minister, I want to hear categorically that, in line with the manifesto commitment and the Live Animal Exports (Prohibition) Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), he intends to bring forward legislation to ban live exports. I want to hear, with no ifs or buts, that the Government will be committed to that, notwithstanding some of the nuances—if not major differences—on how it can be done. It is important that we should hear how it will be done—whether by an amendment to the forthcoming agriculture Bill, or through an animal welfare Bill. We do not mind, and we will support it, but it would be good to know the timescale and mechanism. We obviously have some differences to sort out, not least with the territorial Administrations. It is interesting that we are not on the same page as the Scottish National party, or perhaps the Liberal Democrats, but we will do what we think is right and fair.
Secondly, I ask the Minister directly whether the issue is a deal breaker. Will we say now that we will not agree to any trade deal that does not prioritise animal welfare in exports? It is no good just saying that we will ban exports to the EU if we do not ban exports in every other potential trade deal. I know it is less likely that we will be bringing live animals from Australasia, but it would be pretty stupid to ban live exports to the EU if we do not state categorically up front that we will not do a trade deal unless a ban is in the fine print. It would be good to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Thirdly, although I thought the Conservative party was fairly clear on the ban, it is not very clear in its relationship with the National Farmers Union, which is less than sure that the Government intend to pursue their manifesto commitment. If the NFU will be pushing for caveats and exemptions—it is entirely clear that that is also the case for the territorial farming organisations—it would be good to know quite early on what exemptions could be considered. Maybe the Minister will want to take that point away.
We know about the problems with the Irish border, which will be considerable whether or not we are in a customs union or a single market. We in the Labour party are fairly clear about where we are on those things—eventually. The situation will not be easy if the NFU believes that it really has nothing to worry about, because there are certainly some issues that it does need to worry about if it wants to maintain this trade.
Fourthly—this is a slight tangent, but nevertheless important—it is all well and good talking about banning live exports, but we are not completely on top of some of the things that happen in this country. Some hon. Members will have seen the headlines in The Guardian over the weekend about some of the problems in our meat trade. We know about the scandal over horsemeat, which of course came from the Republic of Ireland. If we are going to do the decent thing and kill animals in abattoirs here, we need some pretty clear guarantees. I agree entirely that we need more local abattoirs, but the problem is that we are shutting even more at the moment. We shut a lot in the new Labour era, but that has not stopped. It continues.
Through foot and mouth, we learned of some of the mad ways in which our meat trade operates. We move animals up and down the country for a few pence on a sheep, largely depending on which abattoir the supermarkets want to send them to. It would be quite sensible to look at the regulation of that as well as the live export ban. We have to be clear that we have something substantially different in place. I say clearly to the Minister that the Russell Hume collapse has brought it to our attention that there are things going on out there that we should be much better at, regardless of where we kill the animals. It is all well and good saying that we have very high welfare standards, but we have to prove that, and sometimes we are not able to do that because of some of the things that are going on.
My last point is, dare I say it, the usual one: it would be great if this was all happening along with an improvement in the quality of inspection and, where necessary, of prosecution. Sadly, there have been major cuts in that area. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is now a much reduced body, and does anyone really think that our trading standards departments are in a stronger position than they were seven, 10 or 15 years ago? They have been cut to ribbons. That is where the cuts have taken place in local authorities.
The idea that there is a lot of inspection going on out there is sadly a myth. There is stuff that goes on out of sight and out of mind. That has an impact both on local government, through trading standards departments, and on the meat trade through the Food Standards Agency, which has also been cut back. If we are serious about this issue, we cannot pretend that we have to do anything other than make sure that those cuts are reversed. It is no good passing new legislation unless we put the resources in place to ensure that we are doing things properly.
I want to look quickly at some of the issues that have perhaps not been highlighted as much as they could have been. The documentation from the Library, produced by Elena Ares, is very useful. For one thing, following up on a parliamentary question that I asked, it shows the variability in the number of animals going for export. The variation is quite dramatic year on year. I do not know what causes that, and whether it is because of domestic price changes, but we are talking about hundreds of thousands more animals going one year than the previous year. There are some peculiarities in the trade that need to be highlighted.
If we are consistent in wanting to improve on and enhancing what the EU does, we need to go back to European Commission regulation 1200/2005, which effectively reinforces the allowing of live exports. It sets down standards such as the 65 km rules and the eight-hour rule, which have been talked about today. We have to ensure that we improve on those rules. It is no good just transposing them into British legislation without genuinely improving on them. I ask the Minister, as an aside, what guarantees he will give that we will enhance the existing situation.
There are a number of ways in which the EU already accepts that there are infringements. It does not do a very good job of regulation, and there has been a European Court of Justice ruling on live exports showing that there are inadequacies in inspection and prosecution across the whole EU. That goes back to the issue of trade; the Opposition want to be sure that WTO rules can be amended in such a way that they will not be a hurdle. It is no good leaving the customs union and single market if we cannot be clear that we can deal with WTO rules. That is an easy one for the Minister, because I am sure he will say that we will be able to do that, but we need to be absolutely up front about it. Finally, while the EU and its trade strategy and treaties have regard for animal welfare on one level, we need to be clear that our new regulations will be better than those already in existence.
I have asked questions of the Minister, and we have had an interesting debate. We have heard from the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who introduced the debate, the right hon. Members for Chipping Barnet and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and the hon. Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), for South Thanet, for Gordon (Colin Clark) and for North Thanet. We also heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for the SNP—maybe we need to sit down and work out where the opposition to the ban is coming from. There were other interesting and helpful interventions.
The onus is now on the Government to say what they will do. The legislation needs to come forward; we will support it if it comes forward quickly, although we may choose to amend bits of it—if anything, we may try to toughen it. We need clarity on what the Irish border situation really means. I saw one of the Democratic Unionist party spokespeople here earlier, and the DUP will have strong opinions on how that is going to work.
If we are serious about animal welfare, this is an issue that cannot be ducked any longer. We all saw some of the horrific pictures from Ramsgate, Dover and so on. To some extent, we have got rid of the worst aspects of that, but it has not gone away. Unless we legislate, and have the resources to ensure that we can enforce the legislation we introduce, it will be but a pyrrhic victory—but a victory, nevertheless, whose time has come. I hope we can get on and do that properly in due course, and that the Minister will assure me that that is what the Government are going to do.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on opening the debate, and thank him for giving us such a comprehensive introduction to an issue that is important to the public. As he says, more than 93,000 people have signed the petition. I too congratulate Janet Darlison and others, who put the petition together and secured the debate.
It is unsurprising that a petition calling for legislation to ban the export of live farm animals in favour of a carcase-only trade has received nearly 93,000 signatures. This issue has been the subject of a long-standing campaign by animal welfare organisations, but as most people who have followed the issue know, and as my hon. Friend acknowledged, European Union free trade rules have prevented the Government from taking meaningful action on this over the past 30 years. However, once we leave the European Union, we will be able to take action on what for many people is an iconic animal welfare issue.
While EU trade rules might have prevented Governments from banning the live export trade, we have still seen a dramatic change in the numbers of live animals exported, particularly those destined for slaughter. Some 25 years ago, around 2 million animals were exported each and every year. The peak of live exports going from the UK for slaughter was in 1992, when a total of around 400,000 cattle, 300,000 pigs and nearly 1.5 million sheep were exported from the UK directly for slaughter.
As a result of the high number of animals being exported, live export became extremely controversial, with widespread demonstrations against it at the main ports during the 1990s. Port authorities and shipping companies were put under considerable pressure to end the trade, which led to nearly all the main ferry operators refusing to take animals destined for slaughter.
In 2017, about 21,000 farm animals were exported for fattening and production, and a further 5,000 were transported directly for slaughter from Great Britain. That was a decrease on the 2016 export figures, when about 50,000 farm animals were exported for fattening and production, and around 5,200 were transported directly for slaughter from Great Britain. To put that in the context of our national production, approximately 14 million sheep were slaughtered in the UK in the same period. The reality is that the live export for slaughter of sheep, in particular, is today a very small part of the overall UK sheep trade.
Some of those exported animals will have been transported on the MV Joline, which has sailed between Ramsgate and Calais since 2010, carrying vehicles that mostly transport sheep to Europe for slaughter or further fattening. Those sheep, after travelling to Ramsgate, spend up to six hours at sea on the MV Joline. That is followed by a further journey, often of around eight hours, before reaching their destination in France, the Netherlands, Belgium or Germany. Many people find putting animals through such long journeys, only for them to be slaughtered at the destination, indefensible.
The Government would prefer to see animals slaughtered as near as possible to their point of production, as a trade in meat on the hook is preferable to a trade based on the transport of live animals, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) pointed out. The Government are committed to improving the welfare of all animals, and share both British farmers’ and the British public’s high regard for animal welfare. We are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and have continued to lead the way in raising the bar on welfare standards. For example, as a number of hon. Members pointed out, we recently introduced legislation to make CCTV mandatory in all slaughterhouses.
As we move forwards to a new relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, we have a unique opportunity to shape future animal welfare policy and ensure the highest standards in every area, including the welfare of animals in transport. To that end, we committed in our manifesto to taking early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter as we leave the EU. We are considering all the options on how best to achieve that commitment, and today’s debate has been helpful in demonstrating the various issues that any new policy will need to take into account.
Over the years, various scientific and veterinary reports have been written on the needs of animals during transport. A 2011 report by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, made certain recommendations to improve the welfare of animals in transport—recommendations that have not been adopted by the European Union. It is clear from reading the EFSA opinion that the requirements of different species before and during transport are significantly different. For example, studies confirm that heat stress can present a major threat to cattle welfare, while scientific evidence shows that if adult cattle are transported on journeys longer than 29 hours, fatigue and aggressiveness increase, and that cattle should be offered water during rest periods during journeys. There has also been some evidence that sheep and goats can suffer seasickness.
That 2011 report made a number of recommendations, including that the maximum journey time for horses be 12 hours, that journey times for calves be reduced and that pigs be transported in familiar groups, since they are social animals. In 2016, the UK supported Sweden in calling on the European Commission to look again at the regulations governing welfare in transport. It is disappointing that no progress has been made on this in Europe beyond the publication of good practice guides.
We are aware that there is also a significant amount of evidence and scientific research into the welfare of animals during transport, some of which was published after the current legislation came into force. We have therefore commissioned the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh to carry out a research project to look at the existing evidence base, and to highlight the key research that we need to be aware of, to ensure that any future measures we consider are based on the most up-to-date evidence.
I turn to the contributions from other hon. Members. I am very much aware that there were a number of contributions by hon. Members who have been long-standing campaigners on this issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who recently presented a ten-minute rule Bill on the issue, and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) and for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale).
I will address an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). We recognise that particular island communities may have special circumstances that we must take into account; at the other end of the country, where I come from, a similar issue pertains to the Isles of Scilly. I had the honour of visiting the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency some years ago; in fact, I visited what I think is Shetland’s one and only abattoir. It prided itself on its attention to detail when it came to animal welfare. I think I am right in saying that there is no similar facility on Orkney, and that most of the animals there are transported. That is something that we are aware of and must obviously take account of.
I completely accept that the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is sincere on this issue; she has a long-standing track record of campaigning on many issues. However, she sought to suggest that there might be a lack of commitment from the Government, or that we were backsliding. Let me be very clear: people like me who campaigned to leave the EU explained that EU law prevented us from taking action in this area. That is true. I went down to Ramsgate and met people and explained that EU law is the obstacle. After the referendum result, the Conservative party put in its manifesto a commitment to control the export of animals for slaughter when the UK leaves the European Union. As I have just pointed out, we are now giving consideration to how we will take that forward. We have been consistent throughout.
The hon. Lady should look at her party’s position on this. A few weeks ago, the Opposition introduced—with great fanfare—a package of measures on animal welfare, but just a week later adopted a position on the European single market and European customs union that would basically make many of the things they set out in that welfare manifesto unlawful under EU law.
Kerry McCarthy
I am grateful that the Minister has allowed me to intervene, because that point was also made earlier. I think he is referring to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech today. It set out our position on remaining in the customs union. It does not say the same thing about the single market. Hon. Members who spoke earlier rather conflated the two. They are very different positions.
George Eustice
We hear of all sorts of different positions on this issue from the Opposition at the moment. I simply say that EU free movement rules, which enshrine an open ports policy, govern this. Whether it is because of the customs union or single market legislation, the hon. Lady will find that taking action in this area will not be possible if the kind of approach that her party would like is adopted.
The hon. Lady made a legitimate point about WTO rules, but as she pointed out, there is clear WTO case law that enables Governments to ban certain trades on ethical grounds—including in a case on seal furs—as she highlighted. That issue was also looked at quite extensively in the judgment in the case of Barco de Vapor v. Thanet District Council, in relation to the contentious issue that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet pointed out. That judgment made it clear that were it not for EU regulation and EU laws in this area on trade, it would be possible for a UK Government to amend the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to introduce an ethical ban, should they want to. EU law is the obstacle to taking action in this space.
The hon. Member for Bristol East talked about the forthcoming Command Paper on agriculture and speculated about the timing of that. I will not get into speculation about timing, except to say that we have been working very hard on these issues. I have also been very clear—I have championed this since becoming the Minister responsible for farming—that I want there to be a strong animal welfare dimension to that agriculture paper. It will look predominantly at the type of framework that we would put in place to replace the common agricultural policy, but we have already been clear that we want to look at the idea of incentives to support high animal welfare systems of production.
The hon. Lady mentioned Scotland. We are working with the devolved Administrations to try to put forward a UK approach to this issue. As she highlighted and as we heard today, there is some scepticism from the Scottish Government and Scottish industry, which we recognise. To answer the specific question, it is possible—because this is essentially trade regulation—to put in place UK-wide regulations, but under the Sewel convention, there is an expectation that we will consult the devolved Administrations, and that is what we are doing.
I turn to some of the other contributions made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, as I said, has been a long-standing and passionate advocate on this issue. I welcome all his positive comments about the steps that we have been taking in this regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) introduced into the debate some very important notes of caution. The Government are clear about our position: we want to control the export of live animals for slaughter. It is sometimes very difficult in contentious debates such as this for people such as him to come in and take a contrarian position when there is a lot of emotion around. I understand that, but I think it very important, if we want to get the legislation right, that we take account of some of those complications.
My hon. Friend pointed out that there are already a lot of inspections of transport operators. That is true. We do not inspect at the point of entry at the port, or the point of departure at the port. Basically, we do not universally inspect; we do not inspect every consignment, and there is good reason for that. The terrible and unfortunate episode that took place in Ramsgate in 2012 showed the difficulties and dangers of trying to unload sheep in a port situation and trying to correct a position there. That is why, in the case of sheep destined for the MV Joline, we do have 100% inspections, on every consignment, at the point of loading, but not at the port; we do risk surveillance at the port. For other operators, we tend to have a risk-based approach, but there is 100% inspection, at the point of loading, for the MV Joline.
Bill Wiggin
Surely that is one of the low-hanging fruit, and something that we could look into improving in order to get more control over this industry. We should either use ports where lairage is available, which is probably cheaper than trying to create our own, or ensure that we are inspecting, particularly as things are leaving our shores, so that the pride that we have in animal welfare is reflected when the animals arrive at the other end.
George Eustice
Enforcement is an important issue, but I would say that in that case we do have, as I said, 100% inspection at the point of loading.
My hon. Friend suggested that there is no difference between transport at sea and transport by road or land. I think that there is a bit of a difference: if someone encounters a complication or difficulty and they are on the road, they can pull over somewhere quiet and perhaps find a helpful farmer who will let them unload the animals in the yard and sort it out, but it is much harder to do that on a sea crossing; sheep cannot be unloaded in the middle of a sea crossing.
I think that there is also a difference when it comes to transport for slaughter. The reason for that is that we go to great lengths to try to reduce the stress on animals in slaughterhouses and lairage facilities. That is one reason why our CCTV proposal for abattoirs will include cameras in lairage areas. We want to do the maximum to try to reduce the stress of those animals, and having a long, stressful journey before they get to the abattoir cannot be conducive to that.
My hon. Friend asked this important question: do we know whether the animals are actually going for slaughter or for fattening? The answer is that if they are going for slaughter, that requires a different type of declaration to be made on the export certificate, so we do have that information, although there is a moot point: how long does rearing and fattening take? People could say that, and it might be two weeks or two months; it would be difficult to record that information.
For all the reasons that I have set out, our manifesto commitment focuses on the export of animals for slaughter. We are having to look at considerations that have not been raised in today’s debate. For instance, we export some laying hens—chicken—for egg production in European countries. We have the highest standards of animal welfare in our hatcheries. We do not use practices such as maceration when it comes to hatcheries for laying hens. Other European countries do not take that approach, and if we were to displace that trade to other European countries, we would not have done a clever day’s work. There are legitimate issues that we need to take into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, as I said, is a long-standing campaigner on this issue. I visited his constituency during the referendum campaign. I know that it was very galling for Thanet District Council to try to take action on something that mattered to the public and to find that, under EU law, it was unable to do so. My hon. Friend correctly pointed out that EU law is the only impediment to our taking action in this space.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) highlighted very important issues in relation to NFU Scotland, and some of the concerns that it has raised. Like him, I grew up on a farm. We raised livestock. I am not squeamish about these things, but as a farmer, I am also passionate about high standards of animal welfare. I very much concur with his view that we should be doing more to educate schoolchildren about where their food comes from and the realities of farming.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, as I said, also been a long-standing campaigner on this issue. She introduced a Bill on it recently. Like others, she speculated that the Government may be considering a consultation, or that a consultation may be imminent. She will understand that today my point is that we are considering how best to take forward our manifesto commitment, but I hope that I have been able, with the detail that I have been able to outline, at least to reassure her that we are looking very closely at all these details. I commend her for the work that she has done with her Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet raised the issue, as a number of others did, about small abattoirs. There is an opportunity to look at that issue again, but I am very clear that we should not water down our standards of animal welfare in abattoirs. It is sometimes the case that small abattoirs can do this well—I saw that, for instance, when I visited Shetland—but equally, we want to ensure that we have proper regulation, and that they can afford to have an official veterinarian on site, monitoring activities. We need to ensure that we do not go backwards when it comes to animal welfare, and I know that he would agree with that.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about rose veal. If we could develop more of a market for rose veal, rather than ending up having to sell calves for white veal, that would be a tremendous step forward for animal welfare, but sadly, because people often confuse the two, we are stuck with the position that we have now.
I come to the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew). He asked me to clarify the Government’s intentions. I hope that I have just done that. We have a clear manifesto commitment and are considering this matter very closely. He asked whether any such provision would apply just to the EU or to other countries, and I can confirm that it would apply to all countries. We would have a consistent approach. We are not in the business of singling out the EU for different or special treatment with any such provisions that we would put in place. However, I refer back to the position of his party, which I think would compromise our ability to act in this area. He also asked whether there would be any exemptions. As I said, we are considering that. There is a specific issue when it comes to certain island communities, so of course there are certain areas that we need to look at. Also, as I made clear, we have asked the Roslin Institute to do a very thorough review of all the evidence, because we believe that different circumstances pertain for different species.
Finally, on the issue of enforcement, as I have said, we have a 100% inspection rate in the case of the MV Joline. I also point out that in all our abattoirs, we have a full-time official veterinarian working for the Food Standards Agency, who is there to enforce and maintain animal welfare standards. We also have thorough checking at the ports. There is surveillance as regards all these issues, and there must be accompanying documentation.
We have had a detailed and comprehensive debate, covering many issues. The Government are absolutely aware of the importance of this issue to the public. That is why we included it in our manifesto. I hope that the points that I have made have reassured hon. Members that we are addressing this issue.
Steve Double
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this lively and informative debate. As the Minister said, it was important to raise central issues as the Government consider the way forward. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming the Government’s position within the current restraints on him. I am sure we are encouraged by the clear statement that the Government’s desire is for animals to be slaughtered as close to where they are produced as possible—we can all take great comfort from that—while they still understand the particular challenges faced by rural, particularly island, communities, and in no way want to damage the situation there. I am grateful to him for mentioning the Isles of Scilly; my in-laws will be delighted about that.
I thank all those who signed the e-petition, enabling us to have this debate. It is clearly a subject that many people in our country care passionately about. Clearly, we all have a deep desire to have the highest possible welfare standards for our farm animals. No one is suggesting anything other than that. We all want to ensure that we take any opportunities Brexit provides to improve the standards of animal welfare in our country. No one is saying anything other than that we hope to maintain and, where possible, improve those standards. I look forward to continuing to help and support the Government as they seek to do that in the months and years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 200205 relating to ending the export of live farm animals after the UK leaves the EU.
Written Statements
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
We will today introduce the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill to this House.
We are taking this action because the energy market is not working for all customers. The Competition and Markets Authority 2016 investigation into the energy market highlighted that domestic customers of the Big 6 energy companies pay on average £1.4 billion a year more than they would in a truly competitive market.
We believe that competition is the best way to drive value and service for customers. Where this is not happening, the Government have a duty to act by ensuring regulation is effective and companies have the right incentives to provide value.
The energy market is not working for all consumers.
There is, in effect, a two-tier market in operation whereby active customers save money by switching suppliers, but those who cannot or do not switch remain on poor value tariffs. It is of particular concern that customers who do not switch typically tend to be more vulnerable than those who are getting the best deals. The difference between the cheapest available tariff and the average standard variable tariff (SVT) of a Big 6 supplier is around £300.
Earlier this month, 1 million more vulnerable consumers who receive the Warm Home Discount were protected from higher bills with the extension of Ofgem’s safeguard tariff cap. There are now 5 million households protected by this cap which was introduced in 2017.
The Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill will, subject to parliamentary approval, put in place a requirement on the independent regulator, Ofgem, to cap domestic energy tariffs until at least 2020. Currently, some consumers are paying up to £300 more than they need to—this cap will help bring this overcharging under control. It will require Ofgem to set an absolute cap on standard variable and default tariffs, protecting the 11 million households in England, Wales and Scotland who currently buy their energy on this basis and who are not protected by existing price caps.
The Bill is part of a package of measures being introduced by the Government to increase competition in the retail energy market and lower prices for consumers. These include support for more and faster switching, initiatives to improve engagement and the roll-out of smart meters. We believe all of these measures will help create the conditions for more effective competition.
In setting the cap, Ofgem must protect existing and future domestic customers, but must do so in a way that creates incentives for suppliers to improve efficiency, sets the cap at a level that enables suppliers to compete effectively for supply contracts, maintains incentives for customers to switch and ensures that efficient suppliers are able to finance their businesses. The Government intend Ofgem to be able to set the temporary price cap by the end of this year so that it is in place by next winter.
The cap will apply until the end of 2020 when Ofgem will recommend to Government whether it should be extended on an annual basis up to 2023.
The introduction of the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill comes after the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee scrutinised the draft Bill as part of the Government’s work to ensure the Bill would be effective and would meet its objectives. This pre-legislative scrutiny took written and oral evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. The Committee made a number of recommendations about the Bill, which the Government have accepted in full, including the Committee’s recommendation that Ofgem reviews the level at which the cap is set at least every six months, and the recommendation to add in safeguards so that where consumers make an active choice to opt for green SVT or default tariffs, Ofgem is able to protect these customers but not stifle investment in green energy. Ofgem will also be required to consult on a potential exemption for green tariffs.
This Bill will give the regulator the powers to protect those consumers who are overpaying for energy, while ensuring that other initiatives such as switching, smart meter roll-out and consumer education continue to contribute to a more competitive market.
[HCWS484]
General Affairs Council: 27 February
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I will attend the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 27 February 2018 to represent the UK’s interests. Until we leave the European Union, we remain committed to fulfilling our rights and obligations as a full member.
The provisional agenda includes:
Presentation of the priorities of the Bulgarian presidency
The Bulgarian presidency is expected to present its four priorities during its six month tenure. These are: the future of Europe and young people, the Western Balkans, security and stability and the digital economy.
Annotated draft agenda for the European Council on 22-23 March 2018
Ministers will discuss the draft agenda for March European Council. This includes: migration; jobs, growth and competitiveness; the Western Balkans; and tax and the digital economy. Other relevant foreign policy issues will be added to the agenda in the run up to the European Council.
Rule of law in Poland/Article 7(1) TEU Reasoned Proposal
The Commission will present a summary of its “Reasoned Proposal” which, in accordance with Article 7(1), proposes a Council determination on the rule of law in Poland. The Commission will also update Ministers on the ongoing dialogue with the Polish Government.
[HCWS485]
Local Government Policy
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
On 7 November I told the House that I was minded to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the locally-led proposal I had received for improving local government in Dorset, and I invited representations before I took my final decision.
Having carefully considered all the representations I have received and all the relevant information available to me, I am today announcing that I have decided to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, that locally-led proposal to replace the existing nine councils across Dorset—two small unitary councils of Bournemouth and Poole, and the two tier structure of Dorset County Council and the district councils of Christchurch, East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, West Dorset, and Weymouth and Portland with two new councils.
These new councils are a single unitary council for the areas of Bournemouth, Poole and that part of the county of Dorset currently comprising the Borough of Christchurch, and a single unitary council for the rest of the current county area.
I am satisfied that these new councils are likely to improve local government and service delivery in their areas, generating savings, increasing financial resilience, facilitating a more strategic and holistic approach to planning and housing challenges, and sustaining good local services. I am also satisfied that across Dorset as a whole there is a good deal of local support for these new councils, and that the area of each council is a credible geography.
In my statement of 7 November I noted that the nine councils were already working together in joint committees on planning possible implementation of the proposal, and that further steps were needed to secure local consent. I am clear that further steps have been taken, and that the nine councils are continuing to work constructively together on planning implementation.
I now intend to prepare and lay before Parliament drafts of the necessary secondary legislation to give effect to my decision. My intention is that if Parliament approves this legislation the new councils will be established on 1 April 2019 with the first elections to the councils held on 2 May 2019.1 also now intend to make and lay before Parliament an order to delay for one year, as requested by the Borough Council, the May 2018 local elections in Weymouth and Portland so as to avoid members being elected for only one year if Parliament approves the legislation establishing the new councils.
Finally, in my 7 November statement I said that once I had made my final decision on the Dorset proposal, I would decide whether to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, Dorset councils’ proposal for a combined authority. As a first step I intend now to ask the leaders of the Dorset councils how they would like to proceed with their combined authority proposal in the light of my decision on the proposal.
[HCWS486]
House of Lords
National Child Obesity Strategy
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for publicising a detailed evaluation of stage one of the National Child Obesity Strategy; and when a publication timetable for stage two will be produced.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Group on a Fit and Healthy Childhood.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, all reports and data published on progress in delivering our childhood obesity plan will be open to scrutiny. This includes all research evidence produced by the Obesity Policy Research Unit, which will be published as projects are completed, and Public Health England’s assessment of progress on sugar reduction, which will be published in the spring. We will use this to determine whether sufficient progress has been made and whether alternative actions need to be taken.
Baroness Benjamin
I thank the Minister for that Answer but five year-olds are now eating their own body weight in sugar every year. Obesity is the second-largest cause of cancer and it reduces life expectancy by up to 10 years. Voluntary action cannot combat the obesity epidemic that the country faces. What is needed are mandatory reformulation targets for reductions in added sugar, fat and calories across all products, as well as common-sense policies directed at early years, which includes oral health initiatives. Can the Minister confirm that there will be a more robust mandatory element in future stages of the national obesity strategy?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is right to highlight the importance of this issue; we have seen more research today highlighting not just the prevalence of obesity among younger people but the catastrophic health risks that attend that. I would say, though, that the actions in the obesity plan—including the reduction of sugar by 20% by 2020, with a 5% interim target, and the sugar levy—have led to serious action. Fifty per cent of the drinks that would otherwise have been captured have now reduced their formulation, so we have seen action. We will see in the spring the evidence of whether that has had the desired effect and if it has not, we have left all options open to take further action if required.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, health visitors play a key role in helping parents to tackle and prevent obesity. Is my noble friend the Minister confident that all health visiting teams have the resources and the support they need to do this?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My noble friend is absolutely right and as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, it is about getting into families when children are young. My noble friend will I think be reassured, as I hope the House will, to know that not only are there more health visitors than ever but, as part of that, we have a healthy child programme looking at the prevention and identification of obesity. Health visitors are trained in critical elements such as promoting breastfeeding, nutrition and physical activity to encourage healthy babies.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, have geographical variations been taken into account in the strategy? For example, London has much higher levels of child obesity than the rest of the country.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
Health inequalities and their reduction are a core part of it and in talking about them I would focus, to pick one example, on breakfast clubs. We know that having a good-quality breakfast—indeed, having any breakfast as some children go without it, which causes problems, too—is important. About £26 million is being spent on extra breakfast clubs in 1,500 schools in opportunity areas and disadvantaged areas.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister consider that there is an elephant in the room? There are thousands of endocrine-disrupting chemicals that children and young people have been exposed to since they were in the womb. Nobody seems to be looking at the effects of endocrine disruptors on appetite and obesity.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I must confess that I am not completely aware of the specific issue which the noble Countess talks about. I think I will have to write to her. It may be something that our obesity research unit can have a look at.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, the relationship between childhood obesity and poverty is well evidenced. In the light of warnings by the Children’s Society and others that 1 million children in poverty will miss out on a free school meal under the current proposals for changes to entitlement under universal credit, does the Minister agree that all children in poverty should receive a free school meal to combat child malnutrition by ensuring that they receive a healthy meal at lunchtime?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
We have a free school meal policy in this country. Indeed, the previous Government introduced free school meals for all children up to the age of seven, I believe, so we have made a significant impact in this area. I talked about breakfast clubs, which will also help, particularly disadvantaged children.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the salt reduction strategy worked particularly well because all supermarkets came together and followed it. Two years ago, Sainsbury’s chief executive asked the Government to introduce compulsory targets for sugar reduction, but we have not seen them yet. After the first year of the sugar tax in Mexico, there was a 17% reduction in purchases by poor people and a 12% reduction across the board. It works. If the supermarkets want it, why will the Government not follow?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
We are making good progress in reformulation and in reducing sugar in drinks, which I have talked about, and in other foods. However, we have to look at the impact. We will look at that and if progress is not made—let us face it, obesity levels are unfortunately continuing to increase—clearly other actions will have to be taken.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, last year I chaired the Centre for Social Justice’s childhood obesity report. Until then, I had not appreciated how challenging and complicated it is, not least to keep representatives from the food industry and food campaigners in the same room. Amsterdam’s healthy weight programme has helped to reduce childhood obesity by 12% since its launch in 2012. Will my noble friend confirm that the Government are studying carefully how that reduction has been achieved?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank my noble friend for that and applaud the work that she has done in this area. The Amsterdam effect seems significant and is an area we are looking at as we consider further actions in future.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea to reintroduce domestic science into all schools so that people have a better mechanism for preparing and eating more quality foods than fast foods?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I reassure the noble Lord that the national curriculum, through PSHE, includes elements around nutrition and healthy eating. Indeed, many schools offer the kind of classes he is talking about.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Long-Term Sustainability of the NHS, which said that the Government,
“should not cite unwillingness to behave as a ‘nanny state’ as an excuse for inaction on the major public health issues, including obesity”.
If the study that is being undertaken at the moment shows that outcomes are poor, will the Government move from their current voluntary approach to take more decisive action?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The point here is that we know that these are difficult decisions and, of course, children have decisions made on their behalf by their parents, people in schools and others, so there needs to be a combined approach of statutory action and voluntary action. We should applaud the voluntary action that many people have taken—supermarkets, food producers and others—but clearly there is a continued role for the Government and I do not think questions of nanny statism come into it.
Private Rented Housing: Electrical Safety Checks
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received, if any, opposing electrical safety checks in the private rented housing sector.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer the House to my relevant interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, an independent working group has recommended legislating for mandatory electrical installation checks in private rented sector homes, and that other safety measures be encouraged as good practice, as set out in guidance. We must test wider opinion on the recommendations, to give stakeholders the opportunity to submit their views. That is why we have published a consultation on 17 February, to ensure that any regulation introduced is appropriate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the Housing and Planning Act 2016 received Royal Assent on 12 May 2016. The Private Rented Sector Electrical Safety Working Group reported last year, recommending electrical safety checks. Now we have a government consultation which closes in April, with a government response to follow but with no date given. That is two years. Instituting these checks will save lives. Can the noble Lord give me an assurance about when we can expect some action from the Government? Will I have to ask this Question again this time next year?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I hope not. It is important that some of the recommendations which are left open are checked. For example, should it be a five-year, four-year or six-year period? These are important questions that people should be able to give their views on. In addition, some of the recommendations from the working party say it should be left to a volunteer approach. We need to test that more widely to see whether that is the appropriate way forward. That is why we are taking our time. I can understand the noble Lord’s impatience, but it is important that we get this right.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister tell me what the position is with appliances? They are what have caused every one of these terrible fires that we have had. It is not the wiring, or the basic stuff which is covered by an electrical check; it is that appliance you buy. You may have a regular time for the other checks, but you can buy these dangerous appliances at any time. I too declare my interests in the register.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that BEIS has issued a response to the appliance product recall, and has created the Office for Product Safety and Standards. More widely, in relation to this particular consultation, the review body has suggested doing this on a volunteers approach. Whether that is the appropriate procedure is something that will be tested in the consultation.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a patron of Electrical Safety First. Is the Minister aware that Electrical Safety First and the Home Office have both produced data that show that white goods cause five fires every day in people’s homes? Many people in the private rented sector rely on white goods supplied by their landlord. Is it the intention that, if and when mandatory safety checks are introduced—and I share the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, over the delay—they will cover white goods supplied by landlords?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is probably aware that the consultation is on just that basis. The working party did not recommend mandatory checks but that this was best practice. That is one of the things that we are testing in this consultation, but it is certainly covered in the review.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister keeps using the word “volunteer”. Who are the people on this working party who keep talking about a volunteering approach? What are they trying to protect? Do they have commercial interests that they think are going to be damaged in the event of it being mandatory?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, no, I do not think that is an appropriate conclusion at all. There is a balance of people on the working party: some are from tenants’ organisations, some have a landlord background. It a very balanced review. What is suggested in the review is that this could be taken forward as best practice—so a voluntary approach to that extent. That is something that will be tested in the broader consultation that we are now undertaking.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. Is the Minister confident that there are sufficient competent people to carry out these checks? My understanding is that local authorities have woefully few people working in building control inspection to carry out the kind of checks that would be required. If it were left to voluntarism, it would be highly dangerous. The issue should surely be to make the building regs inspectors’ jobs more attractive and recruit more of them. These are the kind of people who should carry out this type of work, rather than leaving it to well-intentioned amateurs and volunteers.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I encourage the noble Lord to participate in the consultation, but I note what he says and I share the view that it is important to ensure that we have sufficient people who are expert in this field who are able to undertake the work necessary. That is a broader consideration and something that the Government are certainly on top of. In the meantime, as I say, the reason why we are having this consultation is so that we can test some of the recommendations that have been made by a very well-balanced working party, but perhaps we need broader consultation.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I remind the House of my interest in the register. I would like to ask the Minister about Grenfell Tower, given that the fire in that tower originated from a faulty electrical appliance. What steps are the Government taking to enforce stricter electrical safety checks in tower blocks across the UK?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, Grenfell is of course the subject of a very live criminal review, so it is important that I do not say anything that could prejudice that consideration. In general terms, though, a Green Paper relating to the social rented sector will shortly be forthcoming, and it will cover the area that the noble Lord is talking about.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
What steps have been taken to ensure that, when people from various other countries—refugees and so on—come here, the warnings on electrical facilities are in a language that they will understand?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, that throws open a much broader question. With another hat on, I can say to the noble Lord that he will appreciate that shortly we will be publishing our integration strategy. One key element of that will be how important it is that English language skills be made available to all those people who come from overseas where it is not a language that they speak freely, because otherwise there is a feeling of total isolation for those poor people.
NHS: Waiting Lists
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the waiting lists for consultant-led NHS treatment; and to what timetable they intend to carry out such plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, the joint NHS England and NHS Improvement plans for 2018-19, published on 2 February 2018, set out how £1.6 billion of funding announced in the Autumn Budget will be spent on additional elective surgery as well as ensuring that the four-hour A&E waiting times standard is met. The guidance refreshes two-year plans already in place to improve waiting times performance.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Waiting lists at the end of November 2017 stood at 3.72 million. The head of NHS England, Simon Stevens, says that at present waiting lists will grow to 5 million by 2021, and the Minister’s Answer is inadequate in solving that problem. Does he agree with the findings of the Royal College of Physicians research that shows among other things that 45% of advertised consultants’ posts remain unfilled, 82% believe that the workforce is demoralised and 74% are worried about their ability to deliver safe patient care in the next 12 months? What are the Government’s plans to deal with this crisis in an NHS that is underfunded, underdoctored and overstretched?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
It is absolutely our goal and obligation to return to the referral-to-treatment standard. It is worth pointing out that the NHS has been dealing with an annual growth in demand of around 4%, which is extraordinary when looked at historically. What we have seen in the plan set out a few weeks ago are important steps to get a grip on that, including halving the number of 52-week waits, halting the growth in the waiting list and delivering more every year. Clearly that is an interim step and more needs to be done; the way to achieve that is by continuing to provide real-terms increases, which we have done and will continue to do, and by dramatically increasing the number of staff in the NHS, which again we have done. We have also increased the number of training places.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that imposing a mandatory time of up to 16 weeks for elective surgery, as it has recently been reported that many clinical commissioning groups are doing, is wrong, and that how long a patient should wait for elective surgery needs to be a clinical decision?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The length of time to wait should always be a clinical decision; I completely endorse that. CCGs have responsibility to manage demand according to local needs, but in the end, it must be a clinical decision.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, in a written reply to me, HL 5459, the Minister said that vacancy data was not available for doctors, nurses and consultants in hospital trusts in Sussex, Surrey and Kent, whereas local recruitment advisers suggest that there is a real crisis. Why cannot the human resources element of the National Health Service provide that basic data? As the noble Lord seemed to acknowledge earlier, our chances of our reducing waiting lists are much lessened if we cannot understand where the vacancies are and put people in those jobs.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Vacancy data is available. If it was not available on the particular footprint that the noble Lord asked for, I would point him in the direction of data published last week by NHS England on vacancies, which is always a topic of much interest in this House. Over the past three quarters, that shows a slightly improving picture, but clearly there is a lot more to do.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, under the NHS constitution, no patient should have to wait more than 18 weeks for any treatment. However, there are no specific national standards for waiting times for CAMHS patients, only guidelines, except for under-18 year-olds with psychosis and those treated in the community for eating disorders. What proportion of those CAMHS patients are seen within the agreed times, when does the Minister expect we will see a significant improvement and is sufficient funding earmarked to achieve it?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right to highlight this issue. There simply are not equivalent waiting times for CAMHS. As she mentioned, we have introduced the first waiting times for eating disorders and early intervention in psychosis. I think she will have been pleased to have seen in the Green Paper published before Christmas that a new four-week waiting time for NHS children and young people’s mental health services will be piloted. That will be rolled out in the near future.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, in the eight years before 2010, waiting lists and waiting times were brought down dramatically. In the eight years since 2010, waiting times and waiting lists have risen dramatically. What does the Minister think happened in 2010 to change that?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I think we all know what happened in 2010, but it might be worth pointing out that 10 years ago, half of patients waited more than 18 weeks for referral to treatment and that is now only about 10%.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, given that many consultants report feeling demoralised and worn down by constant pressure from the number of clinical problems they are dealing with and the administrative pressures that they find themselves under, what discussions have the Government had with NHS England, and what discussions has NHS England had with trusts, on ways that consultants and their teams could have better administrative support and better ways to achieve upgrades in equipment that they may need to undertake specialised procedures? At the moment, they are having to apply and reapply for funding, which wears them down and takes away from clinical time.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I shall write to the noble Baroness on what NHS England is doing about the specific issue. I think her real point is about morale. We know that NHS staff do an incredible job under a great deal of pressure, dealing with that rising demand. We are doing two things to try to alleviate that situation. One, which we have talked about, is increased numbers coming through training so that we can increase staffing. The other is pay. Getting rid of the pay cap and allowing for an Agenda for Change pay increase is a good way of saying thank you to those staff.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, in response to my noble friend Lady Jolly on child and adolescent mental health services, the Minister talked about reducing waiting times for young people and children to see a clinician as something to be addressed “in the near future”. He must appreciate that for children and young people, time is of the essence to get treatment before the situation becomes acute and they reach a crisis. Could he not give a more satisfactory answer on that question?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I said that only because I cannot give specifics and I do not want to hold out false hope. I can say that the Government are providing £1.4 billion extra so that another 70,000 children are seen every year. I think that is extremely welcome. Piloting a waiting time standard is all about making sure that we can reach the right clinical standard.
Northern Forest
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rawlings
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in establishing the Northern Forest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, as part of the 25-year environment plan, the Government have pledged £5.7 million to support the creation of a northern forest that will stretch 120 miles from Liverpool to Hull. We are now working with the Woodland Trust and five community forests to identify sites where the first trees, funded by government, will be planted next winter.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his Answer, and I commend HMG for supporting this grand project, and all the many bodies involved, especially the Woodland Trust, which will oversee the planting of the 50 million trees, starting this March. Do Her Majesty’s Government agree that this forest will be a huge plus for the environment in countless ways? As we have heard, the forest will stretch from Liverpool to Hull, and my point is that much of it is on Duchy of Lancaster land. Will the Minister consider supporting naming it the “Royal Northern Forest” in celebration of Her Majesty the Queen, who has ruled longer than any British monarch in our history?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the northern forest will undoubtedly bring benefits for people, wildlife and the environment. Planting the right trees in the right places will reduce flood risk; help adapt to climate change; improve air quality, health and well-being; increase biodiversity; enhance landscapes; and, indeed, build resilience for our treescapes. I like my noble friend’s suggestion, and will ensure that the Woodland Trust and England’s Community Forests are aware of it.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust. I am delighted that the Government have embraced with such alacrity the concept we dreamt up, and I thank the Minister for the £5.7 million. However, it is a £500 million project, and is not just about trees. It will improve air quality in towns, mitigate flood risk, help to promote rural economies and deliver improvements in health and well-being, not only in the rural environment but in the urban environment. Will the Minister consider whether budgets that are focused at the moment on those wider benefits might be used in some way to help to promote and find the total cost of the northern forest?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I congratulate not only the noble Baroness but the Woodland Trust for the great work that they are doing. In fact, we are in partnership with it on the tree-planting campaign in primary schools, for instance. I certainly think this will be a good example of a mix of public and private funding—the leverage of public funding and then charitable private funding. Indeed, Yorkshire Water has already pledged that it will plant 1 million trees as part of the northern forest on its landholding.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will follow on from the previous question. The cost of the northern forest will be £500 million, which equates to nearly £20 million a year having to be found. If those sums are not found, predominantly by charities, what contingency plans do the Government have to ensure that the northern forest becomes a reality?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As I explained in my earlier reply, this will be a public and private enterprise. There will be a number of ways in which this can be done, including the woodland carbon sequestration fund. There are a number of public tree-planting funds, as well as public and charitable sources.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that Admiral Collingwood was very worried about the northern forest and the loss of oak trees because so many had been used to build ships, and he used to walk around with acorns in his pockets. He, like Nelson, was also worried about the lack of frigates because our Navy had only 138 at the time. Does the Minister think that Admiral Collingwood would feel very pleased about the northern forest proposals, but not very happy about the fact that our nation now has 13 frigates?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, we have come some way from frigates being built from wood but, wherever we are, we want to plant more trees. The important point about the northern forest is that it is overwhelmingly in an urban area. We are going through all the cities of the north, which means that the environment in those great cities will be enhanced. The northern forest is in parallel with the northern powerhouse initiative, and is great news for all the communities along it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the contribution that the Government are making to the northern forest. As a Yorkshire Water customer, I am delighted that it is planting trees in its own right. Will my noble friend agree that perhaps we should look at building ships from trees?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Well, my Lords, I think we should plant trees not just to supply the Royal Navy. It is certainly important that we are growing our own trees. That is why I am delighted that the trees planted on behalf of the Government will all be grown and sourced in this country. I think “Grown in Britain” is a very important feature of biosecurity.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, will the northern forest in any way compensate for the losses of ecology and biodiversity that we will experience with HS2? The National Trust says that over a dozen sites of special scientific interest will be affected and that we will lose 250 acres of green belt and more than 30—I have completely forgotten what I was going to say, but the point is that HS2 is going to be very damaging. I do not see how this northern forest can in any way compensate for the losses that we will experience from that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, tree planting needs to take place across the United Kingdom. HS3 and the northern powerhouse will bring an improvement for all the communities of those cities. It is really important that we plant more trees and achieve our objective to increase tree cover across the country.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, obviously we welcome this initiative but, following on from the noble Baroness’s question, I point out the real challenge about protecting existing ancient woodlands. When I put a Written Question to the Minister a couple of months ago about how many trees were felled each year, rather than how many were planted, I was told that the Government did not keep that information. Is not there a need to have better protection for existing ancient woodland as well as the good initiatives that the Minister has described today?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, ancient woodland is clearly very important as part of the glories of our country. In fact, overall in England, the level of permanent ancient woodlands lost to other land uses was 57 hectares—0.02% between 2006 and 2015—but, actually, 13,481 hectares of planted ancient woodland sites have been restored since April 2011. We want to ensure protection, which is why Defra and other departments are working in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework, because we should cherish our ancient woodlands.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 26th February 2018
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 View all European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-II(a) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the second marshalled list (PDF, 68KB) - (23 Feb 2018)
Baroness Thornton
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that any citizen of the United Kingdom or of an EU country, who requires health care in a different country of the EU or in the United Kingdom, will be treated as if they live in the country in which they require treatment, with the home country reimbursing the country where care was provided.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 9 and speak to Amendment 11 in my name on the Marshalled List. Even since Committee stage began in your Lordships’ House last Wednesday, the Brexit world has shifted again and is doing so even today. The Prime Minister has had her summit at Chequers and my own leader is posing a serious challenge to the Government. We have to wonder how many millions are following the detail of hard Brexit; soft Brexit; tariff-free access; managed divergence or even ambitious managed divergence; hard and soft borders; regulatory alignment; cake philosophy, which is something to do with cherry-picking and having your cake and eating it; the three baskets theory, which I understand is a bit like the cake philosophy, only it is three choices; transition or implementation; and, finally, a bespoke economic partnership.
The media is full of it. The Westminster bubble and the chatterati—from which I do not exclude myself—talk of little else. That is because it is important to our nation’s future and our prosperity, or otherwise. However, I will propose one amendment, and speak to another, on matters which do not at present feature in the headlines or in the huge and momentous agenda being discussed in your Lordships’ House, but which do affect millions of citizens in the UK and the EU, including every Member of this House. These amendments affect all who work and travel in Europe; who buy medicines and take for granted the supply and availability of the most up-to-date, clinically approved remedies.
Like millions of UK citizens, I have been on holiday and travelled all over the EU. Most often, my summer holidays have been in France with my children. Every year while my children were growing up we had at least one ear infection, sometimes a dose of tonsillitis and, one memorable year, an adult with Bell’s palsy. The wonderful Dr Duterte in Brantôme came to know us quite well over 25 years. My son lived in Brussels for five years and, although mostly healthy, he and we thankfully did not need to worry ourselves about his access to healthcare. An important part of a stress-free holiday with a mother with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was knowing, with confidence, that the oxygen supply would be waiting in the house—free, like in the UK. I tell these everyday stories precisely because they are so ordinary. It is the experience of millions of us: the package holidays; the weekends; the hen parties in Barcelona; the stag dos in Amsterdam and elsewhere; the conferences in all sorts of places. We and our fellow citizens are accustomed to travelling with ease and confidence. The ease with which people can do what they are used to doing is a matter which will colour how they judge whether Brexit is succeeding and whether it has been worth while.
Amendment 9 concerns the EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements which allow citizens of EU and EEA nations, as well as Switzerland, to access health and social care services while in any other of these nations, on the same basis as a resident of that nation would at no or low cost. The schemes include the EHIC, the European healthcare insurance card, which provides access to state-provided healthcare for short-term visitors; and the SI scheme, which, for example, allows ongoing access to health services for people working abroad and social care services for individuals such as pensioners living abroad. This is important for workers, students, the retired and holidaymakers, and, as I said, it affects millions of us.
Post Brexit, the UK could lose access to these arrangements, depending on the final outcome of ongoing negotiations between the EU and the UK Government. So far, the two parties have agreed that UK pensioners already living in the EU will be able to use the SI and EHIC schemes post Brexit, but no deal has been reached on wider access to them. Losing access to these arrangements would have a significant impact in a number of areas. This is one area where some progress seems to have been made but, as with many other matters, there is some uncertainty about what will happen after Brexit. The latest joint EU-UK document on the Brexit talks in November said that citizens who live in another EU country on the day that the UK leaves will still be eligible for the same healthcare as citizens and will still be able to use the EHIC scheme when visiting another EU country. This includes citizens who work or study in another country or are retired there. However, agreement has not been reached on whether the EHIC would be available to those who travel to, or go and live in, another EU country after the UK has left the bloc. It would seem that the EU wants discussions on that to be included in the negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU, which will come only after sufficient progress has been made on the divorce issues.
Our amendment seeks to prioritise the negotiation of continued access to existing EU reciprocal healthcare schemes, or the creation of comparable alternatives. We need to fully assess the impact which loss of access to the schemes might have on patients and health services. For the UK, this approach would ensure continuity of care for its citizens living abroad and ease of access for UK citizens visiting the EU or EEA and avoid increased demand on and costs for the NHS.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment on reciprocal health arrangements in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have added my name. I cannot imagine what it must be like to go on holiday to the EU without packing my passport with my EHIC tucked in the middle for security and assurance. I think that I was luckier than the noble Baroness: my children managed to stay well throughout all their holidays.
I am also happy to support Amendment 353 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stephen, Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, concerning medicines and medical devices, and Amendment 205 on the EHIC.
I have Amendment 101 in this group, which is about over-the-counter medicines and devices—all the household names which we have grown up with and which could well be under threat if regulation is not sorted out well in advance of our departure from the EU, should that happen. The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that, on leaving the EU, the UK does not deviate from the existing rules for the regulation and licensing of over-the-counter medicines, medical devices and food supplements. These products are subject to the highest-quality standards and regulations, which the UK, as part of the EU, has helped to deliver over the last 40 years. They ensure that the healthcare products we use are appropriately safe and effective. This amendment seeks to ensure harmonisation and continued collaboration between EU and UK regulators with regard to consumer healthcare products, including hay fever tablets, cold and flu treatments and painkillers—the everyday items that we buy over the counter from our pharmacies and local supermarkets in taking care of our health and well-being to ensure that we continue with our day-to-day activities.
Throughout the manufacture and distribution process, consumer healthcare products face multiple checks and tests by highly skilled, qualified persons in various licensed facilities. They can cross multiple EU country borders throughout this process, yet, due to EU-wide collaboration on regulation, this is a seamless and streamlined process. Leaving the EU puts this process at risk. The UK imports an estimated £1.5 billion-worth of consumer healthcare products from the EU each year. Without harmonised regulatory standards within the EU and without agreeing to mutually recognised inspections and testing after Brexit, we risk having medicines held up at the border while they await retesting for release in the UK. Companies will have to set up new facilities to accommodate this, resulting in duplication, delays and disruption in the supply of basic healthcare products to UK shelves.
Without sufficient assurances that there will be no divergence from existing rules for the licensing and regulation of over-the-counter medicines, medical devices and food supplements, manufacturers will not have the certainty and stability to take action to guarantee the supply chain of these products. Companies have to take these actions now for products that are due to be on our shelves in two years’ time so that there is no delay. Amendment 101 would prevent the Government deviating from these existing trusted regulations and standards. It would lay the necessary legislative groundwork for the regulatory harmonisation required ultimately to put in place the mutual recognition agreements that will guarantee that, post Brexit, we can still access the same consumer medicines, medical devices and food supplements as we can today.
The Government recently launched a campaign to drive more people to their local pharmacy to access self-care for minor ailments and self-treatable conditions. At a time of historically low rates of growth in NHS funding and annual cuts to public health and community pharmacy budgets, it is absolutely vital that public access to healthcare in the UK is not put at risk.
Will the Minister therefore commit to three things? First, will he commit to pursue regulatory harmonisation and mutual recognition agreements, not only for medicines but for medical devices and food supplements, as an objective of the phase 2 negotiations? Secondly, in the event of no deal, will he commit to ensure that UK regulators unilaterally recognise any decisions taken by EU regulators for the foreseeable future? Finally, in the event that there is regulatory divergence following withdrawal, will he commit to ensure that the industry is fully consulted on the period of time it will be given to adjust to the new arrangements, given that the sector body estimates that at least five years will be required to achieve all this? Then, and only then, will there be an assurance that, once the UK has left the EU, there will be no fewer consumer healthcare products on UK shelves and they will be no less safe than they are today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 11, to which I have added my name. There are a large number of partnership agreements concerning medicines and clinical devices between the UK and Europe, and they are both formal and informal. They are important to our economy, as well as to the health and well-being of our citizens. Amendment 11 seeks to avoid these being ruptured. One of the most important of these international collaborations is of course the European Medicines Agency—the EMA—which provides and co-ordinates licensing, expertise and support for medicines and medical devices throughout the EU. For any pharmaceutical company seeking to license its product across Europe, the EMA is the body through which this is achieved. Our own domestic regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, operates as a crucial part of the EMA’s regulatory network to ensure frictionless access to medicines for the NHS without delay.
As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care told the House of Commons Select Committee on Health on 24 January last year, we are one of the EMA’s most important members, overseeing up to 40% of its testing and taking on,
“often the most difficult and challenging cases”,
presented to it for testing and licensing. We have already lost the EMA’s headquarters, and the 900 or so jobs it provided and the economic benefits that came with these, from London to Amsterdam. A greater concern is the potential loss of quality assurance that our membership presently guarantees. For example, the common trademark system allows parallel imports across Europe.
The Healthcare Distribution Association, which represents medicines and medical device suppliers in the UK, has warned that our departure from this framework risks medical shortages and potential increases in the cost of medicines. The Healthcare Distribution Association estimates that the current system saves the NHS more than £100 million a year. Its executive director, Martin Sawyer, has already warned MPs that, when it comes to drugs,
“we take the supply chain for granted”,
and that Brexit could,
“throw a lot of cogs out of a very complicated machine”.
It is a warning worth echoing in this Chamber.
Our current perilous predicament seems to originate from the Government’s refusal to accept that appeals over licensing ultimately go to the European Court of Justice. But the EMA is not officially part of the EU, so there seems to be no constitutional justification for UK leaving it as part of Brexit. Indeed, this position has been put forward by the current chairman of the MHRA, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, who in evidence to the Lords Science and Technology Select Committee last year stated that not only could the UK technically remain within the current system but that it may even be able to continue to influence new regulations and directives by doing so.
The sole reason that the Government have outlined for voiding their membership of the EMA is that it means accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which deals with legal processes such as licensing appeals. Having identified the jurisdiction of the European Court as one of their negotiating red lines, the Government therefore seem to believe that this renders the continuation of our membership untenable. In short, as is increasingly the case in a number of areas pertaining to Brexit, the Government would appear to be willing to jeopardise the security of our own medicines, drugs and medical devices for our citizens, and the prosperity of industry, for the sake of an ideological inclination.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken in the debate at Second Reading, but I was unable to be here on the first day. The amendments I am supporting for the most part try to deal with the obstacles put in the way of ordinary people, both young and old, who are on holiday, working or studying abroad. These include the amendments that seek to protect the European health insurance card scheme and Erasmus+, which is the subject of the next group. I have added my name to Amendment 9, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I have my own Amendment 205 in this group which seeks specifically to retain the EHIC scheme and to which the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Davies of Stamford, have added their names.
To focus on the holidaymaker’s point of view, I am a great believer in the EHIC scheme. Like millions of others across Europe, I carry the card with me when I go abroad, and I certainly would not travel without it. It has been a help to me personally when I had a combination of a flu-like virus and asthma in Germany. It is also clear from the stories I have heard—ranging from needing stitches after a hotel poolside fall to pulled muscles and broken legs on the ski slopes—how extraordinarily helpful the scheme has been to others, and I have even heard about a case of amnesia. All these are situations where immediate medical attention is required. In those circumstances, the last thing people want to worry about when on holiday or on a business trip is having to book the next flight back to the UK or having to claim immediately on their travel insurance. Apart from the fact that treatment is free and comparable to what one would receive at home, the scheme reduces stress. In the case of a concussion that I was told about, it meant that the person could return to the hospital for monitoring without the worry of paperwork or bills. It also gives peace of mind to the many people who have not needed to use the card but carry it nevertheless—something which cannot be overestimated.
Once you have the card, it is a simple and bureaucracy-free system for the holidaymaker. It does not replace travel insurance, but works well in conjunction with it. I realise that my speech is an unashamed advert for a scheme which saves British people thousands of pounds in bills and reduces the claims and costs of travel insurance. The fear of course is that those costs will rise steeply if we lose the scheme. A replacement scheme or schemes might do all this, perhaps through agreements with individual countries, but presently the one card covers all the single market countries, the 31 EEA countries and Switzerland. Clearly, it would not be in our interests to adopt a scheme that is less comprehensive geographically, and retaining the scheme would be the easiest and most convenient option. If we stay in the single market in some form, there should be no problem.
It is worth noting that citizenship itself is not an aspect of the EHIC scheme; rather, it is based on country of legal residence so that British people living in France or Spain, for example, can apply for a card through their health services. It should not be forgotten that the scheme works for the benefit of British people living abroad as well as those from other countries living here. It is a properly co-operative system—a two-way street.
Accusations of health tourism always ignore what we as individual citizens get out of the system. A freedom of information question in 2015 revealed that in 2013-14, the treatment of ill British tourists in other countries of the single market cost more than five times that which European visitors cost the NHS. Perhaps the one improvement we can make here in the UK is to become better at recouping the moneys we are entitled to through the use of the scheme, and last year’s Public Accounts Committee report, NHS Treatment for Overseas Patients, stated that the systems for cost recovery appear to be chaotic. Other countries recoup what is owed to them and there is no external reason why we cannot do so as well. But that does not invalidate a scheme that continues to work tremendously well for the benefit of millions of people throughout Europe, including millions of British citizens both here and abroad.
The process of leaving the EU has thrown light on a lot of the concerns of ordinary people that perhaps were taken for granted. The EHIC scheme is one of those areas. No one voted for higher travel insurance costs and no one voted for less healthcare support while they are on holiday. The Government should pledge to retain this scheme.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, no one voted for insecurity. A very strong and powerful case has been made, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. This is a simple issue. Disease is no respecter of persons, boundaries or sovereignty. In chasing this mythical beast of sovereignty we seem to be prepared to lay so many things upon the altar that we need not lay.
It has been said in the course of this brief debate that we have no obligation to opt out of the EMA. My reading would support that. So why does a party that has always prided itself, for as long as I have been a member of it—for the last 60 years—on not being doctrinaire erect a doctrine and then seek every opportunity, regardless of the consequences, to jeopardise what exists and works perfectly well? It is a nonsense. I hope that there will be no vote on this amendment—it is a probing amendment—but I sincerely hope that, if the Government cannot accept the irrefutable logic of what has been said, we will return to it on Report and be well prepared to vote on it.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 11 and in support of what my noble friend Lady Thornton, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. I do so as the former chair of Great Ormond Street Hospital Foundation Trust, which I chaired for more than eight years until last summer. As many noble Lords know, it treats children with rare diseases and very serious illnesses. Much of its ground-breaking and innovative work, which is internationally renowned, is done as a result of, and based on, its research, much of which is carried out in collaboration with colleagues across Europe.
I will illustrate this in three different areas, which I think will bring home to your Lordships just how important it is that we do not abandon or neglect this issue. I will start with childhood cancer. Some 92% of our most important clinical trials for children with cancer in the UK require international collaboration. In 30%, the UK is the lead country, co-ordinating the international collaborative trials. This leadership role would sadly change rapidly if we no longer followed the same regulatory framework for clinical research as the rest of the European Union.
I turn to childhood epilepsies. Children and young people with epilepsies that are resistant to current therapies represent, as a group, at least 137 rare diseases with seizures as a common symptom. Collaborative European multi-centred trials are, I stress, the only way forward in assessing new targeted treatments. There are simply not enough patients in these categories of the many different aspects of epilepsy to do this work in one country alone.
I turn thirdly to children with HIV infection. Trials in paediatric HIV infection over the last 25 years have all been international. The UK works in partnership and collaboration with trial centres throughout Europe, and in particularly close collaboration with Italy, France and Spain. HIV treatment is very fast moving. It is vital that medicines for children do not get left behind. Our important European collaborations, including EU funding of our network, training and capacity building, have ensured the timely availability of drugs for children, not only in Europe but worldwide.
I cannot overstate the concern of the consultants and research specialists involved in this work about the threat posed for them by leaving the European Union. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that, without such work, the lives of very sick children would be sacrificed. I hope we can think again about this.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, while I strongly support all that has been said about the continuation of the EHIC scheme, I want to speak to Amendment 353 in my name and thank my noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for adding their names to it.
The amendment would require the UK Government to make arrangements for an independent evaluation of the impact of the European Union withdrawal legislation and of Brexit on the health and social care sectors across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is intended to be a simple, common-sense amendment. In the Brexit debate, a lot of attention is on trade and the economy, or, today, on the customs union, but our care services and our NHS will also be affected in a major way by our withdrawal from the EU. There will be many impacts on care and support for children and young people, for people with disabilities, for people with long-term conditions and for those with additional support needs. Not all these impacts are yet known or understood. It is clear, however, that many are likely to be negative. That is certainly the risk and it is why we must be vigilant and aware.
So the purpose of the amendment is to say, “Let’s be concerned about these issues; let’s give them a higher priority than at present, and let’s monitor the situation very closely, because if we get it wrong, NHS services and the care of thousands of vulnerable people could be badly affected”. The proposal is to review such issues not more than one year after Brexit takes place to see what has happened, to understand the impact and to allow the Government, local authorities and the NHS to take appropriate action. The intention is to involve in this independent process the devolved Governments, the staff of the NHS and our care services, charities, voluntary organisations and others.
The amendment was inspired by Camphill Scotland, which has many EU staff and volunteers living and working in its outstanding care communities. Camphill also operates in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and right across the EU, and now around the globe, but its very first community was on the Camphill estate in Milltimber, near Aberdeen in Scotland.
More than 50 charitable and voluntary organisations support the amendment. These organisations do not care about the politics of Brexit; they care about the vulnerable children, disadvantaged adults, older people and those with mental health problems or long-term illnesses to whom they give support.
I believe that the amendment will be strongly welcomed also by many people in the NHS, not all of whom were entirely convinced by the message on the side of the “Boris bus” during the campaign. Staff from right across the EU work in our NHS and in our care services. More than 10% of our doctors in the UK are from EU countries and, in total, more than 60,000 staff from the EU work in our British NHS, with many thousands more in the charitable and voluntary sectors. If Brexit means that we lose only some of these people, we could still have big problems. If it becomes more difficult to recruit new staff from EU countries, this could become a major crisis for our hospitals, our care homes, our special needs schools and many other vital services.
I ask the Government and the Minister to respond positively to the amendment. It is the sort of amendment that makes sense and can so easily be agreed to, with little to lose and a great deal to gain.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 205, which has already been very ably explained by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. First, I want to say a word or two in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who made a most impressive speech. I hope that, for once, the Government will listen to her; they certainly ought to because she has a very special position of respect in the medical world. The medical profession in this country has been, at least up to now, one of the leading professions in the world, and she has a great deal of experience behind her and behind the words she set forth just now.
On that matter, as the noble Baroness said, the decision to leave the EMA was completely gratuitous. There was no reason for it at all. It was going to be perfectly possible to carry on with full membership while we left the European Union. A lot of us did not want us to leave the European Union—your Lordships know that I am among them—but there is no point in throwing away the whole loaf if you can keep even 5% of the bread. In this case, there would have been no difficulty at all in our remaining part of the EMA. The Government have given no explanation for this extraordinary move, which is a threat, a potential threat at least, to the advance of medical science and a certain threat to the position of the British pharmaceutical industry and to the willingness of companies to set up pharmaceutical operations and research and development operations in this country in the future—indeed, to the willingness of British pharmaceutical majors to remain as committed to this country as they have been up to now. It has really quite devastating industrial as well as medical effects.
The only reason we have ever heard for doing this is that we could not stay in the EMA because it involves some contact with the CJEU. That is quite extraordinary when this is a matter involving the health of the nation and involving one of the major industries in this country, of which we are all very proud. We do not have all that much in the way of successful manufacturing these days, but we undoubtedly do extraordinarily well in the pharmaceutical area, or have done up to now, and this industry is now to be handicapped for no better reason than one of theological fanaticism. It is incomprehensible to most of the world, either inside or outside this country. I hope that the Government will weigh very carefully the words of the noble Baroness and the representations that I know they have received from many branches of the medical profession and of the pharmaceutical industry, and for once just take account, soberly, carefully, thoughtfully and calmly of the values involved that are being thrown away and threatened by this extraordinary decision. I give an undertaking that I shall not gloat in any way if the Government do a U-turn on this: I shall congratulate them, sincerely and openly and I hope that they can find the moral courage to do what is right in this case.
I turn to Amendment 205, which was very ably set out by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I shall not repeat what he said, but I want to talk about one section of the population that will be particularly affected by the abolition of the health insurance card in the European Union, and that is older people. Perhaps I should declare an interest here because I am certainly an older person, but I may be lucky because I have not so far been refused health insurance by anybody or charged exorbitant sums and probably, if I did have to pay a premium on my insurance policy to travel aboard, I would be able to afford to do so. A lot of people in this country, probably the majority, would not.
We all know that healthcare costs can be enormous, particularly in areas such as North America. One American friend of mine, who can actually afford to pay, was recently given a bill for more than $35,000 after a two-day stay in the Houston Medical Center. It involved a number of diagnostic tests, admittedly, as well as the board and lodging in the centre, but it gives an impression of the kind of costs that one can incur. There are countries in the world where you can get first-class medical care much cheaper than you can in Europe, let alone America, such as India, but not many. Countries tend to have medical care which is not up to the standards of North America, Japan or the European Union, or the costs are quite exorbitant, or in many cases both. Switzerland is another example, like the United States, where it is both.
For people who are older or have some particular medical record which makes them a bad insurance risk, underwriters will want to charge a very strong premium for insuring them at all. It is already quite difficult for them to travel outside the European Union. Many of us know people, friends of ours, who for that reason will not now travel outside the European Union. They will not even go and visit their family in the United States or Canada. They hope their family will come and visit them here, of course, but they simply cannot take the risk of falling seriously ill outside the European Union.
If the Government have their way and we go down this road that they have set out for us, the effect will not be just that people cannot go outside the European Union; they will not be able to go to Calais, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dublin, Copenhagen or Stockholm. That is the most terrible restriction of the horizons of a very large number of people. People may not have much time to travel when they are younger. They have business and professional commitments and a lot of strains on their budget because they are bringing up children and so forth. A lot of people look forward to being able to travel when they have retired, and the Government are saying to them, “When we have got this Bill through, you guys will not be able to travel at all—ha ha! You will be stuck here in this country”, which of course will be wonderful because we will have had Brexit and paradise on earth will result. That is a terrible—indeed, devastating—piece of news for a very large number of deserving people in this country. Once again, I hope the Government will have second thoughts.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 353 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stephen. I thought I had appended my name to it but clearly it had not quite arrived. I also support the comments made on the other linked amendments. I particularly identify with the comments of the noble Baroness a moment ago about Great Ormond Street Hospital, whose brilliant services we as a family had to avail ourselves of some decades ago. I cannot speak too highly of it and I hope that the points that were so well made are noted.
This group of amendments touches on one of the most sensitive areas of public policy: health and social care. There is a widespread unease in Wales—as there is, no doubt, throughout the rest of the UK—about the potential impact of Brexit on these vital services. On one level, one might not expect changes in our trading relationships to impact this sector as severely as, say, manufacturing or agriculture, but in fact there are already discernible effects on that key component of healthcare: the availability of a skilled workforce with adequate resources. A totally unnecessary uncertainty has been created, both for the existing NHS workforce, many of whom have come to the UK from EU countries, and with regard to recruiting potential new staff from those countries.
First, I have heard from those involved in healthcare—in Wales and in England, as it happens—about skilled staff employed in the NHS now actively seeking similar posts in other EU countries, just in case they feel forced to leave at a later date, perhaps for professional or social reasons. They fear that others will do likewise and that the available jobs will then dry up and they will need to move quickly to look for them. Secondly, I heard from a very authoritative source that EU-based specialist staff are currently holding back from applying for jobs in the UK because of the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Incidentally, this is not impacting just hospital services but university medical research and manufacturing companies in the healthcare sector.
The potential reduction in the number of key workers available to the NHS needs to be very carefully monitored. If we are to go for a soft Brexit in which we will agree the free movement of those coming for specific jobs and guarantee no dilution of their employment rights, that is all well and good; we might not need the amendment. But at this stage we just do not know what sort of Brexit awaits us. If it is a hard Brexit, with no agreement, we most certainly do need the review mechanism contained in this group of amendments, and we need it for a purpose because in a no-deal scenario we may need to make alternative plans to import key workers from other parts of the world—if we can find them—and to do so quickly. For these reasons I support the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
Let me first thank noble Lords very much indeed for bringing this important topic before the House today. I reassure them that the Department of Health and Social Care is actively supporting my department in its negotiations with the EU, including forming part of the negotiation team where the topic is of direct relevance to healthcare. It is also working closely with its arm’s-length bodies, the territorial offices and others across government in preparing for EU exit under all eventualities.
I will address this group of amendments now but I note that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who I think is not in his place at the moment, has also tabled an amendment on health to Clause 6. This will be responded to formally when we reach that group and I note his specific interest in the subject.
Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would delay the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 until such time as the Secretary of State has set out a strategy for ensuring the mutual recognition of medicines and devices between the EU and UK. The Government have already set out a very clear offer to the EU for the UK to continue to work in partnership in the area of medicines. It is in the interests of patients and the life sciences industry for us to find a way to continue UK-EU co-operation on medical regulation, even if our precise relationship with the EU will by necessity change. Discussions are ongoing and the outcome will form part of our future relationship with the EU. We cannot and should not delay commencement of this Act until those discussions have concluded. The UK’s medicines and medical devices regulator, the MHRA, is a strong leader that will continue to ensure that medicines and medical devices are safe and effective, regardless of the outcome of negotiations and any agreement on recognition in this area. Indeed, it is currently recognised globally as an authority in its licensing and inspections.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Davies, I can be extremely clear that the UK’s preferred outcome is to find a way to continue to co-operate on medicines regulation with the EMA. We have made that extremely clear to the EU. Even though our relationship with the EMA will have to change as we leave the EU, it is in our mutual interests to continue to co-operate and share scientific expertise. We believe that desire is shared by the EU.
Baroness Thornton
Can I ask for some clarification from the Minister about his statement about the preferred outcome? What exactly does that mean? If we do not achieve what we want to in that preferred outcome, what exactly happens and what do we do next? What is the timescale for this? That is why the amendment is framed in the way it is.
Lord Callanan
It is obviously difficult for me to speculate on what happens if we do not achieve the outcome that we want. As I said, we strongly believe that since we contribute an awful lot of work through the MHRA—something like 40% of the EMA’s work is contributed to by UK authorities—it is in our mutual interests to continue to co-operate. If that is not possible, we will set out an alternative course of action but we believe that it is and should be.
Baroness Jolly
We have a window of about two years in which to get this right. I was talking to the trade bodies for over-the-counter medicine last week and they were saying that a change to make all over-the-counter medicines UK-based would need about a five-year timescale. It is just not doable, so there is an absolute imperative to get these regulations sorted out in pretty short order.
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness makes a powerful point. It is one of our priorities. We have a number of priorities in the negotiations but it is important that we get this one right. The MHRA already licenses nationally 90% of all medicines available in the UK but there is a small percentage regulated abroad, so we need to reach a mutual agreement on that.
Amendment 101, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, would prevent the Government making changes to the licensing or regulation regimes for over-the-counter medicines, to which she just referred. The Government will need to correct deficiencies arising from withdrawal in relation to the regulation regimes for over-the-counter medicines, self-care medical devices and food supplements where the UK’s exit from the EU would result in the retained EU law which governs the regimes being deficient or not operating effectively and where manufacturers of these products would have to adapt to divergent UK requirements, potentially leading to a temporary or permanent withdrawal of their product from our market.
The noble Baroness asked a number of specific questions. The Government have already made it clear that we wish to retain a close working relationship after exit. The Government have been engaging with industry and research charities through the ministerial and industry co-chaired life sciences group, and we will continue to work with that group and industry to ensure adequate notice and sufficient time to implement any changes necessary.
Whatever the outcome of negotiations, the principles which will underpin post-Brexit regulation for this sector will be that patients should not be disadvantaged, that innovators should be able to access the UK market as quickly and simply as possible, and that we will continue to play a leading role in Europe and the world in promoting public health. Over-the-counter products will continue to have an important role in relieving pressure on health professionals and promoting consumer choice to improve public health.
In the event that it is not possible to reach a deal that secures ongoing, close collaboration between the UK and Europe, we will set up a regulatory system in the UK that protects the best interests of patients and supports industry to grow and flourish. I hope that my comments will provide the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, with the reassurance they need not to press their amendments.
Amendments 9 and 205 were tabled by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The Government recognise how important reciprocal healthcare is to the 190,000 UK pensioners who currently benefit from it, to UK tourists who use the European Health Insurance Card scheme and to EU nationals visiting and living in the UK. This point was powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. We want to protect reciprocal healthcare arrangements and have made important progress towards this in this first phase of negotiations. It is the intention of the UK and the EU that the final withdrawal agreement will protect reciprocal healthcare rights for UK citizens resident in the EU on exit day and vice versa on a reciprocal basis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The Minister said that important progress has been made. Will he tell the Committee what that progress is?
Lord Callanan
The important progress was announced in the agreement reached in December in the first phase of the negotiations. Reciprocal healthcare benefits were guaranteed for existing UK residents in the EU and for existing EU residents here. The next phase is what happens in the future.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The points I raised related not to the important matter of residents, whether continental residents living here or British residents living on the continent, but to travellers—people who may want to travel for a short period for tourism, family reasons or what have you. Has any progress been made on that front? If not, are the Government proposing to make any progress and, if so, what progress?
Lord Callanan
That will be for the next phase of the negotiations. We have guaranteed the right of existing residents from the EU in the UK and for UK residents in the EU. The next phase of the negotiations is for people who will travel there in future.
The Earl of Clancarty
Is the Minister saying that the Government intend to retain the EHIC reciprocal agreement or is he talking about something else?
Lord Callanan
We would like to retain an arrangement similar to the EHIC if possible. We cannot give any guarantee about what might happen in the next phase of the negotiations.
We welcome the progress made, but we are clear that we want a wider agreement on reciprocal healthcare. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that this is not something we can simply legislate for in the withdrawal Bill, but must be negotiated with the EU, which is what we have been doing. We are very clear that we want to protect reciprocal healthcare arrangements.
On 8 December, the UK and EU Commission reached an agreement which delivered on the Prime Minister’s number one priority: to safeguard the rights of people who have built their lives in the UK and EU.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I asked the Minister for information about billing across borders to date, because that information must have been available to the Government before they started negotiating over the travel arrangements.
Lord Callanan
I will need to write to the noble Baroness with the exact amount of billing, as I do not have those figures in front of me at the moment.
I turn to Amendment 353, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stephen. The Government already keep NHS performance and health outcomes constantly under review, including through the NHS outcomes framework, which measures a number of health indicators intended to form an overarching picture of the current state of health and care services in England. We are committed to positive and productive engagement with the devolved Administrations going forward as we seek a deal that works for the entire United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care also publishes an annual assessment on the performance of NHS England, including how it has met its mandate from the Government, as well as an annual report on the overall performance of the health service.
Lord Wigley
As the Minister has confirmed that there is in fact ongoing, detailed monitoring of these matters, can he confirm that we are losing National Health Service staff returning to the European Union and are having greater difficulty in recruiting from Europe to fill the vacant spaces?
Lord Callanan
I am not sure that is the case. Obviously there are people returning to the EU all the time, and different people coming to the UK to take up job offers. We can get into detailed figures, but I do not think there is any large-scale exodus of health service staff.
For the reasons I have set out, this amendment is both unnecessary and risks creating unwelcome new burdens at a time when that is least appropriate. I hope I have been able to provide noble Lords with sufficient reassurance.
Lord Cormack
My noble friend is batting on a difficult wicket. We understand that. He has my total personal sympathy for the plight in which he finds himself, but what he has said this afternoon just ain’t good enough. It is important that he takes on board what has been said during this debate, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and that when we come to this on Report, he has some substantial and detailed specific progress to report to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his comments. A lot of these matters are still to be negotiated in the next phase. We made substantial progress in the first phase, and we will endeavour to ensure that we make good progress to achieve a good working relationship with the EMA and to guarantee the rights of travellers through a system similar to the European health insurance card for those travelling in future. I hope to be able to provide more information on Report.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, could the Minister provide us with data in writing on the numbers of EU staff who have applied for jobs in healthcare in the last 12 months and the numbers of EU staff who have left? We need to have the data rather than bald statements about what is happening based on anecdotes, because it may well be that the Minister is hearing a quite different set of anecdotes from the ones the rest of us are hearing.
Will the Minister also confirm, or not, my interpretation of his comments on the outcome if there is no agreement? Here I return in part to Amendment 11, but to others as well. If there is no agreement with these regulations, will the Government then simply adopt European regulations de facto? I cannot see any other way for our pharmaceutical and biotech industries to continue to function. We need them for our economy, quite apart from needing them to ensure that there is a supply of medical and biotech advances for our patients. It is particularly important because biotech is an emerging field in which to date, within Europe, the UK has been the leader. I should declare an interest here because my son is a senior lecturer in bioengineering and cardiology, so he is involved in some of this ground-breaking work.
It would be helpful for us to know that and whether, in the context of there being no deal, the Government are already establishing dialogue between different Ministers in the devolved Administrations. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has pointed out, there are very real implications for Wales, particularly west Wales—I declare my interest as someone who lives and works there—because we know there are large gaps there. We have to know how the Government intend to behave in the event of there being no deal at all.
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness has made some valuable points. On the question of data on EU staff applying to jobs in the UK, if that information is available then we will certainly share it with her.
She asked what happens if there is no agreement. As I said, the MHRA already issues national licences for some 90% of medicines on the UK market. If we are no longer co-operating with the EMA on the regulation of new novel medicines, the UK will ensure that our own procedures do not lead to any delay in patient access to new medicines and are no more burdensome to industry.
The noble Baroness’s point about working with the devolved Administrations is a good one and we will ensure that that happens.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who as always is much more qualified than me and indeed most of the House, for her support. I respectfully suggest that the Minister needs to actually talk to some of these bodies about how complicated, difficult and costly it will be if we do not reach an agreement. That needs to be taken into account.
I thank noble Lords for their support across the House for this suite of amendments. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is important and—like my own, I hope—very practical. This is about what medicines people buy over the counter, what health supplements they have access to and whether those will change post Brexit.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, tabled Amendment 205, and I thank him for his support for my amendment. He and I want the same thing: we want this scheme, which protects people’s right to healthcare, to continue, and as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, its current form would be the easiest form for it to do so. It is often the case that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, makes the observation that you wish you had—in this case, about disease knowing no boundaries. He is absolutely right.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone made an eloquent point about cutting-edge research and the importance that that has for children and the rare diseases that they experience.
I do not deny that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, is important. It will be very important that we know what the impact of Brexit has been, not just a year later but ongoing. However, the argument that we are having on the earlier part of this suite of amendments is about what happens in the negotiations and what happens if they fail. It is about the action that we take now.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is quite correct about the uncertainty that has been created for NHS staff in terms of their retention and recruitment. In fact I asked a Question of the Health Minister about precisely that not so long ago. Those figures have been collected by organisations such as the Royal Colleges so we know that the number of nurses coming from Europe in the last year has fallen by, from memory, around 80%. That is a huge drop in the number of nurses prepared to come and work in this country from Europe.
I say to the Minister that we understand—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—that this is a difficult time and the Government are in the middle of negotiations. However, it is a long time since the referendum and we are a short time away from falling off the edge of the Brexit cliff, and issues of licensing of medicines and access of citizens to healthcare can none of them brook a two or three-year negotiation after Brexit because of the suffering that would cause and the impact it would have. That is what the amendments concern.
I hope that, between now and the next stage of the Bill, we will make some progress on both those issues. If we do not, we shall return to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has set out a strategy for seeking to remain a member of, or a strategy seeking to maintain equivalent participatory relations with, Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 and Horizon 2020’s successor programmes.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to an amendment which concerns two EU programmes which are clearly at risk as a consequence of the Brexit withdrawal. The first is Horizon 2020, which is a major funder of research, principally in our universities. One cannot talk about this funding programme without making reference to the impact on the UK economy.
I remind the Minister that the Government’s industrial strategy sets a goal for the UK to have the world’s most innovative economy. It states that we are recognised as a global leader in science and research but that neither the Government nor the private sector are investing enough in R&D. As the Government’s paper points out, we spend 1.7% of GDP, compared with 2.8% in the US and 2.9% in Germany. Commendably, the Government have set the goal to raise total research and development investment to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. They state their intention to work with universities and research institutes to increase global investors and R&D activities taking place in the UK. That is highly commendable but also challenging in the context of Brexit.
There are a number of factors in this. First, I hark back to our previous debate on regulation. The Minister says that because 90% of medicines in use in the UK are licensed by the MHRA, we should not worry if there is no deal, and the MHRA becomes a stand-alone regulator. That misses the point that any medicines licensed by the MHRA in this country can then be taken to be licensed throughout the EU. The reason is that we play by the same rules. Unless we reach a mutual recognition agreement with the EU, it is absolutely clear that pharma’s investment in research in the UK will fall dramatically. It is not just regulation, it is funding, it is multicentre research collaboration, it is research policy and it is movement of researchers.
At the moment, many of those research programmes are at risk, none more so than Horizon 2020. This is a programme which funds major research in our universities. Rather like the UK’s general research position, we have a hugely impressive number of universities engaged in high-quality research. We know that despite the relatively low share of global investment in R&D, UK research accounted for 50% of the world’s most highly cited research articles. Part of that success has been in attracting more than £1 billion from overseas every year, with £840 million coming from the EU in 2015-16. Horizon 2020 is the biggest EU research and innovation programme and the UK has done very well out of it. It is the second in order of recipients of that programme within the EU. Around 15% of funds allocated from Horizon 2020 have gone to the UK. Indeed, Cambridge, UCL, Imperial and Oxford universities are the top four recipients to date. Other universities, including Edinburgh, Manchester and Birmingham have also done well.
Clearly, the question is: what will happen with withdrawal from the EU? At the moment, the position is that UK researchers will remain fully eligible for EU funding for at least the next 17 months. The Government have given a guarantee to pay out any funding applied for and awarded before we leave. But, of course, the question is: what happens post 2020? The Government’s position on that is non-committal. We have had positive messages from the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House and Florence speeches, and in the Government’s science and innovation discussion paper, but since then, there has been no clarification at all of the UK’s status in relation to this funding after Brexit.
Of course, the worry is that simply the loss of funding will have a big impact on our research capabilities and also collaboration with European universities. My amendment would ensure that we either remain a member of, or seek to maintain some kind of participatory relations with, Horizon 2020 and its successor programmes. I should say that part of the problem is that if academics do not know, it is very difficult for them to plan research collaborations with European universities going beyond the due date. Any week lost in terms of uncertainty is sure to put some of those programmes at risk.
I propose a similar approach in relation to the Erasmus+ programme. I should have thought that, post Brexit, the need to encourage young people from the UK to maintain and develop links with the rest of Europe is self-evident if we are to avoid drifting apart from the continent. Yet our withdrawal from the Erasmus+ programme could make that more difficult. This EU-funded scheme has enabled 600,000 people from the UK to go abroad to study, train or volunteer over the last 30 years. It is open to education, training, youth and sports organisations across all sectors of lifelong learning, including school education, further education, adult education and the youth sector, as well as higher education, for which I suspect it is most well known. For young people, this has had a hugely positive impact, leading to better job prospects and lower unemployment. The British Council, which oversees it, reports that young people who participate in international opportunities return with increased language and intercultural skills.
The programme is not just about the EU—it has enabled UK universities to develop new or to reinforce existing partnerships with universities in Asia, Latin America and the US. The British Council believes that the UK should seek to remain in a successor Erasmus+ programme, and I very much agree with that. If we do not, the UK will have to set up numerous bilateral relationships which will be time consuming and costly, and frankly, I doubt the capacity of government to be able to do it any time soon. Here we have an entirely positive programme, enabling young people from this country and other countries of the EU to enjoy fulfilment and open their horizons. I should have thought that at least in this programme, it would have been possible to agree our future participation. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and have Amendment 163 in this group in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Earls, Lord Clancarty and Lord Dundee. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has set out clearly why we feel that assurances on Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 are essential if our world-leading universities are to retain their reputation and our students are to be given the best opportunities to broaden horizons.
Does the Minister recognise the benefits of scientific research—including, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has set out, for the economy? In particular, can he provide some clarity on how the UK Government intend either to remain in or replace the range of EU funds as we leave the European Union? Of course, it is not only the funding. Crucial to research is collaboration. Working with other European researchers and academics has resulted in work of benefit to the UK, the EU and, indeed, worldwide. As a recent CBI report set out:
“With science and innovation increasingly becoming globalised, the UK’s role as a leading global scientific power is at risk without an agreement”.
What a loss it would be if we were to walk away from these EU programmes.
Horizon 2020, as we have heard, is the biggest EU research and innovation programme, with nearly €80 billion of funding available over the seven years of 2014 to 2020. In addition to Horizon 2020, there is a range of other EU-based funding, which has included, for instance, valuable support for environmental science and the environment, whose future must also be carefully considered by the Government. Protecting the environment is best done in collaboration. We believe that these funds are key.
Horizon 2020 is a highly important source of funding for research in the UK. There are other funds such as Interreg and Life, which support applied research in the UK and are instrumental in turning academic research into public policy and maximising its benefits for society. As for the Erasmus exchange programme, it has been described as one of the greatest culture and character-building programmes that you can have in your whole life. The Liberal Democrats have long wholeheartedly supported Erasmus. It is heartening to hear that wholehearted support coming from the Labour Benches—it would be even better to hear it from the Government Benches, and not just for the niggardly couple of years that Ministers have mentioned so far but as an ongoing and enduring commitment.
Erasmus is aimed at cross-border co-operation between states to aid the growth of international studying, international understanding and fostering good international relations—and my goodness we will need all those in spades, if and when we leave the European Union. With over 4,000 students involved in the programme at any one time, it offers an excellent chance of experience abroad, which, we know, is highly valued by employers. Those from disadvantaged backgrounds can be helped by the Erasmus+ EU grant to help cover the travel and subsistence costs incurred in connection with their period of study abroad.
Erasmus has been of life-changing importance to so many young people from all walks of life. It would be an act of folly not to continue this scheme for our young people. I hope the Minister will respond favourably to these two amendments, in the interests of students, researchers and the greater good of the country.
Lord Patel (CB)
I support this amendment and will go a bit further. As we have heard, the UK is a major player in research and innovation in European countries and worldwide. A recently published document, Building a Strong Future for European Science: Brexit and Beyond, is Wellcome’s recommendation from the future partnership project, based on a survey of 200 institutions and top scientists in Europe. It might form the framework based on which the Government may wish to negotiate beyond Brexit.
If nothing were to change and we were to remain as we are, there would be no problem—the UK would remain a major player in science and innovation. But on the basis that we will have to negotiate post Brexit, I would say, as the document says:
“Brexit presents the UK and EU with choices about their future relationship on research and innovation”.
European nations, including the United Kingdom as a major player, have developed,
“a world-leading location for research and innovation”.
The EU and associated countries—there are countries which are not part of the EU but are currently associated with Erasmus and other EU research programmes—
“should accelerate and deepen development of the European Research Area (ERA), to help Europe and EU Framework Programmes capitalise on the strengths and talents of a wider group of nations”.
Each of these nations, including the UK, contributes heavily to these programmes. We have to find a way to continue, both for Europe and for us.
An EU-UK research and innovation agreement for Brexit could be possible:
“Evidence and views gathered through the Future Partnership Project showed the importance of finding a way for the EU and UK to maintain their important partnership”.
There was a strong view, both from scientists and research organisations in Europe, outside the UK, that they would like this partnership and strong relationship to continue.
As to funding, as has already been mentioned:
“The EU’s Framework Programmes are the most effective multilateral funding schemes in the world”.
The UK needs to be part of this, so:
“The UK should therefore secure Associated Country status in an excellence-focused Framework Programme 9”—
that will follow programme 8—
“as this would be the best way to participate in European research. To achieve this, the UK should be pragmatic about the cost of a good deal to access FP9, and the EU should be pragmatic about the terms of FP9 association for the UK”.
There are benefits for both sides, which the science community certainly recognises.
There will, of course, have to be some alliance with regulation and research policy. A later amendment in my name relates particularly to clinical trials, which are important for the life sciences industry in this country. It is important, therefore, for,
“the UK to participate in the EU’s harmonised clinical trials system”,
including the new system that will come. The report states:
“A research and innovation agreement should promote dialogue on areas of research policy where the EU and UK can provide global leadership, for example on open research … A research and innovation agreement should support full researcher mobility between the EEA and UK”.
Proposals of this kind, which have come from Wellcome and the Royal Society, could be the framework for future negotiations, particularly on research and innovation.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, as has been said, that our current advantages from international student mobility might now be under attack is clearly of great concern.
In 2014-15, it was estimated that international students contributed around £25.8 billion in gross output to the United Kingdom economy. There are also the considerable social and cultural benefits to which they contribute, not least the United Kingdom’s soft power overseas.
Yet recently, and unfortunately, those heartening figures and prospects have got worse, with our market share slipping against rival English-speaking countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as against European countries, which now offer more courses in English.
These amendments seek to prevent further decline by protecting continuing UK participation in the Erasmus and Horizon 2020 schemes. As we know, the Government have guaranteed participation for the next three years.
Nevertheless, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, as other noble Lords have urged, by far the best plan is to negotiate with the EU to stay within these very effective education initiatives, while at the same time doing all we can to support and work with our universities to increase international student mobility both in Europe and elsewhere?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I too support the two amendments in this group. I have a special interest in Oxford University, which benefits exponentially from Horizon 2020, and our students also benefit from Erasmus. As my noble friend said, Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial are the top four recipients to date. This has been invaluable in achieving their status in global league tables. However, my concern is about not just Oxford but our higher education sector as a whole. We often repeat the mantra that we are global leaders, and we are: our higher education system is the envy of the world and that is a matter for celebration. But too often we forget that some of our research and innovation success derives from the funding and, often more importantly, the collaboration that we enjoy as part of Horizon 2020, which built on its predecessor framework programmes. The partnerships that have enabled our universities to thrive are now being undermined by Brexit.
We are assured that our UK researchers will remain fully eligible for Horizon 2020 support for at least the next 17 months, but I have to tell the Minister that the reality is sometimes quite different. In many cases we are no longer considered the lead partner in a project because there is so much uncertainty about the future relationship. I fear that we will find, more and more, that we simply do not win the bids. As for the future, what are the Government’s intentions? Will our universities continue to be leading players in the successor to Horizon 2020, which will start in 2021—a programme over which, I regret, we will have little or no influence?
How are our universities supposed to plan, especially at a time when there is great uncertainty about the future funding of the sector as a whole? University staff and lecturers are under the cosh, facing pension cuts and living with the uncertainties caused by Brexit. Louise Richardson, vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford, said in a recent article that we must remember:
“Universities are engines of social mobility, drivers of the economy and generators of new ideas”.
I am sure that the Government agree, yet the lack of commitment in relation to the next EU research and innovation programme will undoubtedly make it more difficult to retain and recruit the best researchers—the very people who generate the new ideas and find solutions to the problems of today and the challenges of tomorrow.
Many facts and figures have already been given but I remind noble Lords that, in terms of research, development and innovation activities, in the last seven-year financial framework, the UK contributed €5.4 billion to the EU and the EU contributed €8.8 billion to the UK. The UK is not only the most active participant in Horizon 2020 but our institutions co-ordinate about 20% of the projects that have been funded so far. In Germany it is a mere 11% and in France 9%, to name just two partners. Our influence and collaboration are extraordinary. I fear that without full participation in Horizon 2020, that will diminish.
Last year, we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Erasmus programme. It is important to note that a higher proportion of those who study abroad achieve a first-class or 2:1 degree compared with those who stay in one place, and have improved employment prospects. It is not only our students who benefit, and have benefited, from this culture and character-building programme but all the public, private and voluntary associations in which the young people later find work. The experience of a year abroad gives them language and communication skills, sometimes provides professional experience, nurtures confidence and builds resilience. As the world of work undergoes a profound change thanks to new technologies, artificial intelligence and the pressures and opportunities resulting from globalisation, these skills are needed much more, not less.
Erasmus students who come to the UK are an important part of the international student community in our universities and communities. They also make an economic contribution to the UK. However, as has been mentioned, perhaps the soft power is of greatest benefit. Erasmus funding is also available to support staff mobility, joint master’s courses and collaborative projects. Many assume that student exchanges relate only to modern languages, but many law students, engineers and biochemists, to name but a few, also benefit from the arrangements. The UK National Agency for Erasmus+, a partnership between the British Council and Ecorys UK, remains wholly committed to the Erasmus+ programme and its benefits. The agreement reached in December between the UK and the EU confirmed that we will be able to participate in EU programmes, including Erasmus, until the end of 2020.
But what then? Will the Government continue to pay for participation in this excellent programme? Students starting university this September will want to be sure that they can participate in Erasmus, and students applying for university in 2018-19 must have certainty so that they can make informed choices. Labour’s position is absolutely clear, and always has been: we will continue to pay, and I warmly welcome that. I look forward to the Minister’s reply, in which I hope that he will also tell your Lordships how the Government are continuing to shape the next Erasmus+ programme so that it is more efficient, more inclusive and has an even greater impact.
The amendments before us today are probing but I trust that the Minister will be able to give a positive response to my noble friend; otherwise, I hope that further amendments will be tabled on Report. In his response, I trust that the Minister will also provide assurance that the Government’s lack of future commitment to date has nothing to do with the way in which the concerns of Brexiteers are being assuaged. I presume that they too would be in favour of maximising research funding and collaboration with European partners that leads to excellence, as well as enhancement of the skills and experience of our students.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I have added my name to both the amendments in this group. I have tabled Amendment 204, which will be discussed later in Committee, on maintaining rights and opportunities for young people, and Erasmus+ is a part of that amendment.
If we lose our programme membership of Erasmus, it will be a huge blow not just to our young people, which would certainly be bad enough, but to the whole higher education sector, which benefits from the many projects that Erasmus has to offer, including not only the student exchange scheme but staff exchanges and projects involving the institutions themselves. The exchanges also include work placements, which can provide much experience of other work environments for British students. This is of course not just about experience and learning in the narrow sense; it is about the reciprocation of ideas, the effect of cultural exchange, and the knowledge that British students gain of other cultures and of how things are done elsewhere—and indeed vice versa, as there is also an extremely important soft power element in the creation of so many UK alumni across Europe.
Student exchange schemes embody an open-mindedness—even an open-heartedness—which is a far cry from the attitudes taken by some sections of the British press, which are currently crowing about the number of EU nationals leaving our shores.
There are some who say that, instead, we should develop independent arrangements with universities further afield. The fact is that we are developing relationships further afield anyway. For example, my nephew is at Northern Arizona University for a year, where he is studying American history as part of a degree course at Swansea University, with which Northern Arizona has an agreement. In a poll two years ago, 42% of students said that they were interested in travelling to non-Anglophone countries, some outside the EU. It should not be a case of either/or. To close down or risk closing down these wonderful educational opportunities for young people on our own continent would be perverse and a giant step backwards. Nothing in Erasmus says that one thing precludes the other.
The Government guarantee our current membership only up to 2020. There needs to be something much more concrete. Jessica Cole, head of policy at the Russell group said this month:
“We are expecting the European Commission to put forward proposals for the next Erasmus programme later … this year. There is an opportunity now ... for the UK to help shape that programme ... The UK Government needs to be engaged in this important process, especially whilst we still have a seat at the table”.
She goes on to say that,
“it should be a priority for the UK Government to secure continued UK participation from 2021 onwards ... the Prime Minister should indicate whether the UK intends to negotiate participation at the earliest opportunity”.
I ask the Minister: when will this indication be made?
On the wording of the amendments before us, one thing that we need to be careful about is the status of membership. It is possible—probably very likely—that we will retain membership technically, but there is a huge difference in the actions possible between programme membership, which we have presently, and partner membership, where we will be effectively left out in the cold. The phrase “on existing terms” in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, is crucial. We need absolutely to maintain the existing level of participation.
It needs to be said that, if we do leave the single market, we risk losing our programme membership. Witness what happened to Switzerland, which was expelled from the programme membership of Erasmus and from Horizon 2020 following a referendum that allowed a policy which compromised its own free movement deal with the EU. Switzerland has now realised what it was in danger of losing, and has since re-joined Horizon 2020 and is likely to re-join Erasmus+ properly in 2021.
In this and in so many other instances, it is wrong to think only of how the EU is treating us. We have enjoyed access to these programmes through our membership of the EU—at the very least, through being part of the single market. They have been an integral part of the deal, which has always been a two-way street. We should instead be asking ourselves: do we really want to risk losing access to programmes which have been, and still are, so beneficial to our young people, the higher education sector and research development in the UK—and, therefore, to the country as a whole?
Lord Cormack
My Lords, it is some 500 years since the great humanist scholar Erasmus came to this country to visit his friend, Thomas More. I always thought it was particularly appropriate that this programme, which has come to dominate today’s debate, was named after that extraordinary European. Whatever our nationality and identity, we are all European.
I should declare an interest, in that I was a visiting parliamentary fellow and have for many years been a senior associate member of St Antony’s College, Oxford. I have therefore seen at first hand how crucial it is that highly intelligent young people from different countries get to know each other. The programme has done untold good for this country, because so many from that particular college have gone back to their countries to occupy high positions in government and the civil service, and sometimes the highest position of all as head of state.
I have raised the Erasmus issue a number of times in your Lordships’ House and I have never been reassured by the answer I have been given from the Front Bench. A guarantee for 17 months is no good at all. As has been said already in this debate, those who are in charge of academic programmes, be they scientific or in the humanities, need to be able to look ahead. I have two granddaughters who are undergraduates—one will graduate this year and the other in two years’ time—and they may just benefit from this, but there is no absolute guarantee. Yet I know that their studies and their outlook on life would be immeasurably enriched by their having the opportunity to travel and to study abroad, in particular to study on our continent of Europe.
It really is important that we continually make the point that we are Europeans. No act of this Parliament or any other can alter that fact, and nor can any referendum result, be it on 23 June 2016 or on 23 June in some other year.
There has been much talk about a deep and rich partnership, and of course we want that, but we have to start now to be specific. One thing we can be specific about is this: here is a magnificent programme from which students and university staff have, over the past 30 years, benefitted enormously.
A couple of weeks ago, I was at a 21st birthday dinner at the University of Lincoln, a university that has risen spectacularly in the tables. It regards its 10% of foreign students as enormously important, and the chance its students have to study abroad as enormously important.
We know that there are countries outside the EU that benefit from Erasmus: so what, in the name of goodness, is holding back the Government from saying, “We are making an unequivocal commitment to continue this”? There is no reason why we cannot; there is every reason why we should. We are in an unfortunate position at the moment, with no clarity, much confusion and contradictory statements being made by different members of the Cabinet. I am told they are at one now, following their outing in Chequers last week, and I hope that is right.
However, we could make things so much better by making a number of pledges and commitments. We are part of this and intend to remain part of it because, if this country is to flourish after Brexit, it will depend, perhaps more than anything else, upon the quality of our education and, particularly, of our university education.
Those who are Brexit orientated should particularly remember that there is no doubt that the vast majority of young people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland wanted to remain part of the EU. I deeply regret that we are not going to, but we can hang on to some of the best aspects of it, and this is one.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, which means that I depend considerably on the relationships between universities doing the kind of research that is necessary. I also have a daughter who had an Erasmus scholarship and I therefore care about this issue considerably.
I listened with great care to my noble friend’s response to the previous debate about medical matters. I emerged little the wiser as to where the Government were, intended to be, might be, would have been, thought they could have been, may in the future be if this or that might happen. We cannot go through 10 days or more in Committee—this will go on for some time—in which that will be the answer to every question put forward. There have to be sensible answers to sensible questions. This is a sensible question to which there is only one sensible answer. He is on a strong wicket on this occasion because he does not need to think any harder than deciding that doing both of these things will in no way interfere with the negotiations we have with the European Union. When we come to discuss everything else, it will not make a jot of difference if we have been sensible about these two things because they are clearly issues in which both we and the rest of Europe have a common concern and understanding.
On the research position of our great universities, we would be foolish to imagine that that happens by accident or that it is an eternal verity which will go on forever despite anything we may do. One of the reasons—not the only one—that our universities have been able to maintain and improve their position has been their openness to the rest of Europe, both in terms of the people with whom they work and the universities and institutions with which they can be the lead in so many of the occasions supported by Horizon 2020. The Government need to think carefully about the ease with which we can slip back down that list of leadership if we do not take the right decisions.
The Government must also not be blinded by a fear that anyone who disagrees with anything in this Bill is somehow or other perpetuating an anti-Brexit position. Everyone knows that I am entirely anti-Brexit and shall go on being so; that is absolutely true, but I am talking about something quite different. It is a simple matter concerning our universities and our young people. My daughter was one of the 300,000 people—a huge number—who have enjoyed this experience and she now speaks a little Catalan as a result, which is a useful skill at the moment.
This is a wonderful opportunity for my noble friend because what he could do now is make the Committee feel that the Government are genuinely listening to genuine discussions. I do not want to embarrass anyone, but a number of people in this House are dedicated Brexiteers but on this particular matter they are on our side. That is because it ain’t something about Brexit; it is about the sensible way forward. I therefore ask my noble friend this: why not accept this very sensible amendment? In case he is not apprised of this, let me tell him why he has been told not to do so. The rule is that nothing must change based on the argument that if anything changes, it will all be too late and we will not get it right. This is one thing that can be changed and will make no difference whatsoever to the timetable, so that argument will not wash. However, no doubt it is on his list of responses, but if I have said it, perhaps he will not say it himself.
The second reason that my noble friend will no doubt put forward is that it is all part of the negotiations. “We are working very hard to get closer to the rest of the European Union”. I can tell you how to stay close to the European Union, and that is not to try to leave it. If you are not going to do that, do not tell us that the Government are working hard to get closer when this is a way to do it. Just say, “We want to stay in the Erasmus programme and in Horizon 2020. We will play our full part and we will work with the Union in the way it wants us to. We are not going to be silly enough to say that this is just another item in the long list of things that we are going to discuss with the rest of Europe”.
I say to my noble friend that here is a chance for him to shine. Here is an opportunity for him to show that he has a mind of his own and say the obvious thing, which is yes.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 10, with particular reference to the Erasmus+ programme, for two specific reasons. First, if we were no longer part of Erasmus+, there would be adverse consequences for the employability of our young people in general. Secondly, Erasmus+ is an essential part of the pipeline for modern foreign language teachers, where there is already a significant shortage. Uncertainty over our continued participation in Erasmus+ is one of the reasons for the continued decline in university applications to study modern languages. Over the past 10 years, applications have dropped by 57% and more than 50 universities have now scrapped some or all of their MFL degree courses.
Of course, Erasmus is not just for linguists and I cannot emphasise strongly enough how important Erasmus+ is for employability prospects across the board. Not only does the Erasmus year abroad help to improve language skills, it also helps to develop an international mindset and a cross-cultural attitude to work. We know from British Academy research and from a recent US study that employers rate these skills in some cases even more highly than expertise in the STEM subjects. We also know that graduates who have spent their year abroad under the Erasmus+ programme are 23% less likely to be unemployed than those who have not done so.
So, as others have said, it really is not good enough for the Government to commit to funding Erasmus+ only to 2020. That is no help at all to people in their first year of university now, whether they are linguists or studying some other discipline, who do not know whether they will be able to spend their third year abroad. It is of no help to sixth-formers or those coming up shortly into the sixth form who might be thinking about keeping up a modern language.
We need a clear commitment to be part of Erasmus+ beyond 2020 in exactly the same way as Norway and other non-EU countries, including Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Turkey, which are all full programme partners. We would certainly be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we do not do this, not least because the European Commission is planning to double participation in Erasmus+ by 2025 by extending opportunities for exchanges and placements to school pupils, which, it is very easy to see, might turn out to be a critical factor in encouraging the continued take-up of modern languages at A-level and university. At the moment, we are simply not producing enough graduate linguists to meet the needs of teaching, business or the body of interpreters and translators working in international organisations such as the UN.
The other element of self-inflicted backlash if we ditch Erasmus+ would be to turn our backs on a vital part of the supply chain for modern language teachers. The Department for Education estimates the current shortage to be 3,500 if the Government are to meet their EBacc target. This shortage risks getting worse and more precarious post Brexit because such a significant proportion of MFL teachers and language classroom teachers are non-UK EU nationals. If they are not guaranteed residency status post Brexit, language teaching in our schools will become very precarious indeed. I implore Her Majesty’s Government to exercise a massive amount of enlightened self-interest and ensure that the UK remains a full programme partner and a full member of the Erasmus+ programme in the long term.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will talk about two aspects of Horizon 2020. One is the question of certainty and the other is how this links with freedom of movement. I declare two interests. My wife has been on some of the advisory committees concerned with the definition of Horizon 2020 and what happens beyond it. British participation in defining research priorities across the European Union has been high in the last two or three exercises. That is not something that has been imposed on us and it is one of the things that we will lose.
My second interest is that I have a son who is a mathematical biologist and who spent his graduate and postgraduate years—up to 10 years—in the United States and came back to this country under an EU-funded scheme to bring bright young researchers back to Europe. He had his two-year Marie Curie fellowship and was advised not to apply for European Research Council fellowship, which would have naturally followed on, because we were perhaps leaving the European Union and that would make it difficult for him. The uncertainty is absolutely there. Happily, he now has another grant. He was persuaded to return to the University of Edinburgh by an Italian professor who led a multinational team there. That is how British universities work. I have been to many universities in other European countries where the overwhelming majority of staff and students come from that country or, in one or two countries such as Belgium and Spain, from that region. Those universities are not of the same quality or calibre.
I sometimes fear that there are hard Brexiteers in this country who think that we have too many foreigners in our universities already and that it would be much better if we went back to being proper British universities again, which would be much more in tune with the British national spirit.
As a mathematical biologist, my son is currently in Paris for six weeks at the Institut Pasteur, having spent some weeks last year in Heidelberg, because the sort of work you do in the life sciences is multinational and naturally collaborative. That requires easy movement, short term and long term. Anything which raises difficulties of travel in and out of this country, which is part of the intention of leaving the European Union, will make it much more difficult for our universities to go on being quite as good as they are. So I stress that, as we leave the European Union, we have to ensure that we remain internationally competitive and, in our universities, this matters.
Since the Government intend to leave the European Union in 13 months’ time, we need some rapid certainty on Horizon 2020. I suggest to the Minister that, well before the Bill leaves this House, the Government should have a clear answer, highly relevant to the Bill which takes us out of the European Union, on what the implications are of leaving and on which bits we are not leaving. Please may we have an answer?
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
My Lords, I will not only say that I will be brief but will be brief. I shall not pursue what has been said about Erasmus, with which I strongly agree—Erasmus must have been very grateful for all we have said about him today, although I think he would have some doubts about the present state of rationality in some of our political debate in this country.
I will instead follow the point made so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I declare an interest, which is not financial. As the noble Lord will know, I was chancellor of a Russell group university in the north-east of England. I am chancellor today of another Russell group university. Perhaps just as significant, when I ceased to be a European Commissioner, I was asked to chair the committee which established the European Research Council. It did so on the basis of the recommendations in particular of Lord May, one of the greatest contributors to the debate about research and about universities in this country.
We established the research council on the basis that it would distribute funds by peer group review—not according to what individual countries had contributed but according to the research capacities of those countries and of particular institutions. And guess what? It demonstrated that we have the second-best higher education system in the world and arguably the best higher education system in Europe: we did extraordinarily well out of that research budget. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we get a great deal more back from the European budget than we put into it, which indicates how good our research community is in this country.
I realise that there are constraints under which the Minister has to operate—he has our sympathy and our prayers as he moves forward. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Deben said earlier: we do not expect him to do wonders. I am not sure that he will be able to tell us now what the Government’s intentions are in relation to the European research community. I do not blame him if he cannot do that, because I do not think that anybody in the Government has the faintest idea—certainly, I do not know anybody in Europe who has the faintest idea of what we want to happen—but I hope that, at the end of the day, as right reverend Prelates might put it, we will still be members of that research community.
So I do not expect the Minister today to be able to spell out precisely what arrangements we will have in the future—whether they will be similar to those which Switzerland has today, whereby it is part of the community but takes no management decisions about it. Israel is in a similar position. However, I hope that, even if he cannot tell us exactly what the relationship will be, he will at least give us one simple guarantee—and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would want to stand over this very strongly.
When we leave the European Union we will lose the considerable surplus that we have at the moment in research spending—as I said, getting back more than we put in. Will the Minister guarantee this evening, even if he cannot give us any details about our future relationship with the European research community, that any shortfall in that funding after we leave the European Union will be made good by the Government?
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I support Amendments 10 and 163 on the need to ensure that the immense benefits of the Erasmus+ programme continue to be available to students throughout these islands and that the Horizon programme will continue to be funded. I have a particular attachment to the Erasmus programme from the early days, now decades ago, when a very good friend of mine and, I believe, a friend of a number of colleagues in this Chamber tonight, Hywel Ceri Jones, in his work in the European commission helped to pioneer the Erasmus programme. In fact, our parliamentary secretary in another place, Heulwen Huws, became one of his first administrators. I very much want to see this programme survive for those and many better reasons. The one point I want to impress upon the Committee is that the Erasmus programme has a very large input from the UK: it is not some programme being imposed upon us and owned by other people, it is something that we have a shared ownership of and we want to make sure the shared benefit continues for our young people.
The higher education sector in Wales has been a major part of the growing Welsh economy: 50,000 jobs in Wales depend upon it. Much of the success can be attributed to European investment, both structural and research-specific. Bangor University—I declare my interest in that university—has benefited over the last decade from about £100 million of funding. Swansea University’s Bay Campus has benefited from a similar level of EU funding. Incidentally, Swansea has benefited from £60 million of European Investment Bank funding. It would be interesting, although it may be outside the ambit of this short debate, if the Minister addressed that: the question of continued eligibility for European Investment Bank funding for our universities is one that could well do with clarification.
If we are in danger, in the event of a hard Brexit, of losing EU funding for higher education purposes and projects, I impress on the Government, as have a number of colleagues, the need to set up some alternative source of funding to ensure that vital work undertaken in our universities goes forward. We need a UK convergence strategy that will reproduce the European principle of equalisation and provide equivalent funds on a needs basis. This will enable universities, in Wales and elsewhere, to compete on the higher education world stage and continue to educate and innovate, as it currently does thanks to EU funding. Will the Minister clarify what the Government’s objectives are for these purposes as they enter the detailed negotiations? Do they aspire to some ongoing eligibility for access to cross-border and transnational funding programmes? Seeking single market participation is certainly the aim in the Welsh White Paper, but if the Government have rejected single market participation, as seems to be the noise coming out, can they guarantee, with no ifs or buts, that all the present levels of EU funding will be replaced, as was promised at the time of the referendum in 2016? This is particularly important for research funding: the Horizon 2020 programme has been a vital source of funding for universities throughout the land. So far the Government have refused to provide any statutory guarantee that these funding levels will be maintained. Will the Minister now take the opportunity to do so?
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I support these two important amendments and I apologise to the Committee for having being unavailable to speak at Second Reading. I therefore take the opportunity to declare my interests as chair of the Henry Royce Institute, a member of the Committee on Climate Change and chairman of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change. As we have heard from many noble Lords, the Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ programmes are critical to our world-class academic institutions, to research and to our students. I will not take up any time by repeating the arguments but I remind the Committee that historically UK students are some of the least internationally mobile in Europe, particularly young people from less advantaged groups. If we are to compete ever more widely on the international stage after leaving the EU, ensuring that UK students from all backgrounds have the kinds of experiences that are enabled by the Erasmus+ programme should surely be a national priority.
We have not heard much about what Horizon 2020 does outside our outstanding academic institutions. It is a key funding source for industrial collaboration, supporting important initiatives such as helping Rolls-Royce develop new generations of more efficient and environmentally friendly aero engines. It also plays a key role in supporting innovation and entrepreneurship schemes, such as the knowledge and innovation communities, with a great example at Imperial College: Climate-KIC, which has already seen a number of new entrepreneurs with low-carbon technologies start to develop businesses in the UK.
In my own area of interest, Horizon 2020 supports environmental research. The UK wins around £147 million per annum for environmental research. Sadly, that rather dwarfs the £5 million investment in the new northern forest. Other EU funds, such as Interreg and LIFE, are important not only for environmental research but to cross-border collaboration on the island of Ireland; for example, supporting shared environments through the cross-border Loughs Agency, as well as other types of cross-border community projects. This is hugely important work that the House of Lords EU Select Committee was able to see and hear about at first hand on our recent visit to both sides of the Irish border. It is a really important element of the peace settlement on the island of Ireland.
These funding mechanisms play a critical role in our economic growth, as we have heard; in cross-border relations and well-being in Ireland; and in helping the Government achieve their stated aim to leave nature in “a better state” for the next generation. For these reasons, the amendments have my very strong support.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I would not wish to disagree in any way with all those noble Lords who have said how excellent the Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 programmes are. Undoubtedly, the United Kingdom contribution to them is very significant, just as the United Kingdom’s gains from being a participant in them are hugely beneficial. Nevertheless, one thing that has not been said by any noble Lord is that after Brexit we will have considerably more money to spend on important programmes than we have while we are making net contributions to the European Union of £10 billion to £12 billion a year. I have never been one to use the £350 million a week figure because that was the gross contribution, but the net contribution is about half that.
My noble friend Lord Patten pointed out that our contribution to the Horizon 2020 programme is about £5 billion but we receive £8 billion back. Presumably, this means that the organisers of the Horizon 2020 programme appreciate that the United Kingdom knows better than some other participants how to use the money wisely. Indeed, we continue to use the money from such programmes extremely well. Furthermore, if one looks at the participants in Horizon 2020, there are 17 countries which are not EU members. The European Commission website makes it clear that non-members participate on exactly the same terms as members. Therefore, I see no reason at all why we should not be welcomed as a continuing participant in Horizon 2020.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Does the noble Viscount not understand that if we participate from outside the European Union, instead of getting more back than we put in we will get exactly the same back as we put in?
Viscount Trenchard
I hear what the noble Lord says but I am not sure whether that follows at all. As far as the Horizon 2020 programme is concerned, presumably our contribution would still be assessed and valued in the same way that it is now. The deservability of the programmes for which we seek support would also be considered on the same basis as now, so I do not see why it should make any difference. But overall, we will have a considerable amount more money to spend, not less, because we will not be making the very large net contributions to the European Union budget that we make at present.
Lord Patten of Barnes
Can I clarify for my noble friend the position of countries from outside the European Union sharing in the European Research Area? I am sure he is aware that while some of them participate—I mentioned Switzerland and Israel– they play no part whatever in managing the programmes. They do not determine the priorities or what the money will go on. We could negotiate membership of the research council, I guess, although it would be with the financial consequences that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned and the additional consequence that we would have no say in managing the programmes.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, and in so doing I remind noble Lords of my declared interests at Second Reading.
This has been an important debate because it has highlighted the vital contribution that European Research Council funding, in the Horizon 2020 programme and others, has made to our national research effort—both the research effort delivered by our universities and, more broadly, the research undertaken through industrial and SME participation in such research programmes. It has also identified the invaluable contribution we have made as a nation to the delivery of those programmes by the European Union. The leadership provided by UK institutions has ensured strong delivery by those programmes and the global impact of that research effort.
In that regard, it is vital that Her Majesty’s Government are able to identify a way forward for our continued contribution to the development of the programmes that follow Horizon 2020. That is a matter of negotiation currently and the discussion takes place at a sensitive time, with Horizon 2020 coming to the end of its life and a new framework programme 9 being established. It would be useful for Her Majesty’s Government to identify how they are currently participating in that negotiation. How are they trying to influence that agenda while they define their final position on our future participation as a nation?
For instance, coming together at this moment is UK Research and Innovation, which will bring together our research councils and our national innovation structure. What role will UKRI potentially play in focusing our national research contribution with regard to those ongoing negotiations? Can Her Majesty’s Government confirm that they will not only secure funding for our research base beyond departure from the European Union but ensure that that funding can be directed towards continuing collaboration in European networks? It is the network participation, as much as the quantum of funding available, that has provided the strong base for our research effort and the high-quality outputs that we now enjoy.
There is very deep anxiety about this question because if we are unable to make an appropriate contribution to framing future programmes and ensuring the priorities that those programmes will address, then whether or not we participate in future the value of our own national contribution and the ability of our nation to benefit from that participation will be diminished. That is a question beyond the final disposition of our participation in those programmes, which is of course a matter of broader withdrawal negotiations.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I support these amendments, and I apologise for not speaking in the Second Reading debate for reasons which are too painful to burden your Lordships with tonight. Having listened to the debate, to me it seems that accepting the amendments is a no brainer, and I hope that the Minister agrees. Way back in the past century when I was dean of a medical school and the Erasmus programme and the predecessor of Horizon 2020 were introduced, we welcomed them with open arms. They were marvellous initiatives. They opened up research potential across Europe in a way which we had not had until then and the value to our students of being able to go abroad became pretty obvious. We loved, it, we welcomed it and it has continued in the same vein ever since. It has never faltered. It has grown from strength to strength, so why on earth would we want to jettison something that works so well and try to introduce something which will undoubtedly be more bureaucratic, will probably be more costly and which will not be nearly so valuable to our research effort or to the competitiveness of the UK? I hope the Minister will take note.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 10 and 163 and declare my interest as a governor of the London School of Economics. I echo many noble Lords across the House, including my noble friends Lord Deben, Lord Cormack and Lord Patten. This is another example of what appears to be an ideologically driven, irrational decision that is pretty impossible to justify. I cannot think of any rationale for risking our position in the Horizon 2020 and Erasmus programmes. This is not required as a result of the EU referendum. The British public surely would not support the UK failing to secure ongoing participation beyond 2020 in these programmes.
Research is a vital investment in our future. Horizon 2020 is open to all and simple. It reduces red tape and allows researchers to launch projects and get results quickly. These programmes allow knowledge exchange and collaboration on innovation and research. Horizon helps entrepreneurs scale up businesses rapidly to establish a global leading position and to improve our industrial base. This is a flagship initiative designed to secure improved global competitiveness. Is this not exactly what we need for our future growth and success with or without Brexit?
This goes beyond funding. It is the spirit of co-operation and leadership that is so important. It gives our students, graduates and entrepreneurs the opportunity to exchange ideas and research collaboratively with other countries. There is no need for the UK to go it alone. There is obvious strength in collaboration. I hope the Minister will take careful note of the strength of feeling across the Committee, including on his own Benches, that we must not countenance whatsoever and under any circumstances turning our back on these programmes. The future of our country, our young generations and our world-beating research and academic institutions must not be put at risk. The UK has far more to lose than the EU if we are no longer a leading participant in these programmes. I hope my noble friend will return on Report with his own proposals to commit to ongoing participation beyond 2020.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the mere fact that we require these amendments is shocking in itself. UK universities receive an additional 15% in funding from the European Union. Academics will now struggle to co-operate on research projects. The change in the visa regime that takes place may deter high-calibre academics from joining British universities. That is happening already. When European universities have a chance to collaborate they already think twice before collaborating with a British university, and that is shameful.
The Erasmus programme is 30 years old. Are we going to throw away 30 years of that wonderful initiative? Hear what the Europeans say:
“‘The absence of physical mobility after Brexit would take us apart’, said João Bacelar, executive manager at the European University Foundation. ‘Student exchange is kind of the antidote to the malaise of Brexit. It is profoundly unfair if young people would pay a price for something they didn’t want’”.
Employers value the Erasmus brand. More than 200,000 British students have benefited from Erasmus. We have heard that other countries that are not part of the European Union can be part of Erasmus. Let us beware of what happened with Switzerland. When Switzerland voted to restrict European migration, it was taken out of the Erasmus programme. It has had to spend extra money to put a new programme in place. Do we want to go through all that? I do not think we should.
The best thing about Erasmus is that it is for everyone. It allows students who cannot afford it to study abroad in a variety of subjects. My noble friend Lady Coussins spoke about language skills. Erasmus involves 725,000 European students annually—a huge number. We do not want to be left out of it. We are the third most popular destination; 30,000 students want to study in Britain and 40,000 of our students are over there. These are huge numbers. If that mobility goes, we are going to suffer.
Will the Government keep their promise to maintain and protect all funding streams for EU projects in the UK? Will they ensure that there is no cliff edge for funding for scientific research at the conclusion of the Brexit negotiations? Will the Government confirm that British researchers must be able to continue to participate in an unrestricted manner in current and future EU science initiatives? Will they never prevent highly skilled scientists coming into this country? I would like that assurance from the Minister.
We have heard time and again about our funding and research power. We have 1% of the world’s population but produce 16% of the most highly cited research articles. That is how good we are. Every committee—including the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee and the House of Commons committee—is saying that this would be damaging for the UK. A recent YouGov survey showed that 76% of non-UK EU academics are already considering leaving the country. What are we doing?
There are two messages here, one about collaboration and the other about funding. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said, we get more than we put in. We are asking the Government for a guarantee that we are going to get that funding. But more important than the funding is the power of collaboration. As chancellor of the University of Birmingham, I am proud that it received a Queen’s Anniversary Prize last week. When I was in India, we cited an example of the power of collaboration between the University of Punjab and the University of Birmingham. The University of Birmingham’s field-weighted citation impact is 1.87. The University of Punjab’s is 1.37. When we do collaborative research, it is 5.64. When the University of Birmingham does collaborative research with Harvard University it is 5.69. Its impact in collaboration is three times greater than it is as an individual university, and that applies to all the collaborations that we carry out with programmes such as Horizon.
Finally, this is about universities and our youth. This is depriving them of their future. I speak at schools and universities regularly, and I ask students every single time how many of them, if they were given a choice, would choose to remain in the European Union. Without exaggeration, almost 100% of the hands go up. There are two years’ worth of 16 and 17 year-olds who did not get a say in the wretched referendum two years ago, and this is their future, in which they will want a say. That is what this amendment is about: the future of our youth through Erasmus and Horizon 2020. We cannot take that future away from them. We have to go through with these amendments, and it is most likely we will end up remaining in the European Union.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I was not intending to intervene in this interesting discussion, not because I do not care deeply about these issues—as chair of Lancaster University, I realise how much we benefit from both Erasmus and the Horizon programme—but because I had not realised until I heard this excellent debate what a cliff edge these important programmes now face. This really is a very serious matter that has come out this afternoon.
There are two reasons for the cliff edge. First, the European Union, in the Commission, will now be thinking about the next framework programme, which will come in at the start of 2021. It will be devising its priorities and working on the assumption that Britain is not part of the next Horizon programme. That is a very serious point. Secondly, when the Select Committee went to see Mr Barnier last week in the Commission and he set out to us how the Commission envisages the Brexit negotiations, he put dealing with what he calls “future co-operation” in one of the four treaties that are to be negotiated after we have left. That is when he is assuming that these negotiations will start: in March next year, after we have left. One is on foreign policy, one is on security questions, one is on trade and the other is this basket of future co-operation. This is really serious. Unless we set a higher priority, more quickly, to sorting these questions out, we will end up with a lot of loss of initiative and of partnership, and networks in which we are involved no longer being sustained. We have to do something.
What are the Government proposing to do? It occurs to me that the Government, first of all, must make clear now that they want to continue to participate fully in both these programmes. They must make clear now that they are prepared to put a substantial sum of money on the table so that we can continue to participate in these programmes. They should also say, without equivocation, that for anyone from an EU country who has a place at a British university as a student, researcher or lecturer, or at a research institute, there will be no question of there being any additional immigration barriers to them taking up those places after Brexit. Why can that declaration not be made? The money, the free movement, the determination to participate—why can that not be said now? Why can the Government not, in this area, try to speed up Mr Barnier’s timetable by actually tabling their own text of the agreement that they want to reach? I hope the Minister can provide a satisfactory answer to these perfectly reasonable points.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Exactly. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has just said. I would like to be helpful to the Minister—it is my main purpose in life. I detect that this debate is at present all going one way, although I do not know if the Minister agrees with me on that. If he is a cynic, he might say that that is not altogether surprising, as the collective noun for a group of chancellors, vice-chancellors and university chairmen is the House of Lords.
It is important that the Minister should listen to the Cormack-Deben advice. It really would not do to answer this debate with the same answer he started off with to the last debate about medicines and Amendment 11—where, as I recall, his line was that publishing a strategy would introduce an unwelcome, undesirable and impossible delay to commencement. I may have misunderstood him, but it seems to me that the time when we need such a strategy—the strategy that is called for in this amendment—is now. We need it to be helpful to the Minister because if on Report we do not see a strategy, there is absolutely no doubt how the House would vote. This debate has made very clear, from all sides of the House, that continued membership or a close relationship with the research framework programme and with Erasmus is seen as sine qua non. If the Government do not give us the strategy which they think may achieve that, I am confident we will vote for these amendments.
The strategy would have to contain a little more than a declaration of intent. In relation to Erasmus, it would, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, have to include something about visas. I think it would also have to include something about fees. It is relatively easy to see what one would have to say. On the much bigger issue of research, it would have to include something from the Treasury. If the sensible suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was accepted by the Treasury, that would be excellent. But it seems to me that the Treasury is going to have to accept a lesser commitment, which is that when it is pay as you go—which is what it is going to be, as my noble friend Lord Hannay has pointed out—we will pay for whatever we get. That seems to me to be a sine qua non.
It is of course the case that we will not be taking the decisions or laying down the policy anymore. But it will still be essential for our universities to have access to these networks. This would not just be helpful for the Minister on Report and in the negotiations in Brussels, where such a Cormack-Deben voluntary offer would go down extremely well, but also be something to deal with the uncertainty problem which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, drew attention to. We are no longer desirable partners in research networks, because it is assumed that we will be country cousins or non-players.
We are no longer receiving the same demand from foreign students to come here to research. We are damaging the sector now—this is an area where the damage of Brexit precedes the deed. So in three contexts, it would be helpful to the Minister if he would say that he will take this away and think about producing a government strategy in both areas before Report.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just uttered. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, said that we were not expecting miracles from the Minister. I think even the Minister’s most ardent admirers do not credit him with miraculous powers, and he is not going to able to produce any rabbits out of a hat for us this evening. But it is not miracles we need here: all we need is a continuation of the status quo. This is one of those areas we come back to time and again—we had it in the long debate on Euratom last week: all we need to do is to avoid massive, self-inflicted damage.
There is no need to create whole new programmes and ways of working. We have Horizon 2020 and Erasmus; the latter has been going on for the best part of 30 years and is a highly successful programme. When you are doing something well, the usual trick is just to keep on doing it. There are so many things that do not work that the idea that Parliament and Government should be spending their time dismantling things that do is clearly crazy. What we want to hear from the Minister is simply that he is open-minded to continuing with the present arrangements. The sooner the Government are prepared to say that, the better.
The most telling contribution to this debate came from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. In the higher education world, there is—I shall choose my words slightly diplomatically—a pronounced air of self-congratulation on how excellent everything is in this country and how brilliantly we do it, and if only the rest of world copied us then they would be a great deal better off. In many areas that is true, but in one we have a very poor international record: the propensity of our students to study abroad. According to the Erasmus figures, twice as many European students come to Britain as Brits go abroad. The noble Baroness was right to say there is a big problem with students from poorer backgrounds studying abroad. When I was preparing figures for this debate, I found that it looks as if Singapore, a country less than one-tenth the size of the UK, has about as many students studying abroad as we have in our entirety.
The fact is that we do not have nearly enough of our students studying abroad. When I visited Singapore as Minister for Schools, they were aiming—by about now, so maybe they have achieved it—at requiring all students at the National University of Singapore, regardless of their course, to spend at least six months, one semester, studying abroad. Can your Lordships imagine if we had anything like that commitment here? It might be a good thing if in due course we did. The great irony is that one of the great slogans to emerge from this Brexit policy as it has developed is “Global Britain”—but how can there ever be a global Britain unless far more of our students go and see the rest of the globe and spend time studying there? The first requirement for that is that we should not make the situation worse than it currently is.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was right that what we seek from the Minister is not a miracle; we are clearly not going to get that from the present Minister. We simply expect a commitment to continue with the current programmes, and it is absolutely within the scope of the Government to say unilaterally that the negotiating position of Her Majesty’s Government now, in 2018, is that these programmes will continue with full British participation after 2020. If the Minister does not say that, he is staring at near-certain defeat on this issue on Report.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for another excellent debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for their Amendments 10 and 163, which respectively seek clarification on the Government’s future membership of the Erasmus and Horizon 2020 programmes. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Patten for their helpful attempts to rewrite my notes for me before I started.
At the December European Council last year, the Prime Minister confirmed that UK students will continue to be able to participate in the Erasmus student exchange programme for at least another three years, until the end of the current budget period. She welcomed the opportunity to provide clarity to young people and the education sector, and she reaffirmed our commitment to the deep and special relationship that we want to build with the EU.
In response to my noble friend Lord Cormack, I say that the Government have made it clear many times that we value the Erasmus+ programme and international exchanges more generally. Cultural exchange helps to build important business, political and diplomatic bridges around the world, not to mention lifelong friendships.
Lord Cormack
I am grateful for that, but if that is the case then why do we not carry on beyond the three years?
Lord Callanan
If my noble friend will have some patience, I will come to that in a second. Supporting young people to study, work, volunteer, teach and train abroad, and supporting their schools, youth and sports organisations to build transnational partnerships, helps us to create a new generation of globally mobile, culturally agile people who can succeed in an increasingly global marketplace.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I say that the UK has a strong offer to EU and international students, with four universities in the world’s top 10 and 16 in the top 100. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out, we received many more students under Erasmus than we sent. Erasmus is an important programme, but it represents only about half the student exchange programmes we have in the UK.
Our young people get first-hand experience of different cultures, helping them to broaden their horizons and their ambitions. Students who have spent time abroad as a part of their degree are much more likely to achieve better degree outcomes, improved starting salaries and stronger employment prospects, as noble Lords have pointed out. This is especially the case for students from disadvantaged or less represented backgrounds.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, no decisions have yet been made about post-2020 programme participation as the scope of that programme has not been agreed. We look forward to the Commission’s proposal, which we expect to be published in May. Participation in the successor to the Erasmus+ programme, which we think is valuable, will form part of the negotiations.
The UK fully participated in the mid-term evaluation of the current programme and we reached broadly the same conclusions as the Commission: the programme works well but there is room for improvement and simplification, especially for smaller applicants. UK respondents to the mid-term evaluation made many detailed comments and criticisms, but few suggested that radical change was needed. The proposal for the next programme will be published in May, as I said, and we are currently shaping the debate and looking forward to further discussions with the Commission about that.
We see future co-operation in education programmes as an area of mutual benefit to both the EU and the UK, provided that we can agree a fair ongoing contribution.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, what reassurance can the Minister give to students who are beginning their courses in September this year or September next year? Will they be able to participate in Erasmus or does that depend on whatever decisions the Government take after May? Is that not too late for certainty?
Lord Callanan
They will be able to participate in the existing Erasmus scheme up till 2020, should they wish to do so, and, as I said, we will see what the next programme will be. We await the proposals from the Commission in May, and we will discuss our participation in that with them.
As I said, we see future co-operation in education programmes as an area of mutual benefit to both the UK and the EU, provided that we can agree a fair ongoing contribution. We are giving this matter careful consideration as we negotiate the UK’s exit and are listening to the views of the sector.
As many noble Lords are aware, we have proposed a time-limited implementation period based on the current structure of rules and regulations. Looking to the future, we recognise the value of international exchange and collaboration in education and training as part of our vision for the UK as a global nation. That is why we said in our science and innovation policy paper, published in September, that we would discuss with the EU future arrangements to facilitate the mobility of researchers, academics and students engaged in cross-border collaboration. The UK and EU agreed in December that UK entities’ right to participate in current EU programmes for their duration will be unaffected by withdrawal. This includes the Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation.
A number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Deben—have asked me about the future of the Horizon programmes. Horizon will be succeeded by the ninth framework programme, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, reminded us. This programme is also still being developed by the European Commission, and we are participating in discussions on that. The UK has declared that it would like to reach an ambitious science and innovation agreement with the EU that would include future framework programmes. It is too early to speculate on whether the UK will seek to associate to framework programme nine which, as I said, is still being developed.
The Government are deeply conscious of the importance of the Horizon 2020 and the future framework programmes to research in the UK, in which we have an international reputation. We are working hard to secure a research and innovation agreement with the EU that will take effect after Brexit.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The Minister says it is too early to decide whether we will co-operate. Can he tell us in what circumstances we will decide that it is not in the national interest for the UK to participate in the next Horizon programme?
Lord Callanan
I very much expect that it will be in our interest to participate in it. As I said, we are taking part in discussions. We have not yet seen the detail of how it will be financed, but, given a fair ongoing contribution, I suspect that we will want to participate. But they are a matter of negotiation. It is fine for us to say that, yes, we would like to take part; we need the EU side, the other side to the negotiation, to say that, yes, they would like us to take part as well. It is a negotiation. We can give a commitment that we would like to; we cannot give a commitment that we will be accepted.
As part of the new deep and special partnership with the EU, we will recognise our shared interest in maintaining and strengthening research collaboration. The UK will seek an ambitious agreement, one that promotes science and innovation across Europe now and in future. For the avoidance of any doubt, in response to the many questions that have been asked, let me say that we support Erasmus, we support Horizon 2020, but, contrary to what many noble Lords have suggested, these are EU programmes. The UK cannot adopt a unilateral stance; there has to be bilateral agreement on them. That agreement depends, first, on understanding the shape of the Erasmus programme in May and framework programme nine, when it is clarified by the Commission, and finding a mutually acceptable financial arrangement. Subject to those conditions, we would be very happy to be able to participate in both those programmes in future.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister is drawing to an end, but he has not managed so far to say anything about the movement of researchers and students. Why can he not state categorically that we will not introduce any new impediments to students or researchers offered places in our universities? That would be entirely consistent with the introduction of a work permit scheme, because neither of those two categories come to our universities without a work offer. Why can he not say that now? Mobility is crucial in this area, but he has not said a word about it.
Lord Callanan
I totally agree with the noble Lord that mobility is crucial. I am fairly certain that we would not want to introduce restrictions on mobility in these areas—we want as many students to come as possible—but, as I am sure he is aware, this will be a matter for the Home Office to decide in the immigration policy that will be discussed shortly.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Indeed so. I was hoping that the Minister would say that there is not now, and never has been, any limit on the number of genuine students who can come to the UK. I would have thought that that is bound to continue: this is a false issue.
Lord Callanan
Yes, we have been a proud recipient of and destination for thousands of international students in the past. They are welcome in this country, they contribute greatly to our education services and I am sure that we will want that to continue in future, but I cannot speculate on what a future immigration policy may look like.
Lord Deben
If this is a non-issue, why cannot my noble friend say very simply: “There will be no additional stops or impediments on students”? Does he not understand that constantly saying how wonderful everything is but that he cannot actually tell us anything is very difficult for anyone trying to plan their future and very unfair on young people?
Lord Callanan
As I said, I am fairly certain that we will want to continue to welcome as many students and researchers as want to visit this country in future, but, as I am sure the noble Lord will understand, I cannot speculate on what a future immigration policy might be before it has been announced by the Home Office and published by the Government.
Nevertheless, let me say for the avoidance of doubt that I have heard the message from all parts of the House and I will certainly reflect on these matters before we come back to the issue on Report. I understand that there are very strong feelings from all parts of the House about these issues and we will certainly see what we can do about that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, let me say that I welcome the Minister saying that he will reflect on this debate, because I think it is the first chink of light from him on any of these important debates in Committee. It has been a remarkable debate. We have heard from many noble Lords about the importance of the Erasmus programme. I agree with my noble friend Lord Adonis: the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, speaking from huge experience as a former vice-chancellor of Aston University of the impact that Erasmus has had on the students who go to Aston and the way it has widened their horizons, is for me one of the most important illustrations of why future participation by the UK in Erasmus is so important.
On research, again, my worry is that the Government are hugely complacent about the UK’s position. Consider the consequences of uncertainty over Horizon 2020, which is having an impact on universities at this very moment in terms of collaboration on future research bids. Even where European Union universities will still collaborate with UK universities—and it is by no means certain that they will continue to do so in every case—they are reluctant for UK universities to be in the lead. Added to the uncertainties about the movement of both academics and students, we are entering a hugely uncertain position for a very important sector.
I listened with care to what the Minister said. To be fair, he has said that the Government value both Erasmus and Horizon 2020 and he repeated the Prime Minister’s comments, particularly in relation to Horizon 2020. He then said that while he values these programmes, the EU is working out the next stage of both Erasmus and Horizon 2020, that the UK is part of some discussion about that but they will form part of the negotiations and that there is nothing more he can say.
I think there is something more that the Minister can say. I think it is without question that it is in our national interest that we continue wholeheartedly to take part in those programmes. Thinking about the negotiations and the UK Government’s tactics, this niggardly, churlish approach does not seem to be getting us very far. This Government would attract a hell of a lot of good will if in relation to just these two programmes they said, “Whatever, we are going to stick with it, and we will make good any deficiency in UK university research programmes if the price of sticking with it means that we will get less than we did in the past”.
The whole Committee—almost all Members—really wants these programmes to continue. We will obviously come back at Report. The Minister has kindly said he will reflect on it. I very much hope that he will do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Syria: Humanitarian Situation
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to repeat the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in response to an Urgent Question asked in the other place today. The Answer is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I am grateful to the honourable Member for Barrow and Furness for raising this vital issue.
In seven years of bloodshed, the war in Syria has claimed 400,000 lives and driven 11 million people from their homes, causing a humanitarian tragedy on a scale unknown anywhere else in the world. The House should never forget that the Assad regime, aided and abetted by Russia and Iran, has inflicted the overwhelming burden of that suffering. Assad’s forces are now bombarding the enclave of eastern Ghouta, where 393,000 people are living under siege, enduring what has become a signature tactic of the regime, whereby civilians are starved and pounded into submission. With bitter irony, Russia and Iran declared eastern Ghouta to be a ‘de-escalation area’ in May last year and promised to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid. But the truth is that Assad’s regime has allowed only one United Nations convoy to enter eastern Ghouta so far this year, and that carried supplies for only a fraction of the area’s people. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in eastern Ghouta in the last week alone and the House will have noted disturbing reports of the use of chlorine gas. I call for these reports to be fully investigated and for anyone held responsible for using chemical weapons in Syria to be held accountable.
Over the weekend I discussed the situation with my Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, the Turkish Foreign Minister, and Saad Hariri, the Prime Minister of Lebanon. Earlier today, I spoke to Sigmar Gabriel, the German Foreign Minister, and I shall be speaking to other European counterparts and the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, in the coming days. Britain has joined with our allies to mobilise the Security Council to demand a ceasefire across the whole of Syria and the immediate delivery of emergency aid to all in need. Last Saturday, after days of prevarication from Russia, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2401, demanding that,
‘all parties cease hostilities without delay’,
and allow the,
‘safe, unimpeded and sustained delivery of humanitarian aid’,
along with,
‘medical evacuations of the critically sick and wounded’.
The main armed groups in eastern Ghouta have accepted the ceasefire, but as of today, the warplanes of the Assad regime are still reported to be striking targets in the enclave and the UN has been unable to deliver any aid. I remind the House that hundreds of thousands of civilians are going hungry in eastern Ghouta, only a few miles from UN warehouses in Damascus that are laden with food. The Assad regime must allow the UN to deliver those supplies, in compliance with Resolution 2401, and we look to Russia and Iran to make sure this happens, in accordance with their own promises. I have invited the Russian ambassador to come to the Foreign Office and give an account of his country’s plans to implement Resolution 2401. I have instructed the UK mission at the UN to convene another meeting of the Security Council to discuss the Assad regime’s refusal to respect the will of the UN and implement the ceasefire without delay.
Only a political settlement in Syria can ensure that the carnage is brought to an end, and I believe that such a settlement is possible if the will exists. The UN special envoy, Staffan de Mistura, is ready to take forward the talks in Geneva and the opposition are ready to negotiate pragmatically and without preconditions. The international community has united behind the path to a solution laid out in UN Resolution 2254, and Russia has stated its wish to achieve a political solution under the auspices of the UN. Today, only the Assad regime stands in the way of progress. I urge Russia to use all its influence to bring the Assad regime to the negotiating table and take the steps towards peace that Syria’s people so desperately need”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to the Urgent Question. Since the UN resolution, we have seen continued indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, the targeting of hospitals and medical centres and the use of starvation as a weapon of war. There can be no impunity for those responsible for what are quite clearly war crimes. I hope the Minister will agree with that.
The Government have said that they will convene another Security Council meeting to discuss Assad’s refusal to accept the ceasefire. It appears that, by excluding military action against terrorists, Assad and his allies have used this to justify continuing their assault against the jihadist armies in eastern Ghouta. An hour ago, the BBC reported that President Putin had ordered a pause in the assault, starting on Tuesday, and to include the humanitarian corridor. The pause is from 9 am to 2 pm local time—a pause that simply is not good enough. Does the Minister agree that, to stop the assault on eastern Ghouta, the UN should be clear that there must be a temporary cessation of all military action within Syria?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Lord. The perpetrators who are committing these acts need to be held to account. Indeed, that sentiment was aired by the Foreign Secretary in the delivery of the Statement. I also remind noble Lords, in answer to the specific questions raised by the noble Lord on the issue of the Syrian regime’s continued bombardment of eastern Ghouta, it is notable that the main armed groups there, including Jaish al-Islam and Faylaq al-Rahman, have both accepted the terms of the ceasefire. I agree again totally with the noble Lord on the announcements in the news media from the Russian President, although I have not heard the full announcement yet. Having a small window to bring aid and critical medical assistance to the suffering people of eastern Ghouta is not good enough. The resolution stressed, as did the discussions in the Security Council, the need for a 30-day ceasefire, and that is what we are continuing to press for. Indeed, that is why we have asked the Security Council to reconvene.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the Government have done everything available to them to try to bring these matters to a head. We should not be surprised at the starvation, barrel bombs and the use of chlorine gas. These are jointly and severally war crimes, and they appear to be being committed without any consideration of the consequences for those who are subject to them or the possible legal consequences to those who are presiding over them. I do not know how many more dust-caked children emerging from the ruins of their homes we have to see before President Assad can be persuaded. The harsh and unpalatable truth is that only Russia is in a position to persuade him. Were Russia to withdraw its support, Assad’s position, and that of the Syrian Government, would be substantially weakened. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary meets the Russian ambassador, he impresses on him the responsibility that will attach to Russia if it does not take action to get Assad to call the dogs off.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises a very important point and, indeed, the key to the solution. The Assad regime has persisted with its bombardment because of the cover provided by Russia in particular. Let us not forget that Security Council Resolution 2401 was unanimously accepted, and we are now asking Russia to stand by the commitment it gave in that international forum to ensure that we have a ceasefire, not for a few hours—as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said—but for the 30 required to do what is necessary for the long-suffering people of Eastern Ghouta.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to explain why it was that, when President Macron and Chancellor Merkel intervened with President Putin over the weekend and pressed him to give effect to this resolution, which as the Minister said, was unanimously accepted, the Prime Minister did not join that démarche? Are we behaving now as if we have already left the European Union?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
We will continue to have strong relations with both France and Germany. I applaud the efforts of both Chancellor Merkel and President Macron, but equally, as I have already said, Britain has been doing its part. We have been working with partners—European partners—and, as I said in the Statement, there are other players, including Iran and Turkey, that have an interest. We are continuing to raise these concerns with them as well. We will work with all like-minded partners, and explore every avenue to resolve this conflict, which has been going on for far too long, and the human suffering that goes with it. We will continue to work with all partners, including our European allies to ensure that happens.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, normally in the seven years of this Syrian civil war, when there has been a siege there have been attempts to broker not just a ceasefire but an evacuation of the civilians of that particular geographical location, leaving aside the fighters—whereby, afterwards, that fight may resume. It does not seem evident to us this time why the civilians have not been prioritised for evacuation, as we have sought the ceasefire, which I very much welcome—and I encourage the conversation with the Russian ambassador to express all the sentiments that the Minister has expressed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure the noble Baroness and the House that we are looking specifically at the humanitarian situation. She will recall from a similar Question last week that there are about 700 people acutely in need. We have implored all agencies—and I alluded earlier to the proximity of the UN relief which is available—and it requires that dedicated action to ensure that that corridor can be opened up. Of course, evacuation of those who need the most essential medical assistance will be prioritised.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, from the very beginning we derecognised the Syrian regime and have refused to have anything to do with it. It is a civil war at this stage and, to try to bring to an end the unspeakable barbarity that is going on, can we not at least have a temporary diplomatic mission in Damascus? It would make every sort of sense and give us some influence.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I do not agree with my noble friend, for the practical reason that I have already highlighted—that the biggest influence on the Assad regime is that of the Russians. We have been working extensively with other European partners and other allies and directly with the Russians to ensure that we get the ceasefire that is required. It now needs Russia to be true to its word at the Security Council to ensure that we can sustain, retain and ultimately deliver the peace that is required to the conflict. As for the Assad regime itself, we believe that there needs to be a transition to a new Government who can protect the rights of all Syrians, and we will continue to work in Geneva in that respect.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as previous interventions and the Statement itself have made clear, Russian influence is crucial in this situation. As we await the meeting between our Foreign Secretary and the Russian ambassador, in the meantime what contact are we having at any level with the Russians, or have we nothing to add to the pressure that must be being put on them by our European partners to get them to influence the Assad regime in the way we want? If we do not achieve that—and we cannot subcontract it to anyone else—there is no possibility that the ceasefire will hold.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I have said, the role of the Russians is essential—I agree with the noble Lord—to the ceasefire, which is not even holding, in that it has not started effectively. I am sure that many noble Lords heard as I did on the radio this morning the gentleman who was in the basement and who went out and first described the chilling atmosphere that was very quickly interrupted by bombing and then artillery fire. Clearly, the ceasefire has not happened.
On the noble Lord’s specific question, of course we are working at all levels with Russian officials. Indeed, we work very extensively with them in the UN Security Council, and it was as a result of us working together with our partners in tandem—not by contracting out but by working in unison—that we got the desired result of a unanimous resolution at the Security Council, supported by the Russians.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 26th February 2018
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 View all European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-II(a) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the second marshalled list (PDF, 68KB) - (23 Feb 2018)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament procedures agreed with the EU for continued coordination of foreign and security policy, including association with the EU’s military staff and the European Defence Agency, and these procedures have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister argued in winding up on the first group of amendments that we should be talking about the Bill and not about the issues raised by the amendments, which seemed a very ill-judged remark. This Bill is about a very wide range of policy areas—economic, constitutional and international—on which the Government are asking us to give them extensive powers, on trust, without telling us what they intend to do. The question for many of us is that we cannot trust the Government so far in giving them all those additional powers, unless they tell us rather more clearly what they intend to do.
These amendments deal with the implications of leaving the EU for British foreign, security and defence policy, and with the management of those policies when we withdraw. As we withdraw, which is what this Bill is about, we will also withdraw from the structures of common foreign policy and the common security and defence policy in the Treaty on European Union, as specified in a large number of articles. So what will we do then? The leave campaign never addressed this in the referendum, so there is no way one can say, “Well, it’s the will of the people, we can’t stand in their way”. The leave campaign denied that the EU was ever concerned with anything to do with security, foreign policy or defence. We were told when we joined that it was just about the common market, and now it has turned into something else. Anyone who has read Edward Heath’s 1968 Harvard lectures, what he said when he became Prime Minister and what Sir Alec Douglas-Home said as Foreign Secretary, what Jim Callaghan did as Foreign Secretary and what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, followed through on, including his London report on strengthening the mechanisms of common foreign policy, and what Geoffrey Howe achieved, would know that Britain was absolutely at the heart of forming common foreign policy procedures in the European Union. I remember writing something about it for publication in a Chatham House journal in the late 1970s and being briefed very helpfully in the Foreign Office by the official who co-ordinated our input to common foreign policy, whose name was Pauline Neville-Jones. One or two Members of this House may, indeed, be familiar with the name. I also recall the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who sadly is not in his place at the moment, insisting even after the referendum that the EU had nothing to do with British or European security—and I gave him an annotated copy of the 2015 security and defence review with chapter 5, which is entirely about European defence co-operation, marked for his benefit.
Last September, the Government finally published a position paper on common foreign and security policy, which said, remarkably, that,
“the scale and depth of collaboration that currently exists between the UK and the EU in the fields of foreign policy, defence and security, and development”,
is such that we need,
“a deep and special partnership”—
a familiar phrase—
“with the EU that goes beyond existing third country arrangements”.
It goes on to point out that the UK was a founding member of the EU’s CSDP and takes part in all 15 common security and defence policy operations and missions and concludes:
“The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership … This future partnership should be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on foreign policy, defence and security, and development, and in the degree of engagement that we envisage”.
Well, that was interesting. Nothing was said for months afterwards—and, finally, the Prime Minister last week gave her speech in Munich in which she went into a little more detail about what she at least, if not the rest of her Government, seems to envisage. She said:
“The EU’s common foreign policy is distinct within the EU Treaties … So, there is no reason why we should not agree distinct arrangements for our foreign and defence policy cooperation in the time-limited implementation period, as the Commission has proposed. This would mean that key aspects of our future partnership in this area would already be effective from 2019”.
In that case, it is about time the Government started to educate the population on what arrangements they propose to make with the European Union. I hope, at least, that someone has told the European Union the sort of things that we might like to envisage. She then goes on to talk about our: joining the European Defence Agency and the European Defence Fund; contributing to the European Union’s common development policy, but on the condition that we also play an active role in formulating future European Union defence policy—I am not entirely sure how we do that, as an outsider—co-operating in cyberspace and space; and dealing with a whole range of issues including, on internal security, a new bilateral treaty between the EU and UK.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my purpose in adding my name to Amendment 12 is to enable the Government, through my noble friend, to explain what arrangements they intend to put in place before Brexit, in order to ensure that the United Kingdom is a full participant in the formulation of foreign and security policies which inevitably will be of great and enduring consequence to us all. The absence of such arrangements would be a conclusive argument against leaving the European Union. Noble Lords should be clear about this: if we wish to punch above the weight that naturally attaches to a country of relatively modest resources, it is because we are part of and not outside the structures of the European Union.
For five years, I had the good fortune to serve in the Foreign Office under the overarching authority of Douglas Hurd. It is much to be regretted that he is not able to participate in this debate. His authority within the diplomatic and international community was great. This was due in part to his patience, his personal integrity, the temperate language that he always employed and his willingness to compromise. He never sought to promote himself by appealing to the wilder fringes of any political party. My noble friend was a model of a Foreign Secretary and I commend his example to all his successors. I digress for a moment and say that I very much regret that this House does not have the opportunity of hearing from Mr Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, both of whom would have made a valuable contribution to this debate.
When working under Lord Hurd of Westwell, I had immediate departmental responsibility for a number of important areas: the collapse of the former Soviet Union; central and eastern Europe, most especially the war in former Yugoslavia; and the turmoil, then as always, in the Middle East. We did, of course, have distinctive political policies on all these matters and we have distinctive bilateral relations with the relevant countries and institutions. But looking back on my time in the Foreign Office I am sure it is true that we made a real difference when we were able to work with our European colleagues and within the framework of collective European policy.
Collectively within the European Union, the United Kingdom was more influential than it would ever have been standing alone. This is not the age of Lord Palmerston or Don Pacifico. If one looks forward to the major international problems that we now face, that judgment remains good. Consider the ambitions of Russia; the ever-increasing power of Asia, especially China; the fact that America is once again detaching herself from the rest of the world and, most notably, Europe; the risk of war on the Korean peninsula; international terrorism; the problems posed by climatic change; the instability in the Middle East and the rise of militant Islam. In respect of all these matters, a collective approach is infinitely more effective than the individual policies of a middling power such as ourselves.
There are also some specific problems to consider. What of our permanent seat at the Security Council? As a member of the European Union, our permanent seat was less controversial than it might have been. Outside the EU, our status as a permanent member will be under increased pressure and, in any event, the status of France will be greatly enhanced.
What about Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? Outside the councils of the European Union we will not be able to rely on the automatic support of our European neighbours. Further, on any view, our role as America’s principal interlocutor with the European Union will cease. These considerations, by themselves, leaving aside all others, are a good and sufficient argument against leaving the European Union: that is my considered position. However, for the purposes of this debate, these concerns should cause this House to put questions to Ministers. We are repeatedly told by the Prime Minister and others that while we are leaving the European Union we are not abandoning our close ties. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, usefully summarised our position paper, whatever it actually meant. We need more detail. We do not want bland reassurance. “Brexit means Brexit” is a quite meaningless phrase. It is not a policy or even an indication of a policy. Indeed, it is conclusive evidence of an absence of policy. Therefore, I say to my noble friend that this House is entitled to know in detail what arrangements will be put in place before we leave the European Union to ensure that the United Kingdom is a full, active and influential partner in the policy decisions that will certainly affect the lives of our fellow citizens for years to come. I doubt that this House will get a clear answer. I suspect that we will be none the wiser when the Prime Minister makes her long-awaited policy speech at the end of the week.
If decisions were made at last week’s meeting at Chequers, that is welcome. It is almost, though not wholly, true that any decision is better than no decision. However, we are entitled to ask why on earth such strategic decisions were not taken before we triggered Article 50 and not now, with but 12 months or so to go. The absence of any arrangements and procedures of the kind identified in these amendments is by itself a good reason—there are many other good reasons—to reject the policy of leaving the European Union. Therefore, I look to my noble friend to give clear guidance on what procedures and arrangements the Government propose to put in place. This House is entitled to clear and precise answers to these questions, for they are fundamental in character. This is not a time for indecision, fudge, weasel words or lack of clarity. Having our cake and eating it is not an indulgence now available to us.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I had not meant to intervene but since the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has speculated on my views, I wish to put some things in context. Obviously one seeks clarity but I think there is a certain note of hysteria going around. Only a few moments ago, we had a question and answer session showing just how impotent the EU, and, indeed, any of us, have been in relation to Syria. The EU does not even manage to pay its subscriptions to NATO and has been impotent in relation to Russia’s behaviour recently. However, our own performance as a permanent member of the Security Council, a position from which we cannot be dislodged unless one entirely rips up the charter, has been admirable. If we want to continue to be an interlocutor between the continent of Europe and America, it is not a good idea to shoot ourselves in the foot by being even more uncivil towards President Trump than is absolutely necessary. As far as foreign policy and security are concerned, we are members of the Five Eyes group, which, from what I have read, is rather more efficient in its actions than what is going on in the EU. While we of course want clarity, there is no need to panic. We have to consider what the EU has done historically in relation to foreign policy. Over the last 40 years, it has had as many failures as successes whereas our record has been pretty good.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Viscount, I had the privilege of serving in the Foreign Office back in the 1970s. I underline his comment that it is a great shame that Lord Hurd no longer sits in the Chamber as he certainly was a very effective and powerful Foreign Secretary. One of the reasons he was successful was that he listened to people and adopted a reasonable approach to finding solutions.
There is no greater responsibility for a Government of the United Kingdom than to look after the well-being and safety of their people. At the moment there is a total dereliction of duty. We are about to abandon ways in which we have worked to protect the well-being of British people, while having absolutely no convincing indication of what is to replace our current methods of co-operation. Defence and security are inseparable and cannot be contained within national frontiers. They both require international solutions and co-operation. We also know, and debate it often in this House, that our armed services are very fully stretched; some would say overstretched. They cannot possibly do all that it is necessary to do on their own; they have to work with others. We have devised means whereby we can successfully co-operate in the interests of the British people. How on earth can we, with any sense of responsibility at all, say that we will withdraw from the existing arrangements without knowing exactly how we will fill the gap and maintain that indispensable co-operation?
This amendment, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is absolutely crucial and I am therefore very glad to have added my name to it. It does not apply just to this sphere, of course. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke in too many areas. However, we cannot defend the British people by buying pigs in pokes, but by having absolutely convincing, watertight arrangements in place. There can be no interregnum between one regime and the next; we have to undertake this in time. Will the Government please this evening begin to give us some indication of precisely what the arrangements will be and what resources will be put into them?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I was urged by my noble friend Lady Deech to be more polite to President Trump, so I will respond to that by thanking him extremely warmly for having brought home to us the value of the European Union’s common foreign and security policy. In the year he has been in office, he has singlehandedly illustrated why our national interests in a number of areas are much closer to those of our European partners than to those of his Administration: for example, as regards the nuclear deal with Iran, the rather unfortunate decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, his very lukewarm support for NATO, his withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreements and his trade policy. In all these areas he has brought home to us why this debate and this amendment, which I support, are vital to our future national interests. I hope that when the Minister responds, she will be prepared to go a bit further than generalities.
As others have already said, there is a complete lack of specificity in what the Prime Minister has said—she has, quite laudably, set out in very firm terms her desire that this should be a major pillar of the new partnership—about what the Government have in mind. It really is time that we saw more. The Prime Minister has spoken about a new treaty. We are in a negotiation. Normally, if you are in a negotiation and make a proposal, you table it. I have not seen the treaty. Has anyone seen it? I do not think that anyone has. Does it exist? I suspect not because, judging from the rather lukewarm attitude of the Foreign Secretary, he might not be able to produce much of an input into it.
This really is getting important now. We are only a year away from dropping out of all the complex machinery which makes the common foreign and security policy work. I have to say to my noble friend Lady Deech that her caricature of common foreign and security policy is bizarre. For example, the idea of a nuclear agreement with Iran originated in the European Union, and it was followed up, rather belatedly, by the United States. Therefore, I do not think that we should belittle such co-operation. In any case, the Prime Minister is firmly of the opinion that it matters and that we need to work very closely with the EU. I wonder whether it would not be better to say here and now—perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister replying to this debate could do so—that our co-operation in this area of common foreign and security policy is not subject to the rubric “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” and that it is, as we are trying to say but have been rather hesitant about saying, completely unconditional.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the phrase “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” came from President Tusk, not us?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
It was not only President Tusk; it was part of the agreed conclusions of the first part of the negotiations—that is, we subscribed to it too.
As that first stage did not cover common foreign and security policy, all I am suggesting is that, now we are moving into that field in the negotiations, we should make it clear that our proposals—including the proposal for a new security treaty—are not subject to “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” but will be put forward to the mutual benefit of all parties. That would make a huge difference, because there is a lot of misunderstanding and a certain amount of suspicion that we are approaching this in a spirit of transactionalism—that we are trying to trade off one part of the negotiations against another. That would be a mistake in the field of common foreign and security policy. If it is to be pursued after we have left the European Union, it can pursued on a basis of mutual benefit only and not by a transactional approach.
Therefore, I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate she can give a little more clarity on what the Government are seeking and that she can state in absolute terms that the unconditional nature of what we are pursuing here is our policy.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, which, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has just said, seek to maintain British membership of the EU’s Political and Security Committee, the EU’s common foreign and security policy, the EU Foreign Affairs Council and the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre.
First, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness to the Front Bench and to our debates. We have very high hopes of her and her response to this debate because she is not the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. We regard her as the more accommodating face of Her Majesty’s Government. We think that, while the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is not on the Front Bench at the moment, she has an opportunity to make all kinds of very sensible statements of government policy which can then go on the record and we can move on from there. This is a golden opportunity for her to do so in respect of foreign policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made a very powerful speech on why it is important that we remain thoroughly engaged in the security apparatus of the European Union and he spoke about the big dangers that face us as we leave. I do not think there is any point in my repeating those remarks or those of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I just want to make two comments.
The first relates to the only speech that the Prime Minister gave, on 25 April 2016, in the debate on the referendum, where she weighed the arguments for remaining in the European Union. What is so remarkable about that speech is how much emphasis—it was an almost exclusive emphasis—she placed on the security aspects of the European Union and the dangers to our security of leaving. Clearly, given her experience in the Home Office, she was particularly concerned about some of the Home Office dimensions of that, and we will cover those in a later group. However, she also raised the broader security issues.
If one looks at the words that she used in that speech, it is very clear that she regarded membership of the multilateral institutions of the EU, particularly in foreign policy and security co-operation, as being of huge importance to the Government and to this country. She said:
“If we were not members of the European Union, of course we would still have our relationship with America … But”—
these are the key words—
“that does not mean we would be as safe as if we remain”.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, we will be leaving all these institutions in one year, and I believe it is incumbent on the Government to give the House some sense of what their policy will be in respect of those institutions. That is hugely important.
My second point is to consider the course that we now appear to be set on. It is what has become known as “hard Brexit”, which is leaving not just the security institutions of the European Union but the economic institutions—the single market and the customs union. I am a novice to international security policy. I have spent most of the last 15 years trying to reform public services at home and, like many other noble Lords, I have had to get to grips with these issues. One of the most important and, for me, influential books that I have read while I have tried to understand what this might mean for the future of Britain in Europe and globally is by Professor Brendan Simms at the University of Cambridge. He has written a quite brilliant book called Britain’s Europe: A Thousand Years of Conflict and Cooperation, which charts our whole relationship with Europe during the last millennium.
Professor Simms makes a quite obvious point, the significance of which becomes greater and greater as we appear to be heading towards leaving not only the security but the economic institutions of the European Union. The basic but fundamental point he makes is that countries which are engaged in trade conflicts and trade wars find it that much harder to co-operate on security issues. To my mind, in terms of the security of the United Kingdom going forward, the most alarming development at the moment is that, as we appear to be in an ever more tense and potentially conflictual relationship with France and Germany in particular over the future of our trade policy, and if we are to start engaging in tariff wars and setting up rival customs arrangements and things of that kind which could lead to quite significant trade conflicts, that can only weaken our security co-operation with them over the medium to long term.
Those of us who are in favour of remaining in the European Union are often accused of carrying out what is called Project Fear, but I recommend to the Minister and to noble Lords the Prime Minister’s speech of April 2016. She draws a direct parallel between the instability of relations between European powers before 1914 and what could happen if we start to fracture those relations today. That came from her, not me. Therefore, what we look for from the Minister while she is able to make positive statements about Europe in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is some indication that she appreciates the need for very close co-operation with our European partners on trade and economic matters, not least because that will tend to promote close alignment in foreign and security policy.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, does the noble Lord not realise that those of us who advocate leaving believe in free trade, which has been a great source of peace, rather than conflict, throughout history? He belongs to the side that wants tariffs.
Lord Adonis
My understanding is that it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to put in jeopardy the free trade we currently enjoy in the European Union. If the Government were in favour of free trade, we would stay in the customs union and in the single market. These are straightforward, obvious propositions. The policy of the Government tends only towards reducing free trade with the single biggest set of trading partners that we have at the moment.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
How is the noble Lord just about the only person in this House who does not know that the Government have stated over and over and over again that they want a free trade agreement with the European Union?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the best free trade agreement to have with the European Union is the one that we are currently in. That is patently obvious. When you have an existing set of satisfactory arrangements, the idea that the policy for improving them is to undermine them is total nonsense.
I hope the noble Baroness will give us some assurance that she understands the significant security dimension that is at stake in our leaving the European Union and the importance of having close alignment on trade, not least so as not to weaken our collective security with our European friends and allies.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 12. The issues which it raises are of crucial importance to a post-Brexit UK, but they have only recently begun to achieve any prominence in the Westminster debate and have had very little visibility at all on the wider national stage.
EU Sub-Committee C of your Lordships’ House has recently concluded an inquiry into sanctions policy after Brexit and is currently conducting an inquiry into the UK’s future relationship with the European Union in the fields of security and defence. In both cases, the Government have expressed an intention to act in close concert with our European partners—the Government; not the movers of this amendment—but they have not so far explained how this is to be done.
There are some very clear difficulties. The EU’s policy regarding specific sanctions regimes and its common security and defence policy are agreed at ministerial level within the Foreign Affairs Council. However, the arguments through which final proposals are hammered out take place at lower levels, in the engine rooms of the EU. If one is not present in the engine rooms, one has no influence over the formulation of policy proposals. This means that if the UK wishes, post Brexit, to act in concert with the EU in particular sanctions matters, or if it wishes to participate in common security and defence missions—for both of which it has expressed some enthusiasm—it risks having to do so on the EU’s terms. It would have to do so having had no input to the formulation of policy, and with little or no input to subsequent strategic direction. This is not a position with which I, for one, would feel very comfortable.
The question, therefore, is: what arrangement can the UK reach with the EU that would allow it a suitable degree of influence in these matters? Why should the EU be interested in such an arrangement at all? Perhaps because in those areas in particular, the UK brings capabilities which, in scale and nature, are of an order that few, if any, other European countries possess. However, that does not alter the fact that a non-EU member is unlikely to be given the kind of locus in decision-making that is available to a member. The position of current non-members that align with the EU in these matters is not one that, in my view, would be appropriate for the UK. We need to argue for a separate, tailored arrangement.
Sanctions policy and common security and defence missions are, of course, offshoots of wider foreign policy. If we wish to have a close relationship with the EU in these specific areas, then we will need some mechanism for discussing and agreeing with it in advance the wider international issues and objectives involved. We need an architecture that brings the UK and the EU together to formulate foreign policy in pursuit of shared objectives, and that places UK personnel in those engine rooms of the Union where the specific proposals on individual issues are debated and evolve. We need to agree a modus vivendi for these people that protects the status of EU members while providing for outcomes that are in the best interests of the Union and ourselves. That is a very tall order, and all the more reason, then, for pursuing such an outcome much more vigorously and urgently than has been the case so far.
Amendment 12, and indeed several associated amendments, calls for such arrangements to be not just negotiated but approved by both Houses of Parliament before the provisions of the current Bill are implemented. I do not go so far: I do not believe that the amendments as set out should be agreed. However, I do believe that they provide welcome exposure to issues that are of crucial importance to this nation, that have been largely ignored for far too long and that should at last be accorded the priority they deserve. I hope that the Government will now act accordingly.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who speaks with great clarity and directness.
It may surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, when I say that I have some sympathy for her in putting forward the notion that the European Union has not really paid up sufficiently for its defence. One of the so-called advantages of President Trump’s arrival and his apparent dismissal of NATO has been to cause a much greater degree of realism. The old arguments about burden sharing now take a very practical effect, and NATO countries have agreed on a minimum of 2% of GDP. As far as I can see, all NATO countries are now moving, as far as they can and as quickly as they are able, towards reaching that level.
I support the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I have one advantage over him—as indeed does the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. We were both present at the Munich Security Conference and heard how the speech was delivered, as much as understanding the content. It was an interesting speech in this sense. The first half was exemplary. The Prime Minister extolled the virtues of the existing security arrangements in Europe and rightly pointed to her role in continuing to ensure that the United Kingdom remained a participant in the application of the European arrest warrant and an active member of Europol when, on the Back Benches of the other place while she was Home Secretary, quite a lot of people in her own party would have departed from both these positions without a backward thought.
Munich is regarded, perhaps over-grandly, as the Davos of defence, and there is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s speech got pretty substantial billing. That is why I and many others found the second half so disappointing, provoking as it did an American listener—whom I believe to have had Republican sympathies—to say, “Where’s the beef?”. The truth is that the Prime Minister had nothing of substance to say in addition to the paper that was published by the Government last September.
There was no hectoring from the Prime Minister, but there was certainly a degree of lecturing. In a sense, what she said can be summed up as: the security regime of the European Union is extremely good, but we are leaving it, we want you to help us replace it with a treaty, and, if you do not agree to what we want—and here is the lecturing to which I referred—you will bear the responsibility. That is hardly the way to win friends and influence people in a gathering of experts and people with enormous experience in the realms of security and defence.
There was one element of the Prime Minister’s speech that has not, so far, received sufficient consideration. She said that,
“when participating in EU agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice”.
I thought that the whole purpose of Brexit was to have nothing to do with the European Court of Justice. If that is not now the Government’s position, it might be argued that the door of the ECJ has been opened, if only slightly. Perhaps it was too Delphic a sentence to attach much significance to, but it has not been the subject of further explanation.
As has already been hinted at, the consequence of leaving is that the United Kingdom will become, in European Union terms, a third country. That is relevant to the issue of participation in Europol and the European arrest warrant. It raises a number of questions—some of which are being legally disputed—about whether or not the kind of arrangement the Government appear to wish to achieve would necessarily involve the role of the European Court of Justice. There are strong arguments on both sides, but the matter remains uncertain.
Before I move on to the question of defence, perhaps I may make one last point on security. Everything in these debates seems to end up around Ireland in some way or another. Ireland is a foreign policy issue because the treaty is an international treaty lodged with the United Nations—and it is also an issue to which we must have regard in considering the question of security. As I understand it, the Government are considering the creation of a virtual border based on electronic means. At the same time, they are telling us that cybercrime is on the rise and is one of the principal issues which may have an impact on our security. If people can get inside the computer system of the Pentagon, I doubt they will find it too difficult to get inside any electronic border that we may create between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
On defence, it is quite true—unassailable—that NATO is the bedrock of our defence. But it is also true that in NATO and the European Union there is a more considered determination to provide much more co-operation. The two institutions had their head offices at the same time in Brussels and for years they would not speak to each other. Now, at the very centre of the policies of NATO and the European Union is a determination that there should be a higher degree of co-operation.
There has been discussion about the common defence and security policy but, although it now becomes an important element in the consideration of these matters, no one has yet mentioned PESCO. This is not a junior form of a place where you can buy your groceries but—I have reservations about the language—Permanent Structured Cooperation. Essentially, it is the countries of the European Union concentrating on co-operation on defence matters so as to ensure that collectively they might make a more substantial contribution to NATO. We are not members of PESCO—recently formed—and if we leave the European Union we will cease to be present at meetings of EU Defence Ministers and Foreign Ministers. We will no longer be involved in the decision making of the common defence and security policy. As a third party, our participation in operations will be at the discretion of the other member states. I see that as a highly deficient alternative to what we presently enjoy.
The security and defence consequences of our departure, as has been pointed out, were never properly discussed—any more than the political consequences. But this evening we are concerned with security and defence and there needs to be clarity. If the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, had any responsibility for it, I am sure that we would have clarity. The reason there is no clarity is that no decisions have been made. That is why, when the Prime Minister at Munich said that this was an urgent matter and we must get on with it, it did not receive the kind of ready welcome she might have expected.
The amendment is essential if we are to cause—to force, if you like—the Government to come clean on what their proposals are: to go beyond the document published last September and to set them out in detail. It is a matter on which the European Union is anxious to have detail and I see no reason why it should not be public rather than private. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve and why it should be supported.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, of the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich—it is exactly right—but he forgot one thing: at least the Prime Minister did not set out to insult the conference as the Foreign Secretary had the year before. Things are getting a lot better.
I rise to support Amendments 12 and 185 and to say why I cannot support Amendment 166 and therefore Amendments 164 and 165. Amendment 166 states that we should remain in the Foreign Affairs Council after we have left the European Union. We have to be realistic—that is not possible. If we decide to leave the European Union, we will not have a seat in any of the councils of the European Union. That is a fact. We may be able to negotiate some kind of seat in the directing bodies of agencies; if we are operating alongside the European Union in, say, a defence deployment, we may be able to arrange some joint command structure for that particular operation, but the direction of common foreign, security and defence policies and PESCO will be set by the 27 and we will have no say in the decisions they take. This, I fear, is undeniable.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
Will the noble Lord concede that at least European Ministers after they have had their discussions and made their decisions will be sure to tell us afterwards what they had decided?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I suspect we will find out. To me personally, this is an extremely sad moment. When I was ambassador to the European Union I found that the things I was allowed to suggest as policy prescriptions were taken seriously in Brussels, partly because it was assumed that if the EU followed the British prescription, the British would ensure that the Americans came in behind it. When I was ambassador in Washington I found the same. Access to and influence on the President was a function partly of the perception that, on a foreign policy issue, the British could call the shots in Brussels.
I am glad that this discussion started with a tribute to Lord Hurd of Westwell, who was the exemplar of how to handle common foreign and security policy. I am glad too that it started also with a tribute to Lord Carrington. The original EPC was, in many ways, a British construct. CFSP as it emerged, with the strong support of the Healeys and the Callaghans, was Douglas Hurd’s construct. The European External Action Service was a British proposal. We punched more than our weight but we have to accept that when we leave the European Union, if we do, that is all gone and we should not pretend that we will have the same influence from outside. What should we do?
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
Can the noble Lord explain to us why it is not in the interests of our European partners—100% in their interests—to co-operate as we have always co-operated before?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am coming to that. I agree entirely that co-operation is in everyone’s interests. This is one of the areas of negotiation where we are not talking about a zero-sum game; rather, we are talking about a common interest, so I agree with the noble Lord. The point I am making is that we are in the next room. We are not in the room where the decisions are taken. We need an offer and an architecture for the next room. We need to come forward very soon and say, “We are prepared to consult on everything in the area of the common foreign and security policy. We are prepared to consult before every great debate at the United Nations. We would like to consult about every conflict area where Europe should have a view and possibly a presence. We would like to go on contributing our analysis and our intelligence. We would like you, o European Union, to build an annex to the Council—the room next door where we, who we hope will be your closest partner in co-operation on foreign policy, will be consulted by you and will consult you”.
A moment ago the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made the point that the timing is very important. If we leave the European Union in March 2019, we will leave the Council and there will be no such structure in existence. I should think that something will be invented in the end, but there will be a period of hiatus when we will do the best we can. It would be much better if the United Kingdom were now to put forward an offer and an architecture. It would be much better if there had been a third section to the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich in which she had said, “This is how we envisage it working”. I do not see, particularly on the common foreign and security policy, why we should leave it to the European Commission. There is no great expertise on this in the Commission. It seems that it would have been better on a number of the dossiers in this negotiation if we had actually decided to play at home rather than play on their turf. It would have been better if on every issue we had not waited for the other side to make a proposal.
This is the locus classicus. This is the area of our greatest reputation in Europe. We invented the existing structures in this area, which we are now going to walk away from. This is the area par excellence where the other countries would like to co-operate with us. Why do we not put forward a proposal now? That is why I can support very happily Amendments 12 and 185, but I fear that there is no point in pretending that we can remain, on particular issues, a member of the club. We will have left the club, so the best we can do is try to be its closest partner on the common foreign and security policy.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, following on from what my noble friend has just said, I should like to ask a favour of the Minister. I am not going to make a speech because I had my chance at Second Reading. My request is that she will respond to the question of international development. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned it, but it was not in his amendment. However, it is very connected. I am thinking in particular of Kosovo at the moment as an example of the bridge between security, defence and international development. It is still going on. At this moment the Prime Minister of Kosovo is in the House of Commons seeking our support in the context of the European Union, of which we are still a member. This is something that is happening now. I hope that the Minister can respond on that subject and I will probably table an amendment at the next stage.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, we will come to the issue of children’s rights later in the Bill: the right to education, the right to contact with both parents and the right to rehabilitation from abuse and torture. While listening to the debate I recalled my mother’s experience of losing her younger brother when he was one or two years of age. They were in an air raid shelter that was cold and wet. He contracted, I think, meningitis. I was also thinking of the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, which is a centre of excellence for helping children and young people. Originally it was known as the Hampstead War Nurseries. It was set up by Anna Freud during the Second World War to care for children dealing with the trauma of bereavement as a result of losing their parents in war. I hardly need to say to your Lordships that this is a very important matter. We need only to look at what is happening to children in Syria, so we must take the most constructive and proactive course possible.
We can keep this country safe, but other countries rely on our strength to keep them safe and secure, and help their children to lead stable and secure lives. I am sure that the Minister will want to make a constructive response to this debate and I hope that she will be as sympathetic as possible to the concerns raised.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief because most of the points have been made. I am grateful to the noble Lords who tabled this amendment and have thus ensured that this important issue is being discussed today. As has been said, the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich did rehearse the case that,
“our security at home is best advanced through global cooperation, working with institutions that support that, including the EU”.
We also had a welcome reminder from my noble friend Lord Adonis of the Prime Minister’s earlier, pre-referendum speech on the same issue. In Munich, she went on to outline her desire for an ambitious post-Brexit EU security relationship, talking about a security treaty as part of the “deep and special partnership” with the EU that she wants to see. However, as we have heard from most speakers in this debate, there was a curious lack of detail, or “beef”, in what she said.
As with last week’s amendments, these issues are integral to how we leave the European Union and indeed to the vote which will take place in this House in due course over the withdrawal deal, with its framework for our future relationship with the EU. As has also been mentioned, there is clearly a relationship between trade and security, as my noble friend Lord Adonis reminded us. I hope, therefore, that when the Minister answers the various points of the debate, she will do so in the spirit of these being an integral part of what this Bill is looking at, which is the method by which we leave the European Union. Given that our role in defence is most probably the main defence power in the EU and the only one already hitting the 2% target, our departure will have a significant impact on the defence and foreign policies of Europe and will therefore affect our other relationships with it.
Indeed, we should be mindful that, while the UK possesses full-spectrum military capability—although a little stretched, as my noble friend Lord Judd reminded us, and no doubt my noble friend Lord West would if he was in his place—and an extensive diplomatic reach across the globe, we should note that our hard and soft power has been greatly enhanced by our membership of the EU. That is why, as we have heard, Mr Callaghan as he was then focused on this and why the last Labour Government helped to launch the common foreign and security policy and the common security and defence policy. So while the Government have rightly indicated that they will seek to continue our participation in, for example, EU missions and interacting with relevant EU bodies, what we need is for the Minister to outline how the Government envisage this happening and on what terms—a point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. This is needed with a degree of urgency since, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, there simply cannot be an interregnum or hiatus, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, before something is put in place. We have a year and a month to go.
I will take a moment to pose a different question to the Minister. Given the demands at the weekend by Spain’s Foreign Minister for joint management of Gibraltar’s airport after Brexit, could she confirm that at every step of the way the Government of Gibraltar are being informed and consulted on the Government’s evolving position on these and other issues, and that nothing will be agreed to jeopardise Gibraltar’s future—mindful, of course, of its worries arising from paragraph 24 of the EU’s negotiating mandate?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank you all very much indeed for contributing to a genuinely extremely interesting and useful debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for his very warm words of welcome. I fear that it is inappropriate to say this to someone bearing the name Adonis, but I fear I may be doomed to disappoint him. I will try to deal as best I can with the various points that have been raised.
The Government share with this House the objective of building a close and co-operative relationship with the EU on issues relating to defence and security, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, or to foreign affairs, security and intelligence, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. These are indeed vital matters. The continued security of Europe and of our citizens is paramount to us. It would just not be in our interests to see that co-operation diminish.
The purpose of the Bill is, I suppose, mechanical and rather tedious, but it is a mechanism to try to ensure that the UK statute book continues to function after we leave the EU and that it is not riddled with gaps and holes. That is what this Bill is all about. Amendment 12, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is about the future relationship with the EU and securing it. That is vital—nobody disputes that—but it is of course inevitably, and I am sorry to use the platitude, subject to the current negotiations. Given that the Government have already committed to providing Parliament with a meaningful vote on any final deal, I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that perhaps this Bill is not the appropriate forum to raise these concerns. I still think that the debate is an appropriate forum in which to articulate them.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Could the noble Baroness reassure me that there is a negotiation going on on the future relationship between the UK when it has left and the common foreign and security policy of the EU? Is there a negotiation going on? I have the impression that there is not. I was trying to say that we should start one by making a proposal now.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord will understand that I am a very lowly mortal and that I am not privy to the detail of the negotiations. What is clear from what the Prime Minister has said is—just as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, very helpfully identified—how extremely important these issues are to the Prime Minister. I am absolutely certain that, within the holistic forum of the negotiations, these matters are certainly being discussed and looked at.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The noble Baroness has said, and it keeps being implied, that these are not issues for this Bill. I am sure that she knows the Bill far better than I, having read it more often, but I remind her that on page 7, Clause 9(1) says that the use of regulations is,
“subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union”.
We know that, under Article 50, those final terms of withdrawal have to include the framework for our future relationship, which is almost bound to affect and comment on issues such as this. Although on many occasions Ministers may not want to answer, there is reference in the Bill to the withdrawal deal and surely it is appropriate for us to bring to the Government anything that might be in that.
Baroness Goldie
Yes. My position that I advance to the noble Baroness—I was just going to come to this in my speech—is that there will be a subsequent opportunity for Parliament to look closely at whatever the withdrawal agreement is and its implementation. In addition, the Government have committed already to providing Parliament a vote on the final deal. Parliament will be given the opportunity to scrutinise the future relationship between the UK and the EU. That is why I submit that the Bill before us is essentially of a mechanical nature. That is what it is: it is trying to ensure, as we leave the EU, that we make sense of transferring the necessary laws, enactments and regulations, whatever they may be, into the statute book of the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness is quite correct that Parliament should have that right to scrutiny, of understanding what the agreement is and questioning how the implementation will take place; I am pointing out that these opportunities will be there. Parliament will not be denied that opportunity.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
Will the noble Baroness give way? I shall be very quick.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I would be happy to give way later, but I am quite anxious to make progress. Important points have been raised. I want to try to keep the theme running as to how I will respond to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich. She gave a very important speech because she detailed further how the UK envisages future collaboration with the EU on internal and external security. She reiterated our unconditional commitment to European security. I turn to a very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I say without equivocation that we remain absolutely committed to ensuring European security and developing this deep and special partnership. Our desire for a close working relationship on foreign and security policy is not conditional on other areas of the negotiations. I hope that that reassures the noble Lords.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
We have, effectively, a willing buyer and a willing seller when it comes to security and defence. Why not take the opportunity of concluding that bargain? It would be much easier to do than, for example, the trade agreements that we hope to deal with in the future.
Baroness Goldie
This is like the fair in Paisley: things coming from one side, interventions coming from the other side and voices from behind me. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the analogy. It is the case that explorations are taking place, if you like, between a buyer and a seller—that is what a negotiation is—but these are sensitive negotiations. I am trying to make clear in the course of my speech—perhaps if I can make a little progress it might become more apparent—just how committed the Government are to addressing the issues raised by your Lordships. They are issues of real concern and are certainly of vital importance. That is because our shared values—those values between the United Kingdom and the EU—are manifest and universally acknowledged. I hope that universal acknowledgement understands that we do not need the text of the Bill to explain to everyone that it is there. I hope that everything that we have done as a member of the EU and all that we are doing in the conduct of the negotiations, particularly as made clear by the Prime Minister’s remarks, will reassure all just how serious we are about these matters.
We have proposed a bold new approach to security co-operation with the EU, including a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation, and for future co-operation on foreign and security policy. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that, as we leave the EU, of course our consultation on the CFSP will change, as it inevitably has to do. With considerable justification, many of your Lordships—the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Judd, Lord Hannay and Lord Campbell, my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—were anxious to get some idea of what the post-Brexit position would look like in relation to these issues of critical importance.
I say by way of preface to all of this that, as a Government Whip for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and for Defence, I have regularly found myself at this Dispatch Box outlining positions on foreign affairs and defence which are UK derived. They are positions that we have reached by ourselves and as a consequence of our NATO membership—which is very important, as acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—as part of our P5 position on the United Nations Security Council or as a consequence of discussions with our global allies. We do that now on our own account. I make that point to explain that, while we value the relationship that we have had with the various agencies in the EU, there is another territory out there that is also extremely important to the future security not just of this country and the EU but of our global partners.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
It is crucial that we understand that the Prime Minister proposed in Munich a treaty for what was referred to as “internal security”, which is internal security within the European Union. It would be a treaty which had plenty of detail and clearly reflected co-operation with the existing institutions of the European Union—that is where we get into discussion about the European Court of Justice. But for external security, there would be co-operation. Why this difference? Why a treaty for internal security, and why just co-operation on global security, with a clear indication that we would leave the European Union’s foreign policy on the date of Brexit?
Baroness Goldie
There seems to be an inescapable distinction between these two positions. In relation to the internal security of the EU, there can be a meaningful discussion about what we can do to assist and support that, but when it comes to external security and just as I have outlined, there is a multiplicity of other positions, agencies, alliances, relationships and partnerships which govern what we do. I can see that what would be appropriate to deal with one scenario might not be appropriate to deal with another, but I say that without prejudice to whatever the negotiations are currently covering. I am not privy to the detail of the negotiations, but there seems already to be evidence that constructive dialogue is taking place. From what we have heard from the Prime Minister and her absolute and unqualified commitment to security and to trying to embark on as close and harmonious a relationship as we can get with the EU post Brexit, there is no doubt about her conviction on these matters.
We have to work as closely as we can with the EU post Brexit. The Prime Minister has made that crystal clear and is right to do so. The UK is not without influence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, noted, it enjoys a status in relation to these matters—I refer again to our P5 position on the United Nations Security Council. One area in which people have been sceptical is in their asking why the UK should be treated differently from other third-country partners as we try to negotiate new arrangements with the EU. Taskforce 50 noted in its presentation on external security that the EU would lose one of its two permanent members of the Security Council when the UK leaves. Taskforce 50 recognises that this could merit a specific dialogue and consultation mechanism with the UK.
Perhaps I may return to a very legitimate question posed by a number of your Lordships: what is all this going to look like and is there any sort of shape to it?
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
The Minister has just mentioned the matter of our withdrawing from the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and that our withdrawing from the European Union will mean that there will be only one EU permanent member. Will that not be a wonderful day for France, which will be able to speak in the councils of the United Nations as representing the EU as a whole, and will no doubt do so?
Baroness Goldie
I am sorry, I think that I may have been misunderstood. I did not talk about the United Kingdom withdrawing from being a P5 member of the United Nations Security Council. I said that when we withdraw from the EU, the EU will be left with only one member, which is France. The position of the UK in that respect is powerful and influential, and I am pointing out that Taskforce 50 thought that it could certainly merit a specific dialogue and consultation mechanism with the UK.
It is pretty clear, particularly when there are many in this Chamber much more knowledgeable than I am about these important and technical matters, that to underpin our future co-operation we will seek regular institutional engagements, including specific arrangements on secondments and information sharing—that would seem to be at the heart of constructing any relationship. The nature of the threats that we face mean that we should seek a framework that could be scaled up in times of crisis. One needs a relationship which can be tested against need if situations arise when the partnership, agreement or whatever it is to be has to swing into action.
The United Kingdom intelligence community already works closely with other members of the EU. The heads of the German BND, the French DGSE and the UK secret intelligence services issued a joint statement at the Munich security conference committing to close co-operation and stating that cross-border information sharing must be taken forward on themes such as international terrorism, illegal migration and proliferation of cyberattacks after the UK leaves the EU. We want to do all that. I am trying to explain to your Lordships that there is straw with which to make my bricks. I am not just clutching it out of the air; I am trying to indicate that there are substantive matters that can be the foundation for something very firm and enduring.
Perhaps I may try to deal with one or two particular points raised. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised the important matter of sanctions. We have just passed a sanctions Bill which will provide the UK with the powers to implement our own independent sanctions regime, but we would delay these powers coming into force if we could agree arrangements with the EU concerning sanctions co-operation during the implementation period. On sanctions, as with co-operation on foreign and security policy more generally, we seek to consult and develop a co-ordinated approach before decisions are made. To enable such co-operation, we will need consultation mechanisms; for example, regular sanctions dialogues. I was very struck by the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who raised real and poignant issues. Nobody would disagree with that, which underlines why we need close co-operation on these vital issues.
On Amendments 164 and 166 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, the Political and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Council are of course bodies of the EU. They are attended by member states and are intended for the development of the EU’s policy.
We are leaving the European Union and are not seeking to participate in these meetings on the same basis as EU members. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, identified these problems. But, given our historic ties and shared values, we are likely to continue sharing the same goals and we will therefore want to co-operate closely on a common foreign policy. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said very cogently that we are not talking about a zero-sum game. It was racy language for the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but I totally agree with him. We are not talking about a zero-sum game: well established and good relationships already exist which will not just evaporate. We will seek to bind these and tie them in to our new post-Brexit relationship. We want to establish an enhanced partnership with the EU that reflects the unique position of the UK. This will include close consultation in a variety of fora. Attending the Political and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Council, however, is not the only means by which we can achieve that.
Amendment 165 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. This amendment seeks to bind the UK—“bind” is the important word—to follow the EU’s foreign policy objectives regardless of our own views. This would limit the UK’s ability to respond independently to developments in the world post Brexit, and such a restriction would be profoundly undesirable. Of course, on many foreign policy issues the UK and EU will continue to share the same goals and will want to co-operate closely, whether that is by continuing to support the Middle East peace process or by tackling the threat of piracy off the Horn of Africa—but, again, I do not think we need texts and primary legislation to underline what are already our shared values and beliefs.
Amendment 185 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and refers to the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre. I reiterate the Government’s unconditional commitment to European security. In the exit negotiations we will work closely to ensure that the UK and EU continue to co-operate closely, including through the sharing of information, to safeguard our shared values and to combat common threats, including threats of terrorism, organised criminal groups and hostile state actors. The precise modalities and arrangements to enable this partnership will be decided in the negotiations. I do not expect this to satisfy the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but I hope that it will provide them with sufficient reassurance of the Government’s commitment to continue close co-operation with the EU and its agencies and that, in these circumstances, they will see fit not to press their amendments.
I will say in conclusion—I reiterate it because the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised the point—that the Government have been clear that the UK remains unconditionally committed to European security. In the exit negotiations we will work to ensure that the UK and EU continue to co-operate closely to safeguard our shared values and to combat common threats, including terrorism. A partnership where we can build on the existing structures and arrangements—because it is not a zero-sum game—to improve processes will enable us to go further to respond to the reality of these. I hope that this will provide your Lordships with sufficient reassurance of the Government’s commitment to continue close co-operation with the EU and its agencies.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say to her that she will have responded to this debate admirably if she can think of a way of conveying to the Foreign Secretary—it might be relatively easy since he is here—that there are at least some in this House who believe that the right way of advancing the dossier of co-operation with the EU that we have left on a common foreign and security policy would be for us to put forward a draft treaty now—not waiting for the other side, not waiting for the Commission, the expertise of which is not on foreign policy, but putting forward a treaty drafted by the Foreign Secretary, with all his detailed, forensic skills.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, of course I shall withdraw the amendment, but I shall make a couple of comments. It is clear that we will have to return to this at the next stage if the Government do not provide any more detail. First, on the role of the Lords in considering Bills such as this, the noble Baroness said—as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said on a couple of occasions—that this is a largely mechanical Bill. Well, it is a mechanical Bill that gives very wide discretion to the Government to design our future relationship with our most important security, political and economic partners. So a House that concerns itself not with whether the principle of the Bill is correct but with the detail is entirely in accord with its role to ask for detail on what that discretion will be used for.
It would be easier to accept that this is a mechanical Bill and not to raise these difficult questions one after another if we had some confidence that the Government actually know what they want in these areas. Part of our problem is that many of us have no such confidence. I do not think that the Foreign Secretary has a clue about what he wants by way of a future relationship with Europe: I doubt whether he has really thought about it for more than three or four minutes. He is too busy thinking about the next anecdote he is going to tell or the next joke he is going to make. His speech last week was a disgrace for a Foreign Secretary: the Prime Minister’s was of an entirely different quality. For a Conservative Party that has always prided itself on its commitment to a strong foreign policy, it must be a real embarrassment that we still have someone in place who is incapable of giving a serious speech on foreign policy. So this House is fulfilling its proper role in asking for detail on the implications of the Bill.
Secondly, I take up what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said: the engine room is important.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I think it is against the rules and the spirit of this Chamber to criticise a Member of another place by name. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to moderate his comments accordingly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I apologise for being perhaps a little stronger than I should have been in this respect. On the engine room—I wanted to return to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this—much of the business of multilateral organisations, be it NATO or the EU, is done in working groups and committees. The common foreign and security policy structure has some 40 working groups and committees, including a military committee that has been chaired by a British officer. If we are not in any of those working groups, we will miss out on formulating policy.
There are other details that matter a great deal. I remember the noble Earl, Lord Howe, saying on one occasion, when some of us were following the noble Lord, Lord West, and asking, “Where are you going to find the frigates to make up the carrier groups that we need?” The noble Earl said, if I remember correctly, “They do not necessarily have to be British frigates”. I took him as meaning that they might be Dutch, French, Belgian or whatever. Well, that also needs a certain structure, with certain training mechanisms and certain multilateral commands.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord may not know, but, as I have quoted, we have been involved in some 15 EU operations, some of which have been naval. Had he visited Operation Atalanta at Northwood, he would have known that that is an entirely naval operation, commanded by the British with ships from a number of different nations. Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean has also involved British frigates working with others on the whole question of migration. So some operations are NATO, some are the EU.
I have said quite enough. Of course I am going to withdraw, but we, along with many others, do not know enough about this area to be able to give the confidence to the Government that we want—that is the whole problem with this “mechanical Bill”. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament procedures agreed with the EU for continued UK participation in measures to promote internal security, police cooperation and counter-terrorism and these procedures have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich 10 days ago, which was cited in the previous debate, was encouraging as far as it went. The Prime Minister spoke of wanting to participate in Europol, the Schengen Information System, the European arrest warrant and the European investigation order, which is a sort of European arrest warrant for evidence. But aspiration is not enough. Cross-border co-operation on law enforcement is premised on an assumption that all member states share similar standards of fundamental rights protection. Mutual recognition is rooted in mutual trust. I am afraid that successive British Governments have not really understood this sufficiently and have been more or less reluctant to sign up to the protective measures alongside the measures on police powers.
It is really strange that the UK has had such an ambivalent relationship with EU justice and home affairs over the past 20 years because it is possible to say, without being arrogant, that our record on the rule of law and the quality of our lawyers, judges and police stand comparison with any other in Europe and should have put us at the centre of EU developments in civil as well as criminal justice. But successive Governments have insisted on opt-outs and optional rather than full-hearted participation. That has not stopped the merits and value of our weight and experience and our personnel in justice and home affairs being recognised. We have the director of Europol—I think he has been there for the best part of 10 years—Rob Wainwright, who is on the brink of retiring. Of course, the European Commissioner for Security, Sir Julian King, is British. Two former presidents of Eurojust are British. That is the body of prosecutors which ensures that cross-border investigations and prosecutions are carried out smoothly. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was president of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary—the network of judges—which supports and encourages an independent and qualified judiciary.
You cannot do cross-border co-operation unilaterally. It has to be a reciprocal arrangement based on legal agreements which are enforceable in respecting individual rights as well as the rights of national authorities. There are two foundations of mutual trust within the EU: first, the possibility of recourse to the European Court of Justice to ensure a level playing field in the application of EU law; and, secondly, the rights and principles in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right to protection of personal data being of particular relevance in this context.
On the resolution of legal disagreements, in her Munich speech the Prime Minister proposed two principles: first, respect for the sovereignty of the UK’s legal order; and, secondly, respect for the remit of the European Court of Justice, at least when participating in EU agencies. I think there is a lot of head-scratching about how those two principles are going to be reconciled. I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to explain to me precisely how that is going to work. Can he also flesh out what a security treaty would look like in incorporating what the Prime Minister called a mechanism for,
“independent dispute resolution … in which both sides can have the necessary confidence”?
How will the full exchange of data be secured under the auspices of such a treaty? About three years ago Denmark voted to leave Europol. Since then, it has negotiated very limited access to data in Europol—and it is a full member of the EU, the Schengen area, the European Court of Justice and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. What makes the Government think we will get better access to Europol than Denmark? We might well get observer status but we will have no vote on the work programme or the direction of Europol’s work.
We will discuss the Charter of Fundamental Rights fully later but it is highly relevant to the exchange of data so I must mention it now. The relevance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is why the trade body of the British tech industry, techUK, has urged the retention of the charter in domestic law. It is interested mainly in the commercial exchange of data for the digital economy but the same applies to the exchange of personal data for the purposes of law enforcement. The tech sector is very well aware of the long-running problems over transatlantic data transfers after the Snowden revelations in 2013, leading to years of political wrangling and litigation, including the ECJ blocking the so-called safe harbour agreement before the privacy shield was agreed—and there had to be changes in US data protection law to achieve that.
Whether or not the UK seeks a formal adequacy decision in the context of our future trade and security relationship, we can be sure that there will be a wide and deep assessment of data protection in this country, not least by the European Parliament, and the possible invalidation by the ECJ of any agreement which fails fully to adhere to EU standards. It seems ill judged for the Government to prejudice that trade and security relationship with the EU by jettisoning the charter. The fact that they insisted on weakening the privacy protection for immigration data in the Data Protection Bill may also turn out to be unwise.
The Prime Minister wanted continued participation in the European arrest warrant and the European investigation order. The extradition agreement with Norway and Iceland took 13 years to negotiate, is still not in force three years after agreement, and does not include surrender of own nationals. How do the Government propose to do better than Norway and Iceland? The 1957 Council of Europe convention would be a step backwards in extradition practice and in any case would require not only the UK but individual European countries to change their legislation. What prospect is there of them doing that?
On the European arrest warrant, the Government will of course be aware that the Irish courts have refused the extradition of a person to the UK and have referred the case to the Luxembourg court because they are afraid that if they return someone to the UK and they are in detention beyond March next year, they will not get the protection of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. So it is already affecting extradition co-operation. The European investigation order—the other measure the Prime Minister mentioned—has been implemented in UK law, as I have had cause to raise with the Government, by substituting reference to the charter with a reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, which of course is not an EU measure. That seems a rather petty thing to do and, again, does not seem very sensible if it is a flagship measure mentioned by the Prime Minister but it has not been properly implemented in UK law.
To conclude, can the Government tell us, given their limited acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction and their rejection of the charter, exactly what terms—and under what structures, as was just mentioned—they expect to get in a security treaty, and will they submit a draft for our enlightenment before too long? I beg to move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to the noble Baroness’s amendment for two reasons. The second was that I was encouraged by what the Prime Minister said in Munich and I very much hope that we are going to have the closest possible co-operation for all our security. But the first reason that I put my name on the amendment was that I had the honour, until the unfortunate general election of last year, of serving on the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee of this House. After the general election I was summarily dismissed because I had not voted with the Government during our debates on the triggering Bill last spring. But there we are: it did not shut me up and certainly will not shut me up tonight because we took evidence from Rob Wainwright, the head of Interpol.
On that committee, I used to sit next to Lord Condon. I am very sorry that he has retired from your Lordships’ House because he made an extremely important contribution, based on vast knowledge. I was impressed by his pride in what Rob Wainwright had achieved as a Brit leading that extremely important organisation. I was impressed, too, by the searching questions that Lord Condon asked of not only Rob Wainwright but a number of other expert witnesses who came before us. The conclusion that one had to come to after those various evidence sessions was that the measure of success of our negotiations would be determined by how close we had come to replicating what already existed.
There is no point in rehearsing all my misgivings about where we are, because we are where we are. But I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can reassure the Committee that the Prime Minister, following her Munich speech, really is committed to coming to close arrangements with our European friends and neighbours to ensure that the measure of security which we enjoy—and which the people of this country enjoy—will not be damaged by an imperfect relationship with Interpol. I would like to see a proper membership of Interpol and, frankly, I am not persuaded that it could not happen. I hope it will because what matters more than anything else to the people of our country, almost a year away from the terrorist outrage which hit us here in Westminster last March, is that they feel secure. That feeling of security is encouraged if they know that there is the closest possible co-operation and exchange of information with our European friends and neighbours. One other thing that came out during our evidence sessions was the very real importance of the European arrest warrant. I hope that in building upon what the Prime Minister said in Munich, we can ensure that there is again a similar arrangement after we leave the European Union.
Those were the reasons why put I my name to the amendment and I am glad to support it. I do not want to sound offensive in any way because I have a high regard for my noble friend, who has a very difficult job to do, but I hope we will have a reply to this debate of real substance, in view of what the Prime Minister said in Munich a couple of weeks ago.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, perhaps I might carry on after the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because I too served on your Lordships’ Home Affairs Sub-Committee. I chaired it some years ago, when we were going through what could be described as a dry run for our debate tonight. That dry run was on protocol 36, the opting out and then opting back in; the current Prime Minister played a notably positive role in that, particularly so far as the European arrest warrant was concerned.
The first point, which cannot be made too often and which I hope the Minister will recognise, is that in this area of EU policy there is no safety net. It is not like trade, where the WTO rules are, I would argue, inadequate but nevertheless are there as a safety net if all else fails. There is no safety net for justice and home affairs. If we do not make watertight arrangements by 29 March next year, we will be walking on thin air. On this, I would like to ask a specific question: are the Government confident that the arrangements for a standstill transition or implementation—whatever they like to call the period that immediately follows 29 March 2019—will be applicable to these justice and home affairs matters when we are a third country? It would be good to have that answered.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, there cannot be anyone in this House who does not agree that the security of this country is vital and that collaboration in fighting crime is really important. We have to remember that international cross-border crime is one of the real challenges that we face. It has been made easier because of developments in recent times, such as the electronic transfer of money, the ease of travel and the whole business of communicating by cell phones, email and the like. Just as that makes it possible for us to trade, it makes it much more possible for illicit trades to take place, too, so international cross-border crime is something that we really have to contend with in a way that was not the case 50 years ago.
Countering cross-border serious crime, whether it is terrorism, the transportation of drugs, the importation of firearms or all manner of illicit products or trading in human beings, involves incredibly important collaboration and co-operation, so like other noble Lords I welcome the fact that the right noises are being made about future co-operation in policing and security matters, particularly because of the real complexity of this stuff. I was with a group of recently retired senior counterterrorism police officers and someone who was about to retire last Thursday talked about the invaluable nature of these collaborations and the ways in which the European arrest warrant, Eurojust and the things on the list that was read out by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, are so vital in countering this really serious level of crime. If you can penetrate the dark web, it shows just how active this criminality is.
I strongly support Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and other noble Lords, but it raises an issue. The issue is that, if we are going to use something like the European arrest warrant, it involves something different from the need for arbitration or for some supranational tribunal to deal with trading disputes, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said. This is of a different order. When we are dealing with something like the European arrest warrant, we are talking about the liberty of the subject. We are talking about people being arrested, kept in custody and transported from one place to another. The rights of the individual there are so significant that we have to have a court with highly trained judges at the apex of any legal system because people resist the possibility of being transferred for criminal trials to proceed.
I want to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said about the old days. It would be a frequent occurrence that attempts would be made to extradite people and it took years. People were able to resist extradition for years. I see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his place. Once, many years ago, he led me in a case that involved lengthy extraditions and had gone on for years. The arrival of the arrest warrant put paid to that. The difference it has made has been considerable. The UK has extradited 1,000 people to other parts of Europe to be prosecuted for serious crimes and has received some 200 individuals from other places for serious crimes. I urge the Committee to think through the consequences of that. We need to have a court at the apex of this, and the court that is sought by the rest of Europe is the European Court of Justice, which already exists and knows and understands the nature of these processes. What do we do? Do we create some new court which has all the same powers and just give it a different name in order to appease those who do not like the European Court of Justice, or do we recognise that for this area there has to be the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?
A number of amendments in this group are tabled in my name, and I want to refer the Committee to them. Amendment 99 relates to the protection of “protected persons”. This may be something that noble Lords are not really aware of, but we adopted the European protection order directive in 2014. This relates to difficulties which are faced mainly, but not exclusively, by women who are stalked or victimised, often by former partners, and who go to live in other parts of Europe. Across Europe we have developed victim protection orders which involve mutual recognition so that, if someone stalks someone to somewhere else but we have created a protection order in the UK, it can be immediately made effective in another country where someone has pursued the person who is the obsession at the end of their malign intent. Such victim orders are used not just in relation to domestic violence and the stalking that happens in relationships but in relation to other forms of stalking, for example, in witness protection issues or in trafficking. It is an area in which I have particular experience, and these orders are going to be vital in providing protection for people in different jurisdictions. I really hope that, in seeking to create the right kind of regime for us to operate across Europe in relation to these criminal matters, we also protect the victim protection order regime—the European protection order regulations—as well.
The other matter on which I have put forward an amendment, in which I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lord Judd, relates to justice and home affairs measures. I know it is the Government’s objective that some of these processes continue after departure. We are most concerned that there is a serious understanding of what mutual recognition means. There is some concern being expressed in other parts of Europe that we do not use the terms mutual recognition and harmonisation in quite the way that is intended when it comes to this collaboration on criminal and civil matters. I have spoken about this before in the House. It is about the fact that it is not enough to introduce European law into the UK, as some of these regulations require reciprocity of a very deep kind. It means that we will respect orders made in other countries and that they will respect orders that we have made here.
Think of the difference that it makes to a woman whose family are in Germany and who takes her children there to visit them, but who after a divorce is being harassed and stalked by her previous husband. She can get an order in her local court and know that when she goes to visit her family in Germany, the order will operate there too if she is pursued by her former—abusive and violent—partner. We know that this also happens in relation to matters such as access to children, where people can get maintenance orders in the local court: you can go down to the court in Bromley, get your order and it will be made effective in another country in Europe. It is so important that people do not have to instruct lawyers in other places, when they could ill afford to do so and thereby secure justice in the circumstances they find themselves in.
The mutuality there is of a very deep kind. Just introducing European law into our system and legislating for it will not be enough. What we really require is something that creates a regime that continues what has been established with great care over very many years.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 209, which is in my name, follows directly from the remarks of my noble friend Lady Kennedy, so I thank my noble friend Lord Adonis for allowing me to slightly skip the order.
The amendment echoes the concerns of others, notably the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy about the UK’s access to and participation in Eurojust, Europol, ECRIS and the European arrest warrant. This also includes the database of the Schengen Information System II and the European protection order—I think we must have covered them all between us. I want to look at this from the perspective of child protection. This amendment has implications for a huge area that includes child trafficking, child abduction, forced migration, sexual exploitation, criminal proceedings, online abuse and missing children—a long list of concerns, also mentioned by my noble friend and the noble Lord.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, one of the themes that has come through in the debates on many of the amendments so far is that the Government are enthusiastic about where we are, keen on continuing the links and determined that we shall not in any way fall out from those, but unwilling to commit themselves to the obvious solutions. We have heard in this debate tonight an exact repetition of what we have had before.
In other words, some of us are saying that these things were achieved with great difficulty. The European arrest warrant caused enormous argument and could be a really dangerous thing if it were not properly protected by the European Court of Justice. Like everyone else, when I became a Member of your Lordships’ House I was asked what subjects I was particularly going to speak on. The first was the environment, the second was Europe and the third was human rights. Therefore, when the legislation that we are now part of was going through in its various forms, I was very concerned that it was properly protected. However, I was very aware, as is the House, that crime does not know any borders, particularly the type of crime that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, was talking about.
We need the protection that the warrant gives. When we were kids and we read stories of derring-do, we all knew that the first thing that people would try to do was to get across the channel because then they would be out of the reach of British law, and indeed of the law in many ways. I believe strongly that first of all we have to recognise that what we have we did not get easily and did not arrive simply. To suggest that somehow or other we can produce a different system and call it something else, because that would be convenient to the people who are ill informed enough to want to leave the EU, seems extremely dangerous. We should recognise that this took a lot of doing.
The second point, which has been made very interestingly, is about the nature of mutual recognition. Very often we are divided by not understanding the words that we use. There is an attitude in Britain that suggests that we get it right and other people do not, and therefore they had better do it our way because we know best. That has been our besetting sin throughout the period of our membership of the EU and, if we leave, we will get even worse at it. In other words, we are very keen to teach other people but not frightfully good at learning from them. One of the things that we have learned—I think by accident; certainly not by design—in having to co-operate on these issues is that we have understood much more clearly the problems, difficulties and solutions that others have had in our European home. We have to recognise that understanding mutual recognition is not easy, and the idea that we can suddenly create a different mechanism for doing it is very far-fetched.
On my third point, I have great admiration for the Prime Minister. I do not understand how every morning she wakes up and thinks, “God, I’ve got another day of this”, and deals with some of the people that she has to deal with—I will not list them but we all know which ones I mean. However, it is not good enough to have good intentions and show generalised support. My noble friend who is answering for the Government has given us a great deal of good intentions and noble views but no actual support for real policies and actual determinations. This is not something that we can pass off by merely having good intentions, because it is very hard and we have to be tough about it. We have to say to our friends, “We actually want, and will have, exactly what we have today on these matters because there is no alternative that is better and there is no way that we are going to invent one”, because crime will not wait.
This is a rather important amendment. All it says is that the Government have to move from intentions to reality before they can move. That is not an unreasonable thing for the House which is responsible for our constitution to ask.
I hope that my noble friend is not going to say how important all these things are, how valuable they are, how much the Prime Minister is in favour of them, but that just at the moment, because it is all part of the negotiation, he cannot go further than that. If he does, perhaps for all our debates he might just turn on the recording. That is evidently the answer we are going to have on everything, because that is the answer we have had so far today on everything. If it goes on like this, this House will have to ask whether the Government intend to have a debate or discussion about things that matter, about the future of our nation and our people. Are they going to have a discussion about the things that protect our people, the policing which has to cover areas beyond our borders? Above all, are they going to have a discussion about how this affects Ireland? We have for too long taken for granted the fact that the Irish situation is, at least to a large extent—much less so than the newspapers would have us believe, but still to a large extent—peaceful. We must none of us forget that.
I have to tell my noble friend that it will become increasingly difficult for the Government to uphold their position unless they are prepared to take seriously this House’s demand that they tell us what they want. How can you negotiate with people unless you can say very clearly what you want on crucial issues, and what could be a more crucial issue than this?
Lord Judd
My Lords, at the end of all these proceedings, some months down the road, there will be a vote in Parliament. At that time, it will be essential that we know exactly what we are voting for. That is why the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is so important. There is a fundamental difference between good intentions and concrete policy, there to be implemented. As in our previous debate, the issues are too big; there is no room for an interregnum or period of doubt. We must be able to move from what we have to what is necessary overnight. We must have firm policies and firm decisions that follow from them.
I served on the Home Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, when we were having that dry run, and very interesting it was, too. What I found very telling was that virtually every witness working in the field, when the question, “Will your work become more difficult if we leave the European Union than it is at the moment?” was put directly, said unequivocally yes, they needed the European Union to meet the challenge of the job. Forgive me if I repeat myself, but it is terribly important. Crime is international; it does not recognise frontiers. That is true of trafficking and, as my noble friend said, of drugs. It is true of terrorism. These things do not know national frontiers. Therefore, you must co-operate and work closely with others who face the same difficulties.
The other point I want to make is that, more recently, serving on the Justice Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Kennedy, it has become very clear that we have underestimated—it is rather tragic that the British people have not understood, or begun to understand—how much British lawyers and British legal expertise have been contributing to the strength of European law, which is in all our interests. British lawyers have made a terrific contribution and they are very much respected. In taking evidence from practitioners in this sphere—the chairman is here to strike me down if I am misquoting—they told us over and over how the law is improving under the present system. The overriding authority of the European Court is crucial, however, because it provides a context in which everyone can have confidence in the necessary reciprocity. These amendments are very important, and I hope the Government will take them seriously.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, it is two or three years ago now, but I had the privilege of chairing a House of Lords ad hoc Select Committee on extradition law. Of course, extradition law, as far as the European Union is concerned, is the question of the European arrest warrant. I can say with confidence that the conclusion we reached, on the basis of the evidence before us, was that the system seemed essentially to satisfy all the parties concerned. It was working well, not only from this country’s point of view but from the point of view of other countries in the European Union. Of course, the reality is that a deep and special relationship will not inhibit criminals coming to this country. In a world where there is ever greater mobility, we will have our fair share of criminals from elsewhere and no doubt other countries will have their fair share of our criminals. We have to deal with that problem.
The other thing that was pretty apparent from our work was that most of the criticism of the system was hung up on the European Court of Justice. It was a criticism not of what the European Court of Justice on the whole decided was appropriate, but of it not being exclusively comprised of British citizens. We need to be absolutely clear about that. We are talking about a system, the generality of which worked extremely well and in everybody’s interests. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can give the Committee an assurance that, whatever arrangement may come into being after Brexit, they will work as well as the existing arrangements.
We have heard a number of speeches this evening that have been a trifle philosophical in tone, and I do not want to criticise anybody for that. I want to make a purely pragmatic point: if the system is not as effective as the one we have now, there will be more criminals on the streets of this country. Do the Government wish to bring that about? Equally, more of our criminals will no doubt be enjoying their ill-gotten gains in relative security on the Costa del Sol. Is that what the Government want to bring about?
We have heard about Ireland and I need say no more about that. It is terribly important to be clear about the pragmatic, nuts-and-bolts, on-the-ground implication of scrapping this procedure because there is every risk and likelihood, if we are not careful, that we will degrade the system of justice in this country.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in a plea that we do not go back to the system before the European arrest warrant was introduced. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the case that we did together some years ago when the extradition proceedings, which lasted some four and a half years, were ended by the 12th application for habeas corpus being turned down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which he may remember. What he may not remember is that my client went back to the country demanding his extradition, where the prosecution accepted a plea of guilty to one out of 32 charges, and was given a sentence that resulted in his immediate release. That was the old system; the system we have had since the introduction of the European arrest warrant, with all the agencies that have come into being, started I think by Mr James Callaghan when he was Prime Minister, developing under the European Union banner, has been extremely good and effective.
In the Queen’s Speech debate on 27 June last year, it will not surprise your Lordships to know that I asked the Government what they were going to do about this whole area—about all the agencies to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred. What was going to happen? After that, there was complete silence. I wondered what was happening. These discussions and negotiations are as urgent as any to do with trade. They deal with the security of this country and the possibility that, if nothing is put in place, this country will become a haven for criminals, as opposed to somewhere the law is properly administered. But nothing happened—and so it was with considerable interest that I read the speech of the Prime Minister in Munich a week last Saturday. What was she going to say? She proposed a treaty. Who is negotiating that treaty? Who is in charge? Is it Mr Johnson? That is a bit unlikely. Is it Mr Fox or Mr Davis? Who are they negotiating with? The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in her reply to the last debate, said that she knew that there was a dialogue going on. What dialogue? I have not heard of any dialogue, and I am interested in this subject. Where are we?
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also asked the very pertinent question of what happens after March next year. Do the extradition warrant system and all the other bodies concerned with co-operation in criminal matters continue, or not? If they do not continue, the treaty to which the Prime Minister referred must be in place. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said a moment ago, we cannot have an interregnum—a period when nothing is happening. Something has to be put in its place, and nothing I have seen or read suggests that there is a dialogue or treaty in any form, draft or anything else ready to come into operation when we leave the European Union.
So specific questions on this issue can be asked of the Minister. What negotiations are happening? Who is doing them? When will there be a result? What is in the treaty? How are you going to put all these things together in a period of months to ensure the continuation of co-operation in this extremely important field? If there are no answers to those questions and the Minister just chuckles his way through, as he occasionally does—if he will forgive me—the security of this country is at risk, and we risk becoming that haven for criminals that would be a blight on our whole country.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, my name has been added to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and I support every word that she said. Of course, she was chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children for many years, and had to give up that job because of her new responsibilities in Europe for the welfare of children. So I am sure the Minister will want to pay very close attention to what she has said.
I have a specific question for the Minister. Many foster carers in this country are from continental Europe. We do not know exactly how many, but the European Criminal Records Information System is very useful in ensuring that those interested in preying on children do not move from one country in Europe to another or from continental Europe to this country. The Minister will be aware of recent concerns that people interested in preying on young people in the developing world have been joining charities, for instance. Will he provide the Committee with as much information and detail as possible, given the concerns raised around the Committee this evening on these issues?
I was pleased to hear of the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich. I also recall that two or three years ago, as Home Secretary, she brought in the human trafficking Act, which was an important step forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, until a short time ago I was Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, having served for nearly 40 years making arrests and prosecuting people, which I quite enjoyed. I will say a few words about the importance for police officers, in particular in the investigation process, of some of the things that Europe provides and which need to be accommodated in the new arrangements. I worked in South Yorkshire, Merseyside and London and also served as one of Her Majesty’s inspectors looking at serious and organised crime. The Met led the extradition process for the United Kingdom—and still does—and also counterterrorist units, both in this country and with an international dimension, with 50 officers based in embassies around the world.
Many things remained constant in the 40 years that I was an officer, but some things have changed. One of the big changes is the mobility of people across our borders. In London particularly, a high number of foreign national offenders were arrested. The Met still arrests around 225,000 times a year. That is not 225,000 people, because many are arrested more than once. That is probably about 1 million people around the country and one in three of them is a foreign national offender—a very significant proportion of those arrested. Not everybody who is investigated and prosecuted is arrested. Of those in London, 55% are Europeans and 45% are from elsewhere. Both proportions are significant and have to be accommodated.
The ratio which I have described for London differs around the country. In some of our more rural areas there is a very high percentage of foreign national offenders. It varies by part of the country and seasonality. Different times of the year lend themselves to different types of migration. The police investigate very serious offences and more minor ones, but all demand the same level of proper investigation. The process that follows arrest or any investigation is usually similar. The first part is to confirm the identity of the suspect and the second to gather the available criminal intelligence about them. The third is to gather their criminal convictions, where they are recorded, and the fourth is to check on any forensic evidence that might be available for them. Together with the evidence, this forms a substantial part of the case.
One challenge for any investigating officer is that, where there is an arrest, an investigation is time limited. Some 90% of investigations are concluded within 24 hours of an arrest. This can be extended to 36 hours by a superintendent, but the majority of offences are investigated and concluded in the first 24 hours. It is, therefore, vital to gather the four things I have just mentioned fairly quickly. The arrangements we have had with Europe have been substantially better than those we had in the past. When you are investigating an international suspect it is not always easy to gather all that information quickly, but it is often vital that it is gathered before they are released.
For example, if someone has been arrested for rape and has on three previous occasions been arrested for rape in another country but not charged, you would want to know that information before you came to a conclusion about whether there had been consent as regards this particular offence. That is just one example of why this is important.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
How do you make that effective if you do not have the European Court of Justice at the apex?
Lord Hogan-Howe
The noble Baroness is in a far better position than I am to talk about the law, so I am not sure that I am able to say that. We have an extradition treaty with America and many other countries where that type of arrangement is not in place, so I would need to understand why the American model and that of other countries works without the arrangement mentioned by the noble Baroness, and why it has to be in place in Europe. There may be a reason, but I am not aware of it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister winds up this debate, I would like to address the problem of him being constantly accused of not spelling out the Government’s position. We are mid-negotiations. Surely, if you are negotiating with the EU, it is very difficult to reveal your negotiating position. Our experience of dealing with the EU is that when we start to reveal our negotiating position, it immediately laughs at us and tells us that it is absolutely ridiculous for us to think that we are going to get these concessions, and that we are cherry-picking and want to have our cake and eat it and all this sort of thing. It seems to me that the Government are in a very difficult position. They have to hold this debate because we are processing the Bill through Parliament, but simultaneously we are trying to negotiate with the EU. We cannot reveal our position. The overall position is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I totally agree with what my noble friend is saying. It is very important that that point is made: it is not made often enough and could be made every time on every amendment. Does he agree that the most absurd question of all, which we have had several times on previous amendments, is for the Government to be asked what their fallback position is? How on earth can someone in a negotiation say what their fallback position is?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My noble friend is absolutely right. Of course, the EU is watching all this extremely closely because it is desperate to try to snarl up the whole process so that we cannot leave. The fact that a referendum involving a democratic vote was held on this is regarded by most people in the Commission as a sign of weakness. I think it was President Macron who said the other day that if a referendum were held on whether France should pull out of the EU, the leavers would win, but of course he was not going to allow a referendum. I am sure that that will go down in history along with other French expressions such as “Let them eat cake”.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I have six amendments in this group. They refer to the United Kingdom having continued access after withdrawal to passenger name records, to the Schengen Information System, to the European arrest warrant, to membership of Europol, to the European Criminal Records Information System, and to the fingerprint and DNA exchange with the EU under the Prüm Council decisions.
The questions put to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, went to the heart of the matter—that is, given that the Prime Minister said in her Munich speech that she wishes to see a treaty replace all these elements of the existing arrangements, the Minister should simply tell us the process by which we will be negotiating the treaty. This debate, as with many others, gives the complete lie to the ridiculous assertion that no deal is better than a bad deal. Let us be clear: if there is no deal on 29 March next year, the current arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred, painstakingly negotiated over many years, for the European arrest warrant and the very high levels of engagement between the member states of the European Union—which the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said were so important to his work as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police—all fall.
Is the Minister going to tell us that the security of this country will be as safe as it is now if all those arrangements fall? I assume that he is not, in which case the United Kingdom leaving the European Union with no deal at the end of March next year would be a complete abdication of the national interest. We need to get that firmly established. As we have more of these debates and see the precise benefits of the EU—which, after all, are the reason we went into the European Union—it becomes clearer and clearer that leaving with no deal would be a dereliction of the national interest.
Lord Deben
Before the noble Lord leaves that point, does he also agree that asking the Government to explain how this treaty is being discussed and by whom cannot have any effect whatever on the negotiations between the Government and the European Union? Is it not true that several of the questions asked have had nothing to do with the negotiations? We would just like to know where the Government are on matters which are unconnected with those negotiations.
Lord Adonis
I entirely agree, and I hope that the noble Lord will say that to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who is sitting right next to him. It provides a devastating response to the noble Lord’s intervention just a moment ago.
We are asking the Government simply to declare the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in the negotiations that are taking place. Since one assumes that our European partners are being told what we are seeking to negotiate—it is quite hard to negotiate something if you do not tell the other side what you are seeking to negotiate—I cannot see that there is any damage to the public interest in telling this House and the public. These are very straightforward questions. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, says that we should not declare our hand midway. Are we or are we not in favour of keeping the European arrest warrant after 29 March next year? If we are, that is a clear negotiating objective of the Government. It will require a straightforward continuation of the current arrangements, and people like me will say all the way through that it is yet another argument as to why we would be much better off staying in the European Union in the first place and not having to go through this hugely complex and difficult process of attempting to replicate arrangements so that we do not end up with a worse situation, when there is every likelihood that we will.
The devastating response to and commentary on all these matters come from the Prime Minister herself—both in her Munich speech, in which she made it very clear that she would regard it as damaging to the national interest not to have a treaty at the end of March, and in her speech on 25 April 2016 before the referendum, in which she was even clearer on these matters. In that latter speech, in which she sought to argue why we should stay in the European Union, she went through in great detail the benefits that the European arrest warrant, the Prüm arrangements and so on gave to the security of the United Kingdom. Those are all points that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seems to want to will the ends without the means. I understand that he has not had to negotiate these issues himself, but just says, on a wing and a prayer, that he wants these objectives to be secured and is sure that our negotiators in Brussels will be able to do it. If the noble Lord had had any systematic engagement with the Ministers responsible, I do not think he would necessarily have so high a degree of confidence in their capacity to negotiate his objectives.
The Prime Minister herself gave the devastating response to the question of why we should stay in the European Union in respect of these security and justice issues. In her speech of 25 April 2016, when referring to the European arrest warrant and the passenger name record directive, she said that these show,
“2 advantages of remaining inside the EU … without the kind of institutional framework offered by the European Union, a complex agreement like this could not have been struck across the whole continent, because bilateral deals between every single member state would have been impossible to reach”.
Let us be frank: that is why we are in the European Union, why it serves our national interest and why we have a very high degree of co-operation when it comes to justice and home affairs.
We are talking about very large numbers. The Prime Minister herself gave the figures, saying that in the five years prior to her speech—2011 to 2016—5,000 people had been extradited from Britain to Europe under the European arrest warrant, and 675 suspected or convicted wanted individuals were brought to Britain to face justice. She said:
“It has been used to get terror suspects out of the country and bring terrorists back here to face justice”.
Just as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, gave his extraordinary statistics about how long it used to take to get extradition proceedings under way, the Prime Minister said:
“In 2005, Hussain Osman—who tried to blow up the London Underground on 21/7—was extradited from Italy using the Arrest Warrant in just 56 days. Before the Arrest Warrant existed, it took 10 long years to extradite Rachid Ramda, another terrorist, from Britain to France”.
These issues are of the utmost gravity and we need an assurance from the Minister that, in the negotiations for the treaty that the Prime Minister referred to in Munich, we will seek to maintain arrangements that are in every respect as good as those we currently have. If we do not have those in the treaty she presents to Parliament at the end of the year, many of us will say that this whole Brexit process has seriously damaged the security of the United Kingdom.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Does my noble friend accept that the reason the Government will not disclose their negotiating objectives is not that this would somehow prejudice their position but rather that they do not know what those objectives are? The truth is that this is an issue of real sensitivity to the Brexiteers. The question is whether these arrangements are intergovernmental or involve the institutions of the European Union and the supervision of the European Court of Justice.
I know all about this because, as an adviser to the then Prime Minister, I went through many iterations of this issue. When justice and home affairs first became a subject of the European Union, and a pillar of the Maastricht treaty, it was all at an intergovernmental level. Gradually, it became more communitised, as it were, for the simple reason that that was the way to make it work. We could not make it work as an intergovernmental mechanism. We could not get the degree of co-operation needed to make something like the European arrest warrant work without having some judicial supervision mechanism, so the Labour Government agreed to it—somewhat reluctantly because some of the people involved were not the greatest supporters of civil rights in many respects, but they agreed to it.
What is happening in Brussels at the moment is that the member states are discussing among themselves what framework they are going to set for the negotiations for the rest of the year. That will be coming out at the end of March.
Baroness Goldie
Is the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, making an intervention? I want to be clear what the order of speaking is.
Baroness Goldie
I think your noble friend thought that he had been usurped.
Lord Adonis
My noble friend’s intervention is excellent and gives the Minister more to respond to. I know he is short of points to deal with at the end of this debate.
Lord Liddle
This is Committee stage. We are allowed to go back and forth. What are the Government saying to other member states at the moment about the nature of the agreement on this that they are prepared to contemplate? Are they saying to our current partners that they are prepared to see judicial supervision in these arrangements or not? I hope the Minister will answer that very simple point.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading; I took the view that I was unlikely to add anything new, bearing in mind the number of speakers. However, I have a few new things to add as a result of today’s debate. I had more than 30 years of service in the Metropolitan Police Service—which pales into insignificance when you consider the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—but I have also been briefed by the National Crime Agency lead on Brexit and by the director-general of the National Crime Agency on these issues.
It might be considered a technical point, but there is a difference between counterterrorism intelligence exchange and law enforcement. The counterterrorism intelligence tends to be of such a sensitive nature that it is exchanged on a bilateral basis and therefore is nothing to do with the European Union. When sensitive data, for example, are shared by the United States with the United Kingdom, the United States would not do that if it was on the basis that the United Kingdom would then share all that intelligence with the EU 27. However, there is a technical difference between counterterrorism in terms of intelligence and counterterrorism in terms of bringing terrorists to justice, and here we are talking about bringing people to justice using these various mechanisms.
My noble friend Lady Ludford referred to the European Court of Justice and the Charter of Fundamental Rights as two important mechanisms which allow this co-operation to take place within the European Union. In her Munich speech, the Prime Minister tantalisingly mentioned the European Court of Justice and the potential for a role for it after the UK had left the European Union in relation to things such as the European arrest warrant. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, made the point that this is not about relationships between two sovereign nations, it is about individual rights in terms of whether an individual is going to be moved from one country to another. Perhaps the Minister can give us some clarity on the Government’s position on the European Court of Justice by explaining what the Prime Minister meant in her speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, talked about the need for the closest possible co-operation, which is what the National Crime Agency would say, and that the measure of the success of the negotiations would be how closely we can replicate the existing arrangements. I believe that the Government’s position is that they want to replicate all of these things as far as possible, and that is what I took from what the Prime Minister said. So to say that the Government cannot give away their negotiating position by saying what the objective is going to be is not, I think, true in this particular case. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that what the Government seek to achieve is as close as possible to the arrangements we have, but that is not the question. The question is how the Government are going to secure those arrangements; that is the critical question, not what they are seeking to achieve, but how they are going to do it. That is because there seems to be a contradiction between not wanting to have any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on the one hand and yet wanting to participate in things such as the European arrest warrant on the other.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, helped the House to introduce the very important issues around protected persons. For example, the victims of domestic violence have the protection of orders that are made in one country enforced in another, which brings a new dimension to the importance of these arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about the importance of the protection of children through the European arrest warrant and the other measures, in particular the European Criminal Records Information System, which enables law enforcement to quickly check the antecedents of people who are suspected of these sorts of offences. These are extremely important issues in terms of bringing people to justice and in terms of protecting citizens not only of the United Kingdom but of other European states. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford how extradition can take years—four and a half years in the case he mentioned—whereas under the European arrest warrant justice can be brought far more swiftly.
For me, the essential question is not what the Government want the end position to be, because that is quite clear—and it is certainly what the National Crime Agency and other law enforcement officers want, and indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has also said. The question that the Government need to answer is this: how on earth is this going to be achieved, bearing in mind their apparent contradictory stances on other issues such as the European Court of Justice?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments relating to reciprocal issues are key to continuing to protect and assist British citizens after Brexit, including children and protected persons, in ways that hitherto our EU membership and cross-border agreements have provided. In particular these are the European arrest warrant, the mutual recognition of family court judgments, information exchange, Europol and Eurojust.
The Government’s approach to these issues must be agreed in principle with the EU in time to be included in the framework part of the Article 50 requirements and form part of the withdrawal agreement, so a satisfactory approach to these will be key to the future vote on that deal. However, as we have heard from speakers tonight, there seems to be an extraordinary lack of urgency, especially if there is any chance—I am not sure whether this is what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, hinted at—that a standstill transition agreement could not cover these issues. That would make it even more urgent.
I ask in particular about the Government’s urgency, or lack of it, as I began asking Written Questions on this a year ago. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will remember it very well: it was on St Valentine’s Day last year—I do not think he chose it to be that day, but never mind—that he answered some of my questions on matrimonial and maintenance proceedings. It was very reassuring: he said that the Government,
“recognises the importance of the issues”.
Wow. There was no more than that then, nor indeed on civil judicial co-operation and cross-border disputes and family law when he replied to a similar Written Question in August. I worry about the lack of progress since then.
As the Prime Minister has remarked and others have repeated, keeping our citizens safe is the first mission of any Government. Therefore, like others, I welcome that she used the Munich speech to reiterate her desire to negotiate continued, and in some cases enhanced, co-operation with EU nations and particularly with these bodies and schemes. As we have heard, the amendments cover the Schengen Information System, the European arrest warrant, the European Criminal Records Information System, Europol and Eurojust. Given what we have heard today and in earlier debates, the Minister will recognise the importance of our continued participation in all of those, but also the challenges that that will bring to them in negotiating.
While we heard from Munich the desire for this comprehensive agreement, it is time for the Minister to offer a bit more detail and clarity sooner rather than later. It is about the direction of travel or the objectives. It does not undermine any negotiations for us, not just our Parliaments, to know what the Government want to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is time for the Government to move from intention to reality. These issues, as has been touched on just now, are partly held up by an obsession with red lines around the ECJ. They cannot be allowed to stand in the way of some logical and sensible solutions to these problems. These issues are too important to be left to a divided Cabinet. At the moment I see a pantomime horse, or Dr Dolittle’s pushmi-pullyu, being pulled in two different directions, mostly about red lines that are immaterial to the issues we have been discussing. I hope we can hear about some direction and some practical steps from the Minister, particularly on how these negotiations are taking place.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have contributed to what has been a fascinating debate. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the outcome of our negotiations with our partners in the EU delivers continued close co-operation on internal security matters.
There are parallels between the effect of Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and that of Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, which was debated previously, in so far as they both seek to discuss the future relationship with the EU, which is, of course, subject to the negotiations. The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to prevent the Government from bringing regulations into force until agreed procedures for continued participation in EU internal security measures have been approved by both Houses. The Government have already committed to providing Parliament with a meaningful vote on any final deal. This will give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the future relationship between the UK and the EU in all these areas. For this reason, it is our view that the amendment is not needed.
I must come back to the points made by my noble friends Lord Hamilton and Lord Lamont. Many noble Lords have pushed me and asked for further detail and clarification on the negotiations. This Bill is negotiation agnostic; it is not concerned with the negotiations. I understand why people want clarification in all those areas, but, of course, when we have reached an agreement, it will be the subject of future legislation that noble Lords will no doubt want to comment on in great detail. However, I will attempt to answer as many questions and go into as much detail as I can. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, may be a little disappointed yet again, but I will do my best.
Lord Adonis
Can the Minister answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as to which Minister is taking the lead in the security negotiations?
Lord Callanan
I will come to that later in my speech, but I will answer that question.
In that same paper, we made it clear that we value the operational benefits that we derive—I was struck by the comments on this from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and on how valuable many of them are. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to many of them, too, including the passenger name record directive, the second generation Schengen Information System and the European arrest warrant. There is also ECRIS, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and all the various acronyms that go with many of these JHA matters. They are all to do with the systematic exchange of information with our EU partners—for example, on criminal records—which helps to deliver fair and robust justice. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He referred to Interpol. I assume that he meant Europol, but, for the avoidance of any doubt, I should say that we continue to co-operate in the same way with Interpol.
We made it clear that we want to agree future arrangements in this area that support co-operation across a range of EU measures and agencies, and to avoid operational gaps for law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities in the UK and the EU. The level of co-operation that we want to sustain goes beyond the specific tools and measures highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. We have described the legal instruments here as a “toolkit” that can provide cumulative benefits. We have also indicated that we want our future partnership with the EU in this area to be dynamic, allowing us to co-operate if necessary in new ways in the face of evolving threats.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, highlights the respective roles of domestic courts and the CJEU. We made it clear in our future partnership paper on security, law enforcement and criminal justice that a future agreement in this area would need to provide for dispute resolution. Let me give a little more detail on that.
On leaving the EU we will bring to an end the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK. There are a number of existing precedents where EU agreements with third countries provide for close co-operative relationships without the CJEU having direct jurisdiction in those countries. The UK will engage proactively to negotiate an approach to enforcement and dispute resolution that meets the key objectives of the UK and the EU. We also published a separate future partnership paper on enforcement and dispute resolution last August, addressing many of those points and setting out the Government’s approach to these issues.
The House has of course debated this issue on a number of occasions, particularly earlier this month, on 8 February, in the debate on the EU Committee’s report on judicial oversight of the European arrest warrant. The withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will implement the withdrawal agreement in our domestic law. In addition, the Government have already committed to provide Parliament with a meaningful vote on any final deal. This will give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise again the future relationship between the UK and the EU. We need to be able to work with the EU to respond quickly and effectively to the changing threats we face from terrorism and serious organised crime. In negotiations, we will be seeking to agree the best possible way to continue our work alongside our European partners in support of our common goals and shared interests. We are absolutely committed to securing the close relationship that the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford, Lady Kennedy and Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, want to see—and on that basis I hope that they will not press their amendments.
Amendment 99, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, would prevent regulations made under Section 7(1) of the Bill from diminishing the protections in relation to “protected persons” set out in Part 3 of the Criminal Justice (European Protection Order) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014. As I understand it, the amendment seeks to ensure that the relevant authorities in England and Wales will continue to recognise and act upon European protection orders made in remaining member states after exit day, whether or not those states act on ours.
The EPO regime, established by an EU directive of the same name and implemented in England and Wales under the cited regulations, which came into force in 2015, is essentially a reciprocal regime. It requires the relevant designated authorities in the different member states involved to act and to communicate with each other in the making of an order and in its recognition and enforcement—and also, indeed, in any modification, revocation or withdrawal of one. It is not possible for us to regulate from here to require the relevant authorities of remaining member states to act in any particular way. As such, if we are not in a reciprocal regime we will no longer issue EPOs to remaining member states, since it would be pointless to do so, and nor will the authorities in those member states issue them to the UK, for the same reasons.
In short, absent our continued participation in the EPO regime, or in some proximate reciprocal arrangements in its place, these regulations will be redundant; they do not work unilaterally. This amendment therefore pre-empts the outcome of the negotiations, potentially requiring the retention of redundant legislation. It would not be right to create a false impression by retaining redundant legislation. I am happy to be clear, however, that if the forthcoming negotiations produce an agreement to continue access to the regime established under this directive, or something like it, appropriate steps and legislation will be brought forward to implement it at that time. This will encompass the protections for protected persons. We will, of course, consider that at that stage. Meanwhile, for now, there is no practical point or purpose in having such an amendment or these provisions.
I shall answer some of the other points that were made. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me about the O’Connor case and about extradition to the UK from Ireland. I am sure that the House will understand that I am somewhat limited in what I can say on this matter; it is a live case at the moment. Suffice it to say that we are monitoring it closely, but it would be wrong to speculate on its impact before the case is concluded. Once it is, we will be happy to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I think it was, asked how we could reconcile the principles set out in the Prime Minister’s Munich speech, first on UK sovereignty and secondly on the ECJ. As the Prime Minister said:
“The Treaty must preserve our operational capabilities. But it must also fulfil three further requirements. It must be respectful of the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders. So, for example, when participating in EU agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice. And a principled but pragmatic solution to close legal co-operation will be needed to respect our unique status as a third country with our own sovereign legal order”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about justice and home affairs in the implementation period. We welcome the EU’s position that the UK should continue to participate in existing justice and home affairs measures where it has opted in. We also want to ensure that the UK and the EU can take new action together against unforeseen incidents and threats during that period. For those reasons, we want to be involved in new measures introduced during implementation where that is appropriate. He also asked about the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich. I confirm that she was talking about all the justice and home affairs measures he mentioned—the EAW, ECRIS, Europol and all the other appropriate acronyms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about the European arrest warrant and about the chance of a successful outcome compared with Norway. We value our co-operation through the EAW as it provides a faster and cost-effective way of handling extradition and helping us tackle cross-border criminality. With regard to Norway, our starting point for negotiations on future co-operation will be different from that of either Norway or Iceland, where a bilateral agreement is also in place. Of course, our starting point is different from theirs in so far as our extradition arrangements will be fully aligned with those of the EU at the point of our exit since we operate the same tool. That was not the case with Norway and Iceland when they joined.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked where we are in the negotiations and who is doing them—which the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was also interested in. The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU is responsible for conducting negotiations in support of the Prime Minister. He is supported by the core negotiating team, which is made up of senior officials from a range of government departments. In response to his question about contacts, officials are engaging now and constantly with EU counterparts on a range of issues—but I come back to my earlier point that it would not be appropriate to give a running commentary on these discussions. We approach the next round of negotiations with optimism.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Can the Minister tell us if the European Union has appointed anybody to represent the 27 other countries in conducting the other side of treaty negotiations?
Lord Callanan
Michel Barnier is the EU chief negotiator. I thought that that was fairly obvious.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked about no deal. Of course, we approach these negotiations not expecting failure but anticipating success. We are confident that continued practical co-operation between the UK and the EU on law enforcement and national security is very much in the interests of both sides, so we approach these negotiations anticipating success. We do not want or expect a no-deal outcome. However, a responsible Government should prepare for all potential outcomes, including the unlikely scenario in which no mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached. That is exactly what we are doing across the whole of government. The UK uses and benefits from a range of international information-sharing tools in the area of security and law enforcement, which are by no means limited to EU mechanisms but include bilateral and multilateral channels, including Interpol and the Council of Europe.
I hope I have answered all the questions—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Do I understand the Minister to be saying that the people conducting the trade negotiations will deal with the security stuff as well? Is that what he is saying? Are there no lawyers on the other side to conduct the negotiations on behalf of those 27 other countries? What is the situation?
Lord Callanan
There are lead negotiators on each side but they are supported by a whole range of officials and Ministers from various departments. David Davis is our negotiator, Michel Barnier is the EU’s negotiator, and they have different members in each of the teams—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
But is the withdrawal agreement the same thing as the treaty or are they separate?
Lord Callanan
No, the treaty will be a separate piece of legislation when we negotiate it. I hope I have tackled most of noble Lords’ questions and they will be able to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I just ask the Minister about his comments on the European Court of Justice? Is there anything in the case law of the ECJ that justifies the Government’s reluctance for it to continue to be the dispute resolution procedure for the matters we are discussing?
Lord Callanan
We have been clear that respecting the Brexit vote means delivering on having control of our own laws. Our Supreme Court will be the ultimate arbiter of our own laws and it would not be appropriate to submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of a foreign power.
Baroness Ludford
I should briefly like to thank all speakers in this extremely valuable debate, especially the co-signatories to my amendment, the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham. It was evident that, almost without exception, there was very strong support for staying in these crucial law enforcement measures. I am not so sure we got what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, asked for, which was a reply of real substance. We certainly did not get the clarity that my noble friend Lord Paddick asked for on the ECJ. Quite honestly, that was an extraordinary response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, there is no safety net in this area. The WTO is not much of one but it exists.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Is the noble Baroness talking of the European Court of Justice as though there would be no change in its constitution as a result of our leaving the European Union?
Baroness Ludford
There obviously will be a change, in that there will not be a British judge or British Advocate-General. What we want to know is how we will plug into what the Prime Minister asked for in Munich: to have respect for the sovereignty of the UK’s legal order—the Minister really emphasised only that—but also respect for the remit of the ECJ, at least when participating in agencies. That raises the question: will we also respect the remit of the ECJ when it rules on the individual rights of people who challenge, for instance, a European arrest warrant? We have no answer to that question but the people who are nationals of those countries will want to know exactly what the jurisdictional regime is. I am afraid we are no closer to knowing that. As my noble friend Lord Paddick said, however, we do have clear negotiating objectives in this area—this is perhaps unique in Brexit—as the Prime Minister has set them out and the Minister has just confirmed them. What we are utterly in the dark about is how the Government propose to secure the arrangements, structures and mechanisms for continuing effective and efficient cross-border law enforcement co-operation.
The Minister said that we will have a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement, which is supposed to give us an opportunity to scrutinise at the end of the process, and hence that this amendment is not needed. But that is not enough; we want a purchase and input into those negotiating objectives. The Prime Minister makes a speech in Munich and tells us, “These are the objectives”, but the Government do not deign to tell us how on earth those objectives are to be secured. Like me, the Minister is a veteran of the European Parliament. We found there that the European Commission, the member states and the Council learned the hard way that unless you bring the European Parliament, in that case, into your confidence about your negotiating objectives and how you are going to secure them, the danger is that at the end of the process the deal will be rejected because it has not been kept informed along the way. The lesson in Brussels was to front-load the process by keeping the people who might be in a position to block the deal informed of how it was to be secured.
I am afraid the Minister did not convince me, at least, that we are any further forward than we were with the future partnership paper, because that paper did not set out how we are to achieve these objectives. It said what the Government wanted to achieve. That has been repeated by the Prime Minister and the Minister, but we are none the wiser about how these measures will be replicated when we no longer have the structures and mechanisms of the EU. I fear that we will have to come back to this in all seriousness at future stages but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament proposals for arrangements for the continued application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to retained EU law under sections 2, 3 and 4.”
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the first group of amendments that deals with the exclusion from the Bill of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. A number of amendments relate to the exclusion of the charter and to its specific provisions, so this may be a convenient place to debate the general principle of what the Government are proposing and the issues to which that gives rise. I shall therefore speak also to Amendments 14, 20, 25 and 34. Amendments 46, 47, 333 and 347 are consequential and I apprehend that there will be no need to say anything more about them.
The starting point for these amendments is the Government’s decision to exclude the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from the carryover into domestic law of existing EU law that the Bill is otherwise designed to achieve. As noble Lords know, and as the Government have been at pains to point out, the purpose of the Bill is to maintain legal continuity, certainty and stability for businesses and individuals by incorporating EU law as it stands into UK law. As the Prime Minister said in her foreword to the White Paper, the purpose is to ensure that:
“The same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before”.
The White Paper goes on to explain that it will then be for democratically elected representatives in the UK, in this Parliament and the devolved Administrations, to decide whether to change that law after full and proper scrutiny and debate. This decision to bring EU law into UK law at the moment of exit is an essential part of the plan to provide clarity and is necessary, it is said by the Government, to bolster confidence and planning as the Brexit process comes into effect. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said at Second Reading that this is,
“about ensuring that people’s rights are maintained. It is vital to a smooth and orderly exit from the EU”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1374.]
However, there is one glaring and deeply troubling exception to the proposal to bring EU law into domestic law so that it is the same the day after exit as it was the day before: the exclusion of the charter, in its entirety, from this exercise.
In another place, the Solicitor-General described the exercise as downloading EU law into domestic law, but what is not being downloaded is the charter. In another place, Sir Keir Starmer noted that although thousands of provisions of EU law are being converted into domestic law, and may have to be modified in some sense after that exercise, only one provision in the thousands on thousands of provisions of EU law is singled out for extinction, and that is the charter. That gives rise to a conundrum.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Is the noble and learned Lord going to come on to explaining why it was, when he was Attorney-General and working with Tony Blair, he worked so hard to try to get the charter excluded from the Lisbon treaty? Indeed, they thought they had achieved such an opt-out from the treaty until it was overruled subsequently by the European Court of Justice. Surely what we are doing now is trying to fulfil the objective that he himself had in mind.
Lord Goldsmith
I can see noble Lords opposite are all very well briefed. I predicted this at Second Reading. I will come on to that, but let me make some progress on the arguments which matter.
Lord Goldsmith
No, I will make some progress on the arguments which matter. As the Constitution Committee of this House said at paragraph 119 of its report, the conundrum is this:
“The primary purpose of this Bill is to maintain legal continuity and promote legal certainty by retaining existing EU law as part of our law, while conferring powers on ministers to amend the retained EU law. If, as the Government suggests, the Charter of Fundamental Rights adds nothing to the content of EU law which is being retained, we do not understand why an exception needs to be made for it. If, however, the Charter does add value, then legal continuity suggests that the Bill should not make substantive changes to the law which applies immediately after exit day”.
I want to examine the reasons that are put forward for not including the charter. The more I look at the arguments, the more convinced I become that the Government have got it wrong. I will not deny that there are issues as to the best way to bring the charter into effect in domestic law, and there are other amendments which will debate that, but Amendment 13A would require the Government to bring forward proposals for its continued application and the route by which the charter can be given effect.
Viscount Hailsham
Would the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee whether he is contemplating that the charter should be incorporated into domestic law as a statute, and as such be capable of amendment?
Lord Goldsmith
I am suggesting that the charter is brought into domestic law in the same way as all the other provisions of EU law will be brought into domestic law by this Bill, if it is passed. That means that they will be subject to the powers in the clauses that will be passed for amendment through orders, if this House and the other place approve that way of doing it. They will also, of course, as always, be subject to amendment by primary legislation. I will come on to this, but it is interesting that special protection is given to the ECHR through the Human Rights Act to protect it as we go forward, but there is no protection provided at all for the rights which underlie the charter. That is one of the deficiencies that are not taken account of in the Government’s proposal.
Baroness Deech
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that perhaps we are being tied in knots by his argument? The nub of the charter, and why it is different from the European Convention on Human Rights and our Human Rights Act, is that the charter says that judges can set aside, invalidate or nullify our Acts of Parliament. That is the nub of it and is why it does not sit with the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. If you incorporate it in domestic law, you are in a real tangle, because if you try to repeal it, judges could set that aside. You end up in a vicious spiral.
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the intervention. Of course it is not the charter which provides that, in certain circumstances, our courts have the ability to disapply domestic law; it is EU law and its ability to override Parliament. That is not what the charter has created; it is EU law that has created it. That is something which this Bill is intended to remove.
I want to get back on to the reasons why. The first reason put forward—this is the nub of the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson—is that the charter merely codifies existing rights and principles.
Lord Goldsmith
I apologise to both noble Lords. The proposition is that the charter does no more than codify existing rights and principles, so it is not necessary to bring it in. It has been said, for example, by the very distinguished and independent Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law that that proposition is demonstrably not correct. It sets that out in a detailed report that I commend to noble Lords. An opinion of Queen’s Counsel obtained by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission concludes that in fact this would lead to a significant weakening of human rights protection in the United Kingdom. Against those independent statements, it is no wonder that many NGOs and many members of civil society are deeply troubled about the exclusion of the charter. It is not just civil society that is concerned about that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, noted in the last debate, but industries such as the tech industry.
One can find examples of rights that are not protected in the report, which I also commend to noble Lords, by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In its right-by-right analysis it identifies which rights are already included in our law and which are not. For example, on the very first item in the charter—Article 1 on the protection of human dignity, which many people would regard as the most fundamental human right and the basis of all others—the Government’s right-by-right analysis gives two reasons for saying that that would be continued: first, an unincorporated treaty, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which does not have enforceable effect in this country at all; and, secondly, as a general principle of EU law—but, as noble Lords will know, this Bill seeks to prevent general principles of EU law being given effect or creating any enforceable rights. That is an aspect that we will have to come back to later in the debates on the Bill.
Lord Faulks (Con)
The noble and learned Lord identifies the fact that certain rights are no longer protected adequately because the charter contains rights that are not there in the European convention or, presumably, otherwise provided for by law. Could he tell the House why the Human Rights Act was not expanded to take into account the protection of these laws? At no time from 1998 to the time when the Labour Government lost power was there any attempt to include these rights that he now says are a central part of our law.
Lord Goldsmith
They were, because the charter provided for them. The Human Rights Act incorporated one set of provisions only, the European Convention on Human Rights, which goes back to just after the Second World War and which provides the classic political and civil rights. The other rights that we find in the charter, which is a much longer document and refers to socioeconomic rights, were not included in the Human Rights Act because they were not included in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The right-by-right analysis demonstrates which of these rights are not included. Given that the Government’s objective, as stated by the Prime Minister, is to ensure that the protections for people in this country are the same the day after exit as the day before, I respectfully suggest that it is not for me to identify why that is not right; it is for the Government to demonstrate why it is. When we have substantial independent bodies such as the Bingham Centre and independent opinions from QCs demonstrating that actually it is not the case that the protections remain the same, the Government need to explain. I shall come on to that further.
Obviously there are examples of rights in the charter that reflect precisely other rights that we have within our law. In particular, there are a number of rights in the charter that are explicitly based on the European Convention on Human Rights; they are the same. Indeed, during the negotiations I went to some pains to try to ensure that they were phrased in the same way so as to prevent lawyers from saying, “It’s written differently so it must mean something different”. However, those are not the only rights that are there. As I noted at Second Reading, the charter is based not just on the European Convention on Human Rights but on principles of EU law and on principles that are commonly accepted by the member states, and those are in a different position from the ECHR rights.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Just take one of the rights that is precisely mirrored in the convention. Is it suggested that henceforth, the wise complainant who faces primary legislation here which is incompatible with that right should therefore sue under both the charter and the convention because, lo and behold, under the convention, despite the constitutional arrangement whereby the court’s powers are limited to a declaration of incompatibility, he can disapply the primary legislation? Is that to be the consequence: that in a case where it matches, the convention trumps the constitutional settlement we arrived at, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred?
Lord Goldsmith
That will depend on the shape of the Bill when it is completed—in particular, what is said about the provisions which deal with primacy of EU law—but at the moment, as the noble and learned Lord will know well from the cases he sat on, people have been bringing cases by reference to both the charter and the convention. One reason for that is that the protection under the charter is more powerful. In future, if people want protection of human rights, they will want the more powerful protection, and if that remains available after the Bill is enacted, they will look to it.
Baroness Deech
So if that protection is more powerful, the entire British structure relating to human fertilisation and embryology, which is very liberal and go-ahead, could be wiped out by the application of Article 3. It is very fortunate that the bodies opposed to our progress in reproductive rights have not cottoned on to that. It talks about the prohibition of eugenics, whatever that is, and selection of persons. By interpretation, it would stop us doing mitochondrial research, selection of embryos to screen out disease and a whole host of other things. Another article ensures continuing freedom of movement. Surely we do not want that.
Lord Goldsmith
The noble Baroness raises two different points. Some of the rights in the charter plainly do not continue after exit because they are dependent on our membership of the EU. Those include freedom of movement, which is based, as the explanations of the charter plainly show, on the rights that currently exist. There are others, such as the right to vote in European elections, which will not apply.
Let me make this point now, because it is one of the objections raised to keeping the charter in. As with many other provisions of EU law, there will need to be changes—I think they are described as deficiencies in the Bill; defects. For example, other provisions of EU law refer to bodies to which we will no longer belong or to supervising agencies with which we will no longer be concerned because we will have left the European Union. That is what the provisions of the deficiency orders are intended to deal with. So, too, they can deal with matters under the charter which no longer have effect for that reason.
The noble Baroness’s first point was a different matter, which was to do with the ambit of Article 3. I am sure that she has it clearly in mind, but the explanations of Article 3 make it clear that:
“The reference to eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons, relates to possible situations in which selection programmes are organised and implemented, involving campaigns for sterilisation, forced pregnancy, compulsory ethnic marriage among others, all acts deemed to be international crimes in the Statute of the International Criminal Court”.
I do not doubt that the noble Baroness would be as opposed to those provisions as the rest of us would be. In relation to reproductive cloning, which may be what she had in mind, the explanations talk about being against reproductive cloning, but that is not the same as therapeutic cloning. We can have debates about that if need be.
Let me move on, if I may, because I have only started to deal with one aspect of the issue. In terms of the substantive protections that the charter provides but the ECHR does not, although it covers many of the same, reference has been made already to the case of Mr David Davis himself and Mr Tom Watson. I say this not because it is amusing to point the finger at Mr Davis, in his current position, having relied on the charter, as we know he did, but because it is illustrative of something significant. As a Back Bencher, he and Mr Watson brought a case against the provisions of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act—DRIPA. Mr Davis was concerned that they would impinge on the ability of MPs to have confidential communications from their constituents. In his argument, he and his lawyers relied on the charter, and they were successful in doing so. The court agreed that the charter was relevant.
Another example of new rights, developed rights or rights that have emerged through the dynamic approach of the charter is in the Google Spain case in which the right to be forgotten arose as a result of an examination of Articles 7 and 8 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. So, there are a number of examples where the substantive protections will be different. I have made it clear that there are many examples where the substantive protections are the same, but the purpose behind the Bill is to make sure that the protections for people are the same the day after leaving as the day before.
It is not just the substantive protections. There are different remedies, one of which has been referred to already—the ability to disapply legislation if that is where the Bill ends up at the end of the day. That is a more powerful remedy than the Human Rights Act. That was demonstrated in the Benkharbouche case when the State Immunity Act was disapplied so that foreign employees of an embassy could bring claims, which they would not otherwise be able to bring, so as to produce a more just situation.
The Government’s position on the substantive protections appears to have changed. I understood that the Government said that the protections would be the same, but now the formula that appears to be being used is that there will be no significant loss of substantive protection. That is not the same thing. No significant loss of substantive protection means that there is some loss of substantive protection, though someone takes the view that it is not significant. That is not the same as the principle the Prime Minister’s foreword set out.
Will the Minister respond to the following questions? First, will he confirm that the Government no longer contend that disapplying, excluding the charter, will lead to all the same existing substantive protections, or do they accept that some of them will not exist? If so, will he tell the Committee either now or subsequently what those are? Secondly, I referred to the phrase “no significant loss of substantive protections”. Does the Minister agree that that leaves aside the question of whether procedural or other protections will be excluded as a result of excluding the charter from this protection? I ask the Minister to identify what the differences are and whether he accepts that there will be a loss of protection, even though the Government wish to say that it is not significant, so that the Committee can judge. Also, he will need to say, please, why that meets the objective the Prime Minister set in her foreword to the White Paper.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
I promise that I will not intervene again—I loathe intervening. But does the noble and learned Lord agree, although he proposes the domestication of the charter, it will still be necessary in future to decide what is within the ambit of what used to be EU law, because that is where the operation of the charter is presently confined—or does he suggest that now it opens up and encompasses all UK law, so that it is a wider application than it was originally? Are we going to have to go again through the impossible exercise, notoriously uncertain in application, of having to decide what is specifically and directly within the ambit of EU law in future as well?
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and I know that this is a point that troubles him, but he should bear in mind that what we have in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill are provisions to bring specific aspects of EU derived legislation and EU direct effect legislation into UK law. That is the Union law that will continue, and that is what is defined as retained EU law—and it is to that retained EU law that the charter will continue to have effect under the scheme that I advocate to your Lordships, not to anything else or more broadly UK law.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
So the right to dignity would exist in the context of EU law, but not otherwise? Is that really how it is intended to work? Can the noble and learned Lord give an illustration of a case that will succeed under the right to human dignity in future—I mean, there has not ever been one in the past that has succeeded under that—when otherwise it would fail?
Lord Goldsmith
The noble and learned Lord knows that I took Article 1 as an example only because it is the very first article in the charter. I have respectfully invited noble Lords to look at the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, where the committee goes through each of the articles and through what the Government have said in relation to them, and identifies where they find place already in existing, enforceable UK law, and where they do not. It is where they do not that we are concerned with, and where they do not that there will be the very gap that the Prime Minister has said should not exist.
There is the further problem that, even if the rights survive, they will survive without the enhanced status and protection that they currently have. They have an enhanced status at the moment because of the 1972 Act and because of EU membership, but from the date of this Act they will only survive in a delegated form and be amendable by delegated legislation. They are not protected from being amended or removed by delegated legislation.
Compare the position in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. The Bill says in three places—in Clauses 7(7)(e), 8(3)(d) and 9(3)(d)—that the Human Rights Act is protected from amendment or revocation. The classic civil and political rights, but no more, which are, rightly, protected by the HRA, are protected from being amended other than by primary legislation to which this House and the other place have specifically agreed after proper scrutiny. However, none of the rights underlying the charter will be protected in that way, unless they find themselves within the ECHR, which is only some of them. That is unacceptable for many people.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I find this very difficult to understand. If you look at the charter, you find reference to the Union in item after item. It begins with a series of rights, but as soon as you penetrate further you find that it is closely related to membership of the Union and things that are guaranteed by its law. If I understood the noble and learned Lord correctly, he wants the charter to be brought in and protected against that kind of amendment in the same way as the Convention on Human Rights. This charter will have to be largely rewritten if we introduce it into our law, but it is not designed for the kind of situation we are facing after Brexit. It is designed for use within the Union and to be interpreted by the CJEU. I simply do not understand how the system is intended to work if it were brought into our law in the way the noble and learned Lord is suggesting.
Lord Goldsmith
The noble and learned Lord will recall that, whenever he opposed me with that argument from his position in the House of Lords or Supreme Court, I did my best to try to explain why there is an error in his thinking. With respect, I do the same here. If one takes, for example, one of the rights in the charter which does derive from Union law, is it to be said that although it is going to be transposed into our law as an EU retained law, it will no longer be subject to any of the protections that it has at the moment through being subject to the charter? It does not mean, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, suggested, that all UK law will be subject to this protection. It does mean that that law which is currently subject to that protection will continue to be so unless and until it is amended. That is the way that one gives effect to the intention that the law should be the same the day after Brexit as the day before.
I want to underline that we are talking about the extent of substantive protections; other protections and their extent; and the lack of enhancement of rights. These are all distinct points. I will also refer to the loss of the effect of charter principles. Noble Lords who have studied the charter will know that as well as rights there are principles. The principles are more aspirational, but they guide the legislator and that is a useful thing to have. Even leaving that aside, the other items I identified—the substantive protections, their nature and their enhancement or lack of it—are all things which mean we will not have the same protections after exit day as we have at the moment.
Lord Faulks
Is the noble and learned Lord telling the House that these principles are going to be actionable on their own?
Lord Goldsmith
The noble Lord knows that that is not the position in relation to the principles: they are guidance and aspirational. I am not spending a lot of time on them, although some of the NGOs have. I will give one example. There was a case in which the EU’s proposed legislation in relation to plain packaging of tobacco products was challenged in the courts on the grounds that it contravened freedom of expression. One of the things that the court looking at that noted was that the charter provided for a high degree of public protection in terms of health. I hope that all noble Lords agree with that sentiment, whether or not they agree with the result of the case. That is an example of where the principles come into effect.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord a second time. We have listened to what he has said with great care. He has spoken for 34 minutes. He said that he would answer the question I posed at the very beginning of his speech—namely, why he had altered his mind when previously he had tried to keep the charter out of the Lisbon treaty, when he then said that it ought to have no direct domestic effect. Why has he changed his mind?
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I was about to come to that and I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Goldsmith
I said that I would come back to it, and that is what I intended to do. A number of things have happened since the charter was drafted, as I said on Second Reading. The courts have referred to provisions of the charter and have given them effect. The decision was made to give the charter legal effect, which was not the way we started the negotiation. That is what happened in the Lisbon treaty, but that was not the original intention. That is what we argued against at the time, precisely so as to avoid the situation in which the courts were in a position to give effect to rights that we had not expected them to give effect to. That is what changed. That is why we now have a situation, where, as I have said, in a number of cases the courts have said that the charter has an effect and provides enforceable rights to individuals.
I conclude. The Joint Committee on Human Rights considered that the Government’s decision to exclude the charter, while effectively retaining nearly all other EU law, was taken without having undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the implications for the protection of rights. I cannot say whether that is right, but this amendment would require a focus to be given to that so that we can see what the correct analysis is and what the right way to proceed is. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 14A, 20A and 25A in this group, which stand in my name. I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Bowness, who has put his name to a number of amendments but cannot be here because of weather conditions. He has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence.
The purpose of the three amendments standing in my name is to ensure that the terms of the charter, if incorporated into domestic law, are capable of amendment by Parliament. This may be implied by the other amendments, but I think not. I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord. While there is a capacity to remedy deficiencies by regulation, there is no capacity to enable Parliament to mount a careful scrutiny and amendment of the charter. Therefore, the purpose of my amendments is to make it explicit that the charter, if incorporated into domestic law, is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and amendment.
I do not want to say very much by way of a general justification for the need to incorporate the charter; I am conscious that the noble and learned Lord who has spoken has much greater expertise than I. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will probably speak. He, too, has much greater knowledge of this than I. I am but a journeyman lawyer and I have never had to wrestle with the charter’s significance in domestic terms. However, I noticed last week in the Times that Professor Bogdanor made a very powerful case for not scrapping the rights. The important thing that your Lordships need to keep in mind is that the charter provides a number of rights and remedies not found elsewhere in our domestic law. That point was made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
The reason that the Labour Party says that nationalisation of the railways would cost nothing is that the shadow Chancellor thinks that financing things by bonds is costless. That is what he has said.
Viscount Hailsham
Yes, I know that is what he has said but I ask noble Lords to think about the impact on those who will lose their assets. That is the point I am making. I agree with my noble friend but my point is: what about the position of those who lose their assets?
Viscount Hailsham
I am just going to finish this point and then I will give way. It is at that point that Article 17 of the charter comes into play. As the Committee will know, Article 17 provides that property is to be protected and, furthermore, that rights of compensation are to be paid. This is the protection that this House would be very chary about giving away. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Faulks
My noble friend will know that Article 1 of the first protocol of the European convention does precisely the same thing.
Viscount Hailsham
So there is an overlap, and the question is one of remedies. As my noble friend will know, the remedies under the charter are probably more effective than the remedies under the convention, and that is the point that the noble and learned Lord was making.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend seems to be saying that we need to incorporate this into British domestic law to protect ourselves from an extremist, wicked Government, but surely if such a Government were elected, one of the first things they would do would be to scrap this law using their parliamentary majority.
Viscount Hailsham
That would have to get through both Houses, which would be at least some check on the process. The point I am making is not quite the point that my noble friend has interpreted. I am saying that, if the charter is to be incorporated into domestic law, it has to be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny and amendment, and that is the only basis on which the charter should be incorporated into domestic law.
I accept the noble and learned Lord’s point that a number of aspects of the charter are entirely irrelevant and are hinged on our membership of the Union. Articles 44, 42, 43 and 39 are examples of that. There are also articles in the provision of the charter that many of us would disagree with. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has indicated that she does not like many of them, and I happen to agree with her. I heard my noble friends Lord Howard, Lord Lamont and Lord Blencathra chuntering away, and I agree with them: there are many things in the charter with which I disagree. But I am saying that if it is to be incorporated, it should be incorporated in such a way as to enable this House to scrutinise each and every one of its provisions and amend as appropriate.
I remind the Committee that one reason many noble Lords and others wish to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights is that the judge-made interpretation of the text is incapable of amendment by Parliament. I wish to avoid that criticism being made of the charter if it is to be incorporated. The suggestion in my amendment to make the charter, if incorporated, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and amendment is perhaps the only example in this sorry business of being able to cherry pick, or to have your cake and eat it.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, may I respond to some of the objections that have been raised to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, with whose speech I agree entirely?
Many of the objections—those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, are typical—are to the content of the charter or to its implications. The Committee should appreciate that that is not the Government’s position. The Government’s position is not that they seek to exclude the charter because its contents or implications are objectionable. Their position is very clear indeed. If noble Lords read the debates in the House of Commons or look at the report of the Constitution Committee, they will see that the Government’s position is simply that we do not need the charter in this Bill because its contents and implications are already contained in the retained EU law that is being read across through this Bill. So many of the objections that the Committee is listening to are simply beside the point: they are not the Government’s objection to the charter. The Government’s objection to the charter—it is unnecessary because its contents are already part of retained EU law—is, I am afraid, simply unsustainable. I will not take up time on this, because the hour is late, but if any noble Lords are doubtful about it, I simply suggest they read the helpful opinion by Jason Coppel QC, in which he clearly sets out the equality and human rights position. That is the first point.
Turning to the second point, I am always reluctant to disagree with my noble friend Lady Deech, because she taught me law at Oxford, but I have to disagree with her on this occasion. Her objection, as she explained it, and I hope I do not misrepresent her, is that she is concerned that the charter will enable the courts to overturn legislation enacted by Parliament—she is nodding. But I am sure she appreciates that that is inherent in this Bill. The whole point of the Bill is to read across as retained EU law the content of existing EU law that is applicable to this country and to give it—see Clause 5—supremacy. Supremacy means that it takes priority, as in the Factortame case, over anything enacted by Parliament which is inconsistent. So the suggestion that we must oppose the charter because it gives courts that power is simply inconsistent with what the Bill does.
Turning to the third objection, my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood was concerned about whether the inclusion of the charter would, in some way, give a power that expands the role of the charter further than under EU law. My simple answer to that is no, of course it does not. The charter is being read across only because it is part of existing EU law, and it comes across as retained EU law. It will not have any greater force than it already has as part of EU law.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
In those circumstances, does my noble friend agree that the result of that is that we are henceforth, instead of treating retained EU law as part of domestic law—having discarded the separation and shed the notion that it is a distinct body of law—still going to have to wrestle with all the difficulties inherent in distinguishing operations or actions pursued in the ambit of EU law from those that are not? Will that problem continue into the distant future?
Lord Pannick
My answer is very simple: yes, of course. The whole point of the Bill is to read across the EU law which currently applies to this country and for it to continue to apply. That is the Government’s objective. It is their objective because they—very sensibly, in my view—wish to ensure legal certainty and clarity on exit day. That is exactly the legal position. It is not my idea; it is the Government’s intention in this Bill.
As to all the concerns about what the charter might or might not do, one should bear in mind that the charter has been applicable in the courts of this country for many years. No one has suggested that there is some case or principle which is so objectionable that we need now to make an exception for the charter, when the Government’s intention in the Bill is to read across all retained EU law to ensure a functioning statute book that preserves the legal position and ensures clarity, certainty and continuity. That is what this Bill is about.
Lord True (Con)
There is, I think, a fourth question. As a layman, I have been listening for 51 minutes to extensive legal argument on these questions—and who am I to judge, in a sense?—and I was persuaded by the distinguished arguments of two former Law Lords that I heard. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to three arguments but there is surely a fourth argument which has not been adduced by any of the noble and learned Lords who have spoken, and that is that 17.4 million British people voted to leave the European Union, and that means coming out from under the jurisdiction of entities which are not subject to the Crown, Parliament and UK law.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, smiles and laughs. All the arguments that we have heard in this Chamber over the past two days in Committee come from those who do not wish that to happen, but the fact is that the British people sought a future in which they and their Parliament will make UK laws, and UK judges, under the Crown, will judge those. We have no need of any charter which has been made outside, something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, argued for repeatedly when he was Attorney-General.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The reason I am smiling is that he clearly has not read this Bill. The Government’s Bill reads across the entire content of EU law that applies as at the exit date; it becomes part of our law. It is the whole point of the Bill.
Lord Pannick
I am sorry; let me complete the point. The noble Lord has made a point and he is simply wrong. The Government’s Bill reads across the whole of EU law. It removes the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—I do not suggest to the contrary—and the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has absolutely nothing to do with the role of the European Court of Justice. It will be the role of our courts and our judges to decide from now on the meaning and effect of the retained EU law which this Bill reads across. It will then be in later legislation for Parliament, as it sees fit, to amend or repeal that law. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, indicated, the Prime Minister said that this Bill is not an occasion for changing the law, it is an occasion for ensuring that on exit day we have a workable, certain, continuing system of law. The real question is why this Bill should make an exception for one element of European Union law, the charter. There is no justification for that whatsoever.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, it does the opposite of what my brilliant former pupil the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said. The inclusion of the charter brings with it uncertainty. It is a Trojan horse because if you carry on applying it, its meaning depends on the evolving case law of the ECJ, which has an objective of bringing further integration and other objectives to do with Europe that are not our objectives. Our judges have said that they want certainty after Brexit, but to include the charter, which is evolving all the time, without our scrutiny will give our judges sleepless nights because they will have to follow the twists and turns in EU law. I come back to the fact that the nub of this is that it will plainly give our judges the right to set aside and invalidate UK law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, mentioned with approval the Benkharbouche case, where part of our sovereign immunity law was set aside by the Supreme Court on the basis of charter supremacy. That was actually dangerous because if other countries start setting aside immunity law when dealing with our diplomats, we will be in a very difficult situation indeed. I would not assess the Supreme Court by the outcome of what it says; we assess courts by the way they are appointed and the integrity of our judges. The retention of the charter is a recipe for confusion, uncertainty and the setting aside of British law according to ECJ judgments.
Lord Pannick
I am sorry to say to the noble Baroness that that is exactly what this Bill achieves in relation to all other retained EU law which is read across. This will be under the control of British judges. Under the Bill it is entirely a matter for them what weight, if any, they choose to give to judgments of the European Court of Justice. The charter of rights is no different from any other provision of EU law in that respect. The noble Baroness mentioned certainty. What I think provokes uncertainty for judges is the approach in this Bill. It is not simply that the charter of rights is excluded by Clause 5; the clause goes on to say that undefined,
“fundamental rights or principles which exist irrespective of the Charter”,
are retained. There is a conflict in the approach taken on this issue. I suggest to noble Lords that the correct approach is that which has been recommended to the Committee and to the House by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee: that there is no justification whatever for distinguishing between the charter of rights and all other aspects of retained EU law. I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in what he said.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 35 standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which would leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert the words as set out in the amendment. The objective of Amendment 35 is to retain the charter rights in UK law and afford them the same level of protection as those in the Human Rights Act. It has similar objectives to some of the other amendments that have been proposed. I must admit that I address the House on these issues with some trepidation because I am not a lawyer, although I have taken the advice of lawyers in drafting this amendment.
The amendment provides for what I hope is a sensible and responsible approach to Brexit that respects the referendum decision but does not sacrifice rights and protections on the altar of ideology. Removing the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from EU retained law runs counter to the stated purpose of the Bill, which is to facilitate the wholesale transfer of EU law into the domestic statute book. It also contradicts the Government’s assurances that the same rules will apply on the day before exit as on the day after. The Government’s justification for this anomaly is to claim that the charter is unnecessary and that its omission will not result in any loss of substantive rights protections.
In an attempt to support their public assurances to that effect, the Government have since published a right-by-right analysis that they say demonstrates that each right can be found in domestic law. The analysis is unpersuasive. According to Liberty and Amnesty International, it is perfectly possible to retain the charter and deal with any redundant sections after exit just as with the rest of retained EU law, as has already been mentioned. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has obtained the opinion of senior counsel Jason Coppel QC on the Government’s analysis of the charter. His advice is that the loss of the charter will lead to a significant weakening of human rights protection in the UK. This is because, first, there will be gaps in protection, for example in relation to children’s rights, data protection and non-discrimination. Secondly, many rights will no longer be directly enforceable, leading to further gaps in protection. Thirdly, many remaining rights could be removed by Ministers exercising delegated powers.
A particular concern that I would like to highlight is that Brexit will remove any children’s rights and safeguards currently offered by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which imposes a constitutional obligation on member states to adhere to children’s rights standards when implementing EU law. The EU’s Court of Justice now routinely refers to the charter when adjudicating on cases involving children.
Baroness Deech
I am reluctant to interfere. My noble friend Lord Listowel, who is sitting next to me, knows more about child law than anybody. I must point out that the protection given to child law in the charter is very crude indeed compared with decades-old jurisprudence in this country. Very recently, the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Children Act before were a nuanced and balanced approach to the protection of children, their education and their rights to contact with both parents. They are infinitely more subtle and pay more attention to their welfare than this kind of sledgehammer approach from the charter.
Lord Wigley
I hear what the noble Baroness says. All I would say is that by ensuring that we incorporate things into UK law, we then have an opportunity, democratically and in an accountable fashion, to make modifications as may be necessary. The danger is that we will throw out babies with bathwater.
Again, the Government have stated that the removal of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from UK law,
“will not affect the substantive rights from which individuals already benefit in the UK”.
The White Paper notes that many of the rights protected in the charter are also found in UN and other international treaties that the UK has ratified, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, in a centralised context there is no specific statutory provision requiring respect for children’s rights in lawmaking, nor a general requirement to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK.
Furthermore, this particular argument has a specific Welsh angle. Stronger protection for children’s rights exists in the devolved nations, specifically in Wales. The Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 imposes a duty on Ministers to have due regard to children’s rights as expressed in the UNCRC when exercising any of their functions. To achieve that obligation, since 2012 the Welsh Government routinely undertake child rights impact assessments on proposals for Welsh law or policy that will affect children directly or indirectly.
The withdrawal Bill will limit the scope of the devolved nations to alter law within the current devolution settlement and brings competence on matters that have been arranged under EU law back to Westminster. This would prevent the devolved nations from exercising their powers to withstand or amend legislation from Westminster, even where this contradicts their own commitments to children’s rights. I submit the amendment to the Committee as a contribution to the debate on these most important considerations.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise as a co-signatory to Amendment 35. I usually come to these debates feeling that I understand all the issues involved and, within minutes, I am confused by contradictory legal opinions and by arguments from across the House on issues that are not even relevant to the Bill. So can we go back to basics? I feel like the woman on the Clapham omnibus who is just seeing common sense. The fact is that the Government promised to bring over all EU law and are choosing to exempt this aspect of it. I do not understand that; they break a promise at their peril, because people out there will not understand.
I could not do better than repeat some of the things said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Let me read again what it says:
“The simplest and best way of achieving the Government’s intention that substantive rights should remain unchanged and ensuring legal certainty is to retain the Charter rights in UK law”.
I do not understand why the Government do not see that as well. The legal opinion produced for the Equality and Human Rights Commission by Jason Coppel QC, which we have heard of already, states that failing to keep the charter will result in,
“a significant weakening of the current system of human rights protection in the UK”.
Why is that not accepted? It is a legal argument. Have the Government read that opinion? If so, will they re-read it and give us a considered response to it? It clearly has a validity that I doubt the Government’s position has.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke about being on the centre ground, which I did not entirely agree with. I feel that I am on the centre ground; I feel that I, here, can at least express things that I hear out on the street. Out on the street, people think that the Government are going to keep all EU law and then amend it when it comes. That was the promise, so why are the Government refusing to fulfil it?
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak in favour of Amendment 34 and in support of the other amendments in this group that seek to retain the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK domestic law. I did not speak at Second Reading, in good part out of recognition of a long list of speakers. I hope that the Committee will accept my apologies and my contribution this evening.
The key question here is not whether one was for or against leaving the European Union, nor is it whether one agrees with every aspect of the charter; neither of those points is relevant to this debate. It is whether there are sufficient grounds to exclude the charter from being transposed into UK law in exception to every other law being so transposed. In my view, there is no argument that, if we exclude it, we will see a weakening of our rights. That is very clear from the analysis that we have had from the commission and others.
There is no doubt that excluding the charter will lead to confusion and uncertainty in the law—that, too, is made clear in the analysis by other lawyers. So the question one has to ask is: are the grounds for excluding the charter compelling? I have not been persuaded that they are.
When Ministers say that something is not necessary, I get nervous. It usually means that it really is necessary but they do not want truly to state the reasons why. That is the reality here. The hard truth is that people speaking against the charter’s inclusion do not like it. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take but, if they do not like the charter, that is a debate for further legislative change in the future; it is not a reason for accepting it now.
The public expect us to act with integrity and to do what it says on the tin in relation to this Bill. The two things that have been very clear right from the off on this Bill are that it will not see a diminution of rights and it will not try to change legislation from the EU but will transpose it, followed by a proper debate in this House about where change is needed. Unless those advocating the charter’s exception can come up with compelling reasons why it cannot be incorporated, the balance of argument must be for it to stay and be transposed into UK law.
I say to the Government: when you are in a hole, stop digging. This should be agreed; it is a straightforward amendment that we can make in this Parliament. It does not, mercifully, await the outcome of the deal or anything related to it; it is a simple matter of integrity in the process that we are carrying out through the Bill. We should support the amendment.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as a co-signatory to Amendment 63A, which is also in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I will be very brief, especially in a room full, it seems, of Law Lords and lawyers. I come to this in perhaps a very different way from others. As a 67 year-old man, I have spent most of my life not having equality before the law or the equal protection of the law; that is, as a gay man. Most of my rights—the equality I now enjoy—have been achieved largely by dragging legislative changes forcefully from Governments who did not want to give them to us or to many other misrepresented and defamed minorities. When it comes to human rights and civil liberties, you can never have enough belt and braces. Therefore, I do not understand why the exception to the carryover of EU law is solely in relation to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the general principles.
I promised to be brief and brief I will be. Tonight has illustrated to me more than any arguments that have come from a swathe of NGOs, such as the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Royal College of Nursing and others, that we cannot bring forward a change of such magnitude as this in a Bill that is supposed to retain all the EU law and then amend it afterwards. If we are to change the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, it should be done with full public scrutiny by both Houses, through primary legislation and the full engagement of civil society.
Let me finish on this. I talked about the rights that I and others have achieved that have had to be dragged. I want people to have easier access to the courts. If the Charter of Fundamental Rights in some way, through one clause or another, achieves that, I will go to wherever I go when I lay my head finally with great peace and rest. Why? Because the European Union was born out of the ashes of the Second World War—the ashes from crematoria that were dotted across Europe because people were taken there because of their difference, their perceived difference. Homosexuals were worked to death in concentration camps alongside trade unionists and many others. Yes, it is emotional but when you are denied and deprived of your human rights, it strikes at the very core of your being. When you are not given the equality that others have under the law, it strikes at your very existence.
These rights have been achieved and enumerated not only in conventions. Sadly, I have heard laughter rained upon people who have tried to defend the charter and the concept of human rights tonight, and I do not take that lightly. These rights that have been achieved have often been forced back against those who have sought them. They have been achieved, often, against the will of Governments and across the sacrifices of generations. Do not put them aside lightly. I urge noble Lords to support this group of amendments. If we are to change anything, let us do it through primary legislation or, at the very least, in the same way that we amend other retained EU law.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am sure that the Committee will be greatly moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has said. Everyone is concerned to protect human rights but we must not fall into the trap of saying rights are good and therefore, more rights are better.
The role of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in our law has been an uncertain one. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has had a great deal to do with it and knows a great deal about its creation; he played a part in its drafting. He got his retaliation in first at Second Reading and today, knowing that it was going to be pointed out to him that he was not initially an enthusiast for the charter because of the apparent disorder it might create in the rights architecture of our law. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind. It is quite a fashionable course for the party opposite to take at the moment. My difficulty is not with the change of mind but the fact that I agreed with his original stance, which was that adding the charter, which was designed for an entirely different purpose, ran the risk of undermining the clarity and cogency of our law.
I have some experience of the way rights are played in court. I was part of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who is in her place. I was also a Minister with responsibility for human rights. I have considerable experience over the past 20 years, following the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights by the Human Rights Act, of acting for public authorities which have been sued for alleged violations of those rights. Rights are very difficult to interpret, whether they come from a declaration, a charter or a convention. Inevitably they tend to be expressed in general terms and leave a great deal to individual judges to interpret and try to make practical sense of.
Most of the rights contained in the charter—obviously, some of them are inappropriate—are not controversial in what they seek to protect. What is far more controversial is how these rights should be interpreted. My right may be in conflict with your right. The protection of my right may have to be sacrificed or modified by the need to protect others’ rights or the powers that the state may inevitably have which affect or modify those rights. Of course we need to protect children, the disabled and the vulnerable in society, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. Most of what we do in Parliament is concerned with the definition of circumstances in which individuals’ rights should be protected. A number of noble Lords have identified the right to dignity as being important since it is not reflected precisely in the European convention. We can all agree that it is important that citizens are treated with dignity but how does one translate that into anything meaningful in terms of the courts providing remedies?
The difficulty is that rights are now regarded as trumps and if we are to retain the charter, as seems to be the purport of the amendments in this group, we will have the rather strange situation of existing domestic law, whether it comes from the Human Rights Act or elsewhere, being supplemented by the charter, which will have a particular status. As the Government have made clear, the charter was never supposed to be a source of rights per se but a reflection of the rights that are generally protected by the European Court of Justice. It would be peculiar for our courts to continue to rely on the charter, which was designed to apply to EU institutions in interpreting the scope of EU law, after we have actually left the European Union.
The Advocate-General has occasionally made remarks about the charter. At its highest it has been described as “soft law”. If we need to protect or further protect rights, is that not a matter for Parliament or even judges interpreting the common law? Are we really so impotent as a Parliament that we have to rely on the relatively recent EU charter to provide such protection? Some of the amendments seek to turn soft law into hard law with application after we have left. This Bill is surely to provide clarity and coherence in the law after we have left the EU. Retaining the charter will do precisely the opposite.
I regret that I do not agree with various observations made at Second Reading that the Human Rights Act provides only for declarations of incompatibility. It does in fact provide damages for violations of the convention. I suspect the reason the charter has attracted such vigorous support is the rather egregious way it has been singled out for attention in the Bill. The reason it has been so singled out is the uncertainty of its application by the courts so far, and the Government’s desire to be absolutely clear that in the difficult task of interpreting the law that the judges will face, the charter can safely be ignored.
My amendment, which I come to in conclusion, is an attempt to provide some clarity as to what role, if any, the charter may have in the future. In so far as the charter is part of retained law—I appreciate that the definition of retained law is also the subject of debate—there seems no harm in it having some continued existence, in so far as it is necessary for the interpretation of that retained law; hence my amendment. What I find wholly unconvincing is the argument that it should somehow remain, as a non-native species, providing a free-standing source of rights—as in the Goldsmith amendment—or that it should be grafted on, subject to amendments to the Human Rights Act, as in the Wigley amendment. Who will benefit if the charter remains part of our domestic law after exit day? I fear it will not be those whom we rightly wish to protect; it will be the lawyers, and surely we do not want that.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
I stood up before the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, sat down as I knew he was coming to an end. He mentioned, and I accept entirely, his position that the Government may have excluded the Charter of Fundamental Rights because of uncertainty. But for many people it is an indicator of something else: that Conservative Party manifestos over a number of years have promised that the Human Rights Act would be removed. On many occasions, we have heard leading Conservatives say that we should remove ourselves from the European Convention on Human Rights, too. The absence of the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Bill suggests to many that this is part of a journey taking us out of any international arrangements dealing with the protection of human rights, and that that is the real purpose.
Lord Faulks
The Government’s position has been made quite clear: they have no intention of repealing the Human Rights Act. It is perfectly true that the previous Government said that they would consult on the question and bring in a British Bill of Rights, which would not mean departing from the European convention. Of course, I understand that there are those who are suspicious of this Government’s motives—I do not speak for the Government—but if a Government were hell-bent on getting rid of human rights, they would of course be able to get rid of the charter as well. I do not accept the sinister interpretation of the noble Baroness. The intention is simply to achieve clarity; that is what the Bill is about.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Conservative manifesto said:
“We will not repeal … the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes. We will remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of the next parliament”.
When the Minister replies, can he give us an assurance about the long-term commitment of the Conservative Party to the Human Rights Act?
Lord Faulks
No Parliament can bind its successor; one would expect every Government to consider human rights as an ongoing process, and how best to protect them.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 63A, which is in my name and has already been spoken to with great passion by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. He gave an excellent antidote to a debate that has otherwise been an important but nevertheless cerebral examination of the legal position of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I do not think I am going to give way to the noble Lord because I have been trying to speak. In the course of this debate, we are not actually going—I shall give way to the Chief Whip.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14, the effect of which is to retain the charter as part of domestic law and to retain EU law under which claimants would be able to have domestic legislation struck down on the basis of incompatibility with the charter. Some noble Lords have expressed the view that they were baffled by the exclusion of the charter from this legislation, but I felt that the arguments were put very simply and cogently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, at Second Reading when he simply pointed out that the charter is only one part of our extensive framework of human rights, that there would be a risk of confusion because of conflict with the ECHR and that what this was doing was complicating the situation to no good purpose.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has produced a memorandum showing how existing rights are being provided for in the legislation and in retained law. He has also gone further and said that if anyone can provide specific examples of rights that are not provided for, he will give the matter due consideration. Various people have suggested various things that may or may not be suitable for inclusion, but they will no doubt be considered by the Secretary of State and could be considered for primary legislation.
I asked the noble and learned Lord why he had changed his mind about the incorporation of the charter, which he and Prime Minister Blair strongly opposed in the Lisbon treaty. I do not want to go over that, as I think I made my point, but I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he had very good reasons for excluding it, and that now is an opportunity—
Lord Goldsmith
In fact, this country accepted that the charter would become part of EU law in the Lisbon treaty—it is the opposite of what the noble Lord said.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Against the noble and learned Lord’s will. There was also an attempt to get an opt-out, which the European Court of Justice said was not valid. I see that the Minister is agreeing with me. I believe that is a correct account of what happened. It was struck down. The case in which it happened was, I think, Aklagaren v Hans Akerberg Fransson.
Lord Pannick
Would the noble Lord accept that there are many areas of EU law which this country has opposed but which have nevertheless become part of EU law? This Bill seeks to exclude none of them from retained EU law, other than the charter. Why is that?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
That is very much my argument. For reasons that I wish to develop, I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and what was said by my noble friend Lord Faulks about the confusion and conflict that this will cause between the role of the European Court of Justice and our own courts. The President of the Supreme Court has already called for further clarification of the relationship the Supreme Court will have with the European Court of Justice. It seems to me, for reasons I am about to give, that this would be made even worse if we incorporated the charter into the Bill and into UK law.
The retention of the charter would lead to real problems of uncertainty and confusion. Above all, retaining the charter would give the ECJ even more continued influence over our courts. I accept what the noble and learned Lord has said, that there is going to be a relationship for a while with the jurisprudence of the ECJ, but incorporating the charter will give much more opportunity for what people have called judicial adventurism from the European Court of Justice, as it continues to expand the interpretation of the charter. This is not an obsession of Conservatives. I draw the Committee’s attention to what the late Lord Bingham, I think, said in evidence to the House of Lords EU Committee in 2016. He said that although,
“the European Court of Human Rights is a very benign institution … the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has predatory qualities to it that could be very inimical to some of our national practices”.
That is a reference to the expansionist activities of the ECJ. The charter, as many people know, is extremely loosely worded. The risk of leaving the charter in place is that it allows the ECJ, while it still has jurisdiction over us and our Supreme Court, to expand the charter into new areas. I am not suggesting that the rights we have are frozen for ever or should not be expanded, but merely that that is something that should be decided in this country by our Parliament.
I am also concerned, because of this and the expansion of activities of the ECJ, that if the charter were incorporated our courts would acquire the power to strike down statute on the basis of incompatibility with the charter, which is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was making. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the Factortame case, which was a notorious example where an Act of Parliament was actually struck down. We do not want to create another situation in which domestic courts can strike down Acts of Parliament.
It is the European Court of Justice that interprets what the charter means within the European Union, so if the charter is incorporated into law, what relationship is then going to exist between the Supreme Court and the ECJ? As the ECJ continues to develop its interpretation of the charter, we would be on a road where we had to take it more and more into account. On the basis of what has been said, we must avoid that confusion.
If there are gaps in the rights, we have an opportunity to incorporate them with primary legislation. For example, people have been saying in some of the debates that there are various matters relating to the environment that are not covered. However, we will have a new environment Act and a new environment agency. That seems to me to be the way to cope with any rights that are not fully covered, and it is far better to avoid the confusion of incorporating the charter into UK law.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I am being persistent this evening because I want to point out the glaring contradiction in the views that have been put forward in support of the Government and of the Bill as it currently stands. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, says the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a pernicious and dangerous document—“dangerous” was her word—that would lead to courts in this country setting aside laws that they did not like, which would be scandalously contrary to British traditions of constitution and law. On the other side, we have had people, and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is the latest example of this, saying the reason why we cannot have the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Bill and transferred into English law is that it is unnecessary and would be confusing because all the rights are there and some of the rights are already in the corpus of British law. Noble Lords must make up their minds: they cannot say something is a radical and pernicious measure with substantial negative consequences but at the same time say that it has no effect at all and is merely otiose. There is a fundamental contradiction there. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, noticed the same thing but was not quite so explicit about it as I have been.
Lord Davies of Stamford
There is a confusion in this country that comes up quite frequently. We like to think—we are brought up to think it—that we do not have a written constitution in this country and we do not have constitutional laws. That is totally untrue: the Bill of Rights is a constitutional law; in my view the Bill that we are now trying to repeal, the European Communities Act, is a constitutional law; and the Human Rights Act is certainly a constitutional law. By “a constitutional law”, I mean a law that is generally regarded as foundational and is prayed in aid before the courts and referred to in court judgments across a whole range of subjects. Because of that contradiction, we do not really recognise what is going on and we get ourselves into a frightful confusion.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I am not shocked and offended by the idea that a court could put aside a Bill that was contrary to existing law. The remedy, of course, is quite simple: Parliament can change either the existing law or the previous one. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, my Lincolnshire neighbour, came out with the right solution when he said that the check and the important constitutional protection against a Government with a parliamentary majority acting entirely irresponsibly or even tyrannically is that any Bills they put forward would have to go through both Houses. In that context, one hopes that the House of Lords would act as a guardian of the constitution and be prepared to stand up to the Government and wait for them, if necessary, to bring in the Parliament Act to override it. That would be a considerable check and balance, and it is a very important role of this House that we are there as a long-stop in such circumstances. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, came up with the right solution and I am sorry that I did not sign his amendment, but I certainly approve of it very much, and if he comes forward with something like it at Report, I shall be happy to support it.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, it is very late and I shall be brief. My noble friend Lady Deech is absolutely right: we can be very proud of the children’s legislation we have in this country. The Children Act 1989 is an outstanding Act for children. We are good at many things: we have great lawyers, great scientists and great soldiers in this country. Unfortunately, we do not do so well at implementing the law. I am particularly concerned here about children’s rights. Let me quickly give some examples.
I have talked to families with a disabled child trying to get access to early years education for their child. They get turned away again and again because the setting does not have the right equipment or staff to deal with them. Look at what is happening in the family courts. They are being overwhelmed by children being taken into care. Year on year, the number of children taken into care increases. Lord Justice Munby, the President of the Family Division, recently said that that is accelerating and that the family courts cannot deal with it. The All-Party Parliamentary Group has looked carefully at why that is over the past two years. It is because there just are not the resources in local authorities to support vulnerable families to stop their children being taken into care.
It is very interesting for me to read Article 24 on the rights of the child:
“Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests”.
That right is being compromised day by day in this country. Children are being removed from their families because those families have not had the support they needed to make a go of looking after their child.
This is very difficult and the Government have very difficult choices to make, but if you talk to social workers and academics, you find that this right is being compromised day by day. I know that the Conservative Party, in particular, is concerned to see that families are strong and integrated. I am sure that the Minister will tell me on this article that there are already strong protections in British legislation to ensure that the best interests of the child are maintained and their families are supported to prevent this happening. What is happening on the ground, however, is that because social workers wish to safeguard the children, and because the threshold of access to a social worker is so high, they are getting to see the family when it is in crisis, when things have got to a terrible pass and they think that the interest of the child lies in removing the child from this terrible situation.
If we applied this principle properly, we would be intervening earlier to support those families. We see great examples of that. For instance, the family drug and alcohol court, which is expanding across the country, is supporting parents to get them off drugs and alcohol so that they can keep their children.
A number of important protections for children are laid out here: access to education and so on. I will have a look at the Joint Committee on Human Rights report to see what is exempted here. There is lots of good legislation for children in this country, but when I look at what goes on on the continent in terms of security of tenure in housing or quality of professional care for vulnerable children, I fear that so often they do so much better. My prejudice is that we need this sort of thing.
I worry about the elective dictatorship. We get small groups of very wise and intelligent people leading this country from the way we work constitutionally, and the breadth of experience, the people who get left behind, those just managing families, get forgotten about in the drive to do one or other very good thing which eclipses every other consideration. Being as explicit as one can about the rights of children and the protection for families can be very helpful. We will come back to this, and I look forward to debating it further, but on that specific article, I should be grateful for reassurance as to how it will be protected in future.
Lord Newby (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I know how concerned he is about the rights of children, but I wondered whether he had read the joint submission from the Children’s Rights Alliance for England and Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights), which argues forcefully and at length, with many details, and gives many examples of why they wish to have the fundamental charter retained. Why does he disagree with them and wishes it not to be?
The Earl of Listowel
I am sorry; it is late. I would like in principle to retain the charter. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not part of British law, and the charter has been a means of channelling the principles of the UNCRC into British law. We need that. The minimum age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10 years old; we can lock up children of 10 years of age. Even in Turkey—with respect to Turkey—it is 16, and 14 around the continent. We are really harsh with our children and we need such protections.
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, as the tail-end Charlie in this debate, I too shall be brief. I believe that there is nothing fundamental about this so-called charter. It was a political wish list cobbled together by the EU in the year 2000, incorporated into the Lisbon treaty in 2009, and opposed by every Labour Government Minister. In fact, Gordon Brown would not even go to Lisbon on the first day to sign it. He wanted to distance himself from it. It includes such meaningless waffle as the right to “physical and mental integrity”, and such wonderful new rights as the right to marry and the right to freedom of thought. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, so cleverly exposed, my right to freedom of thought seems to apply only to the 20,000 EU laws. If I am thinking about any other UK laws, the charter does not seem to apply.
Of course, the charter contains the fundamental right to a fair trial. Well, 803 years ago, this noble House put the right to a fair trial in Clause 39 of the Magna Carta. That is the most important fundamental right of all, which we have had for more than 800 years. The Magna Carta was also known as the “Great Charter of Freedoms” and the late Lord Denning called it,
“the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.
That is what our predecessors in this House did—not the King, not a foreign court but this noble House.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Does the noble Lord recall that the Magna Carta was in 1214, and that the first Parliaments began to sit in the 1270s?
Lord Blencathra
The Magna Carta was imposed on King John by the Barons, as I understand it—the Barons being Members of this noble House. The House did not exist in that form, but it was imposed by the Lords and the Barons. The House of Commons passed the Bill of Rights 350 years ago and imposed it on the sovereign, guaranteeing our rights to free elections, no taxes without parliamentary approval and free speech. The Bill of Rights passed 350 years ago by this Parliament formed the basis of the United States Bill of Rights and Bills of rights of other countries around the world.
Then just 70 years ago, we used our unique experience to write the European Convention on Human Rights—largely written by British lawyers. We wrote that for countries which had no history of our fundamental freedoms and had suffered the evils and degradations of National Socialism. What I am saying is that the worst indictment I make of the EU is that it seems to have destroyed the belief among parliamentarians, noble Lords and Members of Parliament that we are capable of governing ourselves and writing our own law.
There is nothing of any value in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is not already covered in UK law or the European convention. If we find some great new right in the future and decide that freedom of thought must become a law, are we incapable in this House, in the other place and as British parliamentarians of drafting that? Are we so enfeebled and incapable that we cannot do it? If the Barons could do it 800 years ago, Members of Parliament 350 years ago and the British Government and parliamentarians did it for Europe 70 years ago, are we so incapable that we cannot do it now?
The people of this country voted to bring back control of our laws because they believed that Parliament was capable of making better laws than the EU. They believed that we are better at deciding on our essential rights than an ECJ judge from Bulgaria who has a law degree in Marxist-Leninist law—I have checked on that, and he has got a degree from Sofia on Marxist-Leninist law.
I happen to agree with the British people. I see the incredible wealth of talent in this House, with noble and learned Lords and Law Lords, and I trust our courts. We do not need nor want this charter. Let us wear once gain the mantle of our predecessors in the Lords and Commons, who gave us every freedom that has been worth fighting and dying for for the last few hundred years. We need the courage of the electorate, who trusted us to make our own laws once again. We should not let them down.
Baroness Ludford
There are several more speakers, I am afraid, including me.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, in briefly supporting those amendments that seek to retain the charter, I owe your Lordships an apology. I ought to have declared that I am a member of the advisory board of the British Institute of Human Rights at Second Reading, but I forgot.
I am not a lawyer, but I respectfully submit that law is not primarily for lawyers, any more than water is for water engineers—it is for people to implement the central values of our democracy on their behalf, and the deprivation of rights and access to justice causes harm, unfair poverty, unfair unhappiness and, in some cases, unjustly shorter lives. That is the sort of thing we should be thinking of when we look at these amendments.
I shall just give three quick examples, much humbler than those of Mr David Davis. The general principles and the charter ensured that Mr John Walker could challenge and end pension inequality for same-sex couples. The charter and the general principles supported the recent case in the Supreme Court, which found employment tribunal fees implemented by the Government were unlawful. And the charter enabled the recognition of the importance of health as a fundamental right—not in our law—when tobacco companies challenged regulations to introduce plain packaging of cigarettes.
It seems extremely clear that dropping the charter will do away with protective rights and drop safeguards that have ensured justice in individual cases of injustice. It is individuals who we ought to be thinking about, and rights that would not otherwise exist that we ought to safeguard in the charter.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, the Benches opposite have been well filled to harry the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about fundamental rights. Sadly, they were not here for the previous debate to speak up for achieving a fundamental right to safety and security.
I fear that parts of this debate have displayed a fundamental misunderstanding about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. There has been evidence of some quite muddled thinking. The charter is not a tool that extends the remit of EU law or promotes further integration; it protects citizens and businesses from abuse of the powers that EU laws confer on EU institutions and—I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—on national Governments when they are implementing EU laws. So it is not just about all the EU institutions that we might leave; it is about achieving legal certainty and continuity. Deleting the charter means discontinuity by making substantive changes to the EU law that is retained in domestic law.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I will make one brief point that no noble Lord has yet made about Northern Ireland, which I know is of concern to many Members of this House. At Second Reading, citing the Bingham centre and Lady Hermon, I asked the Minister to explain how the requirement in the Good Friday agreement for an equivalent level of human rights protection in Northern Ireland and the Republic would be maintained if the citizens of the former could no longer look to the charter. In his helpful letter to Peers, the Minister pointed out that the agreement preceded the charter and, as the charter is therefore not referenced in the agreement, the Bill should not affect our obligations to it. But the point is about equivalence. If the charter now applies in the Republic and not in Northern Ireland, with the loss of various rights in the latter, I ask again how that equivalence is to be maintained.
Baroness Deech
I will make a point that has not been made before. The charter has never been scrutinised by this House. If it had been, we would not have this lack of clarity. I have more confidence in the ability of our Supreme Court to protect us than I have in the ECJ. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said, what a failure the charter has been across Europe. The Roma are being persecuted, migrants are not getting proper treatment, the leaders of Catalonia are being locked up and extremist, right-wing parties are on the march. Freedom House is marking down European countries; they are sliding away from human rights. I am not proud of the charter; it has not worked in Europe. We are much better off with something home-grown and administered by our Supreme Court.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, if I appear faint in my defence of the Bill it is due to a lack of food rather than a lack of enthusiasm. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this important debate and set out the Government’s position. I will start by making it clear that we are listening carefully to the debates on this issue, and will continue to do so.
The Government agree that protecting our rights and liberties as we leave the EU is of critical importance and it is only right that every detail of our approach is scrutinised. This has been a wide-ranging debate about human rights after exit, but it is worth remembering that the amendments before us relate specifically to the charter and the question of what role, if any, it should have in domestic law when we are no longer a member of the EU.
I maintain that the approach in the Bill to the charter as a document is absolutely right, and that the Bill in this respect is in no need of improvement. However, as many noble Lords have pointed out, that approach cannot be separated from the Bill’s approach to the general principles of EU law, including fundamental rights. In response to the strength of feeling conveyed not just in this House but in the other place, the Government are looking again at these issues. These are highly technical issues in some respects but they are undoubtedly important, so we will look further at whether this part of the Bill can be improved in keeping with some of the concerns that have been expressed. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lamont referred to an observation made by the Secretary of State himself that, if there were specific examples of rights which were not otherwise covered, we would examine them to ensure that the rights were not lost. However, that is not the case. On the specific question of whether the charter should be kept, our view remains that not incorporating the charter into UK law should not in itself affect the substantive rights from which individuals already benefit in the United Kingdom. This is because the charter was never the source of those rights.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, anticipated that he might be reminded of his previous remarks on the matter, and I see no reason to disappoint him. In 2008, when this House debated the then European Union (Amendment) Bill, he was absolutely clear that,
“the charter was never intended to be applied directly to member states in dealing with those matters that member states have the competence to deal with. It was always intended to constrain the European Union institutions … the United Kingdom’s position, like my position, has always been that the charter affirms existing rights, it does not create any new justiciable rights in any member state and does not extend the power of the courts. Moreover, in many cases the charter rights are based on national laws and practices and so they must mirror the extent and content of those national”,—[Official Report, 9/6/08; cols. 426-27.]
laws.
The noble and learned Lord observed that he had nevertheless then encountered the incorporation of the charter into the Lisbon treaty in 2009. Perhaps that was a game changer. I remind him of his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee in 2014. At that time he referred back to his previous statements and publications with regard to the charter and went on to say that, as he had there explained, the fundamental point was to provide a clear and accessible statement of existing rights and therefore constraints on the power of the EU to legislate.
As the noble and learned Lord’s previous remarks help to make clear, the charter is only one of the elements of the UK’s existing human rights architecture. It reaffirms rights and principles that exist elsewhere in the EU acquis, irrespective of the charter, and the Bill sets out how those rights and principles will continue to be protected in UK law after exit.
The noble and learned Lord referred to a number of issues, such as the case of Benkharbouche in 2017 in the Supreme Court. In that case the court found that there was a breach of Article 6 of the convention but it also referred to Article 47 of the charter in the context not of rights but of remedies. One has to bear in mind the distinction between rights and remedies.
The noble and learned Lord posed three questions in the context of previous observations about the charter. First, he talked about there being no loss of substantial protection. It is inevitable that leaving the EU will result in changes to the current arrangements, but certainly we do not accept that this in itself will result in a loss of substantive rights.
Secondly, he referred to the procedural protections that will be excluded. When we leave the EU, a person can still rely on sources that are reaffirmed in the charter. I emphasise “reaffirmed in the charter”, as he himself observed in 2008 and 2014. Procedurally there may be differences but we do not consider that that can be a basis for incorporating the charter into domestic law. Indeed, we absolutely stand by what has been said by the Prime Minister: it is not necessary to retain the charter to ensure that rights are protected.
The noble and learned Lord also referred to the body of the charter, beginning with Article 1, and suggested that these rights were contained only in the charter. I simply observe that on 5 December last year the Government published a very detailed paper setting out, as it were, a comparison of the rights in the charter and where they can be found elsewhere—in the convention, in the principles of EU law and in our own common law. The noble and learned Lord referred to Article 1, which concerns the right to human dignity. I remind him that there is a long series of case law both from the ECJ, as it then was, and from the European Court of Human Rights going back to 1995 in which, for example, the convention court emphasised that the very essence of the convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom. That has been repeated in a whole series of cases since then. These are well-established rights and they were well established when they were brought together into the charter.
I want to reassure noble Lords that substantive rights protected in the charter are, and will continue to be, protected elsewhere in UK law after we leave the EU, most notably in convention rights, in retained EU law, in the common law and via specific statutory protections such as those in our own equalities legislation. I have already mentioned that the Government published a detailed analysis providing guidance about how substantive rights found in the charter would be reflected in domestic law after exit.
Reference has been made to various legal opinions and that of Jason Coppel QC, who has had a number of name checks this evening. I can only implore noble Lords to look at the very detailed analysis the Government have produced. I also note that some of the references to Mr Coppel’s opinion involve references to his concern that Ministers might change rights, for example, or that the procedures will be affected. However, that is not to say that the fundamental rights underlying the charter are not found elsewhere.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord quite rightly draws our attention to the distinction between rights and remedies, but he will agree that rights are not helpful unless there are remedies. If we were scrutinising the charter and the source of its rights to establish whether we were satisfied that the rights and remedies could still apply, we might, for instance, have noted that the sources of Article 1 mentioned in the analysis would not confer an enforceable right on individuals after exit day. That is the JCHR’s analysis of the analysis.
I hope that the Minister can answer the question asked, in particular, by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Kerslake, about why we have combined the two debates—one about the charter, its rights and wrongs and whether it is good or bad, and the other about the mechanisms. We have heard so often from the Government Front Bench that this Bill is about mechanisms. Why are the Government not using the mechanism they have themselves designed to give them the opportunity, and to give the Committee the opportunity, to consider the substance calmly after the chimes of midnight?
Lord Keen of Elie
Quite simply because, as I indicated earlier to the Committee, the rights underpinning the charter exist elsewhere than in the charter and it is not necessary to incorporate the charter into domestic law in order to find those fundamental rights in our domestic law after we leave the EU.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to interrupt, but the analysis by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to which the noble Baroness referred, which is an analysis of the Government’s analysis, identified a number of rights that are not there other than in the charter. Does the noble and learned Lord reject the JCHR’s analysis?
Lord Keen of Elie
We have considered that analysis, and that is why I indicated that we were still looking at this. As I said, if rights are identified which are not in fact going to be incorporated into our domestic law in the absence of the charter, we will look very carefully at ensuring that those are not lost.
Clause 5(5) makes it clear that, notwithstanding the non-incorporation of the charter, retained EU law will continue to be interpreted by UK courts in a way that is consistent with the underlying rights. I hope that addresses to some extent the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, in that context. Interpretive provisions will retain a means by which we can look at these rights in the proper context.
With regard to those who have expressed concerns about this Bill resulting in a loss of substantive rights, I repeat—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has done, at least prior to his recent Pauline conversion—that it is not necessary to retain the charter to retain those fundamental rights. If we see that there is a potential loss of such fundamental rights, we will address that, and that is what we have indicated.
Lord Pannick
I put it to the noble and learned Lord that there is no other area of retained EU law where the Government have carried out this exercise or said that we do not need to read across a particular provision because it is already in domestic law. Why are they making an exception of the charter?
Lord Keen of Elie
Because this is the only case in which we have identified that situation. There is no other reason for proceeding in this way except for that.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
If, as the noble and learned Lord said on numerous occasions in his reply, the rights established in the charter are already there in our domestic law, what is lost by keeping the charter? If those rights are already there, the Government cannot be worried about anything if they retain the charter.
Lord Keen of Elie
I must compliment the noble and learned Lord on his second sight. As I was about to say, the next argument put to us is that if we say that the charter is not adding anything, what is the problem with keeping it? I hope that is a fair summary of the noble and learned Lord’s intervention. With respect, this argument simply fails to take account of how the charter applies at present. The charter and the rights that it reaffirmed have a limited application. They apply to the EU institutions all of the time, but apply only to member states acting within the scope of EU law. We will no longer be a member state and so we will be no longer be acting within the scope of EU law. Simply retaining the charter would not reflect the realities of leaving the EU. It cannot be right that a document called the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union could continue to be used as the justification to bring cases that would lead ultimately to the striking down of UK primary legislation after we leave the EU. Outside our membership of the EU, it is simply not appropriate to retain the charter.
There are also practical questions to consider. It would be no simple matter to say that we are keeping the charter. The amendments in this group all attempt, in various ways, to solve the riddle of how an instrument inherently linked to and constrained by our membership of the EU could apply purely domestically. They each highlight the complexity involved in such an exercise.
In Amendment 13A, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, requires the Government to lay a report on how the charter will continue to apply to retained EU law after we leave the EU. However, his other amendments are far from clear on precisely how he intends the charter to have effect domestically after exit. They would remove the exclusion of the charter provided for in Clause 5, presumably with the intention that it would now form part of retained EU law. I note that one of his amendments would excise the definition of what the charter is from the Bill, despite going on to say that this undefined, unclear thing will continue to have effect in relation to retained EU law under Clauses 2, 3 and 4. What would our courts make of that? Many articles of the charter set out principles, not rights, which can be relied on directly by individuals. How would these have effect after exit? Eight articles of the charter constitute rights intrinsically linked to EU citizenship—for example, the right to vote in an EU parliamentary election. Of course, they claw at the air—we appreciate that—but they do nothing.
Let us pause again on the fact that the charter applies to member states only when acting within the scope of EU law. Presumably, if retained under the Bill, the charter would then apply only when we were acting within the scope of retained EU law, which I believe is the elaboration that the noble and learned Lord made in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Over time, our domestic law will evolve and new laws will be made by this sovereign Parliament and the devolved legislatures that will start to replace and supersede this category of retained EU law. We would be retaining the charter, in whatever capacity the noble and learned Lord intends, only for an ever-diminishing proportion of our law. This further risks incorporating complexity and confusion into our domestic statute book.
We should not overstate the accessibility of the current rights regime, which relies on citizens knowing—
Lord Beith (LD)
The noble and learned Lord is right in that assertion, but it does not follow that retained European law should not be read across in the form of the charter as well as its other features on exit day. Lots of things will change over time. Parliament will no doubt amend retained European law so that it ceases to be retained European law, but the Bill is about legal continuity and what the situation is on exit day. For this purpose, surely the Minister should accept what is being proposed.
Lord Keen of Elie
I entirely agree with the noble Lord as to what this Bill is about. With regard to the charter, the point is that it does not bring anything over on its own. We already have these rights and obligations, as established by the principles of EU law, convention law and the common law.
As to a concern that something is omitted at the end of the day, as I indicated, we would address that to ensure that all rights are brought across. However, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, I do not believe that you can never have too many belts and braces. If you have too many belts and braces, eventually you cannot stand up. It is therefore important that we approach this issue with a degree of proportionality, if I may use a European term.
Following on from the point I made earlier, retaining the charter for what will become a fluid and changing category of law risks legislatively binding us to a document that would bring the illusion of clarity in the short term but serve only to undermine it in the longer term. Indeed, the other amendments in this group raise similar issues to those put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham has tabled amendments that seek to build on the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. They seek to assign the status of primary legislation to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. For reasons that we will go into in a later group, the Government believe that the question of assigning status to retained EU law is complex and should be approached with caution. I hope that we can come back to this question when we have concluded our debate on the approach to rights protection and to status more generally. I will not seek to take up time on that issue at this stage.
I suspect that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would also add to the confusion. Seeking to afford charter rights the same level of protection as convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 is fraught with difficulty. Charter rights do not correspond exactly to ECHR rights and apply in different ways. The charter also contains non-justiciable principles as well as rights, and it is unclear what status these would have in domestic law under his amendment. Moreover, it does not deal with how explanations to the charter articles should be treated or how certain sections of the Human Rights Act would apply to charter rights. I appreciate that we are in Committee and that the noble Lord is entitled to say that he will look more carefully at the form of the amendment and perhaps elaborate upon it in due course, but there are fundamental difficulties with the approach he is attempting to take in simply trying to incorporate the charter when, as indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, himself observed, the expression of rights in the charter does not coincide precisely with the expression of rights in the convention.
I would like to emphasise again that we remain committed to listening to this House and indeed to working constructively to ensure that we have a functioning statute book which maximises legal certainty. I understand the concerns expressed by some about whether some rights would somehow be left behind, but if we can and do identify a risk of such rights being left behind, we are entirely open to the proposition that we have to address that by way of amendment to the Bill, and we will seek to do that. I wish to reassure noble Lords on that point.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord give us any indication of when he thinks that that exercise will be completed?
Lord Keen of Elie
The potential answer is no, and the note says that my time is up. Nevertheless, and be that as it may, we will endeavour to address these issues as soon as we can. Clearly it will require us not only to consider the position we have adopted already in the document published in December last year but to take into consideration the concerns expressed by other lawyers and in this Committee in the course of the debate. We will look at those and we will want to address them at the next stage of the Bill; of that, I am confident.
At this stage I appreciate that there are some questions which I have not directly answered in the course of my response and it may be difficult to do so in the time remaining. Perhaps I may say that I endorse entirely the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood, with regard to the potential difficulties of simply drawing the charter over into domestic law. I am not going to elaborate on the consequences of doing that, but they can be summarised as confusion, uncertainty and difficulty, and ultimately could prove to be counterproductive. In these circumstances, I invite the noble and learned Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in the debate. It has been wide-ranging, as we anticipated it would be. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. I shall obviously not spend long on what I say now, given the hour. As we approached midnight, I was looking around the corner to see whether a pumpkin would arrive with horses. I was not sure whether it would be for me or for the noble and learned Lord opposite.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, we have been debating Clause 1 for 18 hours and three-quarters. That is probably enough, so I shall not prolong the debate any longer.