House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
The House will have been as sad as I was to learn of the death of my predecessor as Speaker, Michael Martin, latterly Lord Martin of Springburn. Michael was a decent, public-spirited man who had a real care and concern for Members, their staff and the staff of this House. He was a fine campaigner and a man both passionate about, and proud of, his roots. He also had, as many Members can testify, a great sense of humour. On a personal level, he was always very kind to me. I feel sure that my experience was mirrored in the experience of a very large number of colleagues across the House. I still remember to this day the lovely and generous letter of congratulations he sent to me after my election as Speaker. My deepest sympathies go out to Mary, his children and their grandchildren. Colleagues, there will be a fuller opportunity tomorrow for Members of this House to pay tribute to Michael Martin.
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I welcome the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to his place.
The Secretary of State was asked—
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
The affordable homes programme is a bid-led programme and spending within a financial year may vary from budget based on the number of bids. This is standard budget management practice. We are investing more in affordable homes, with an additional £2 billion provided last year, taking the programme to over £9 billion. That funding will support housing associations and local authorities to build more affordable homes where they are needed most.
Wera Hobhouse
May I add my condolences to the family of the former Speaker?
I congratulate the new Secretary of State on taking on this important role—we all know how important it is. Some £800 million was sent back from the Department to the Treasury this year. Will the new Secretary of State ensure that the Department budget is actually spent, so that we can get on with building the thousands of council homes—I stress council homes, because we all know that only council homes are truly affordable—we need for the millions of people who cannot afford their own home?
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and wishes. May I also associate myself with your words, Mr Speaker, on the former Speaker Michael Martin? He was the Speaker when I first joined this House, and I know what a kind and supportive man he was to hon. Members right across the House, in particular new Members. I know what a sad loss he is.
In response to the hon. Lady’s question, I point to the £9 billion I highlighted and to the fact that in 2016-17 41,530 affordable housing homes were completed, which is 27% higher than in the previous year. I underline the commitment given by my predecessor, to whom I pay tribute for his work. We will continue to focus on building homes for the future, including affordable homes, and raising aspirations.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I, too, associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, about the late Lord Martin. He was particularly kind to me when I arrived here after a by-election. I especially welcome the return of my good friend and constituency neighbour to the Treasury Bench, which is where he deservedly belongs.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to affordability is increasing supply? Does he recognise, as a fellow London MP, that the Government devolved the strategic housing pot to the Mayor of London? Does he share my concern that while housing starts in the rest of the country have risen, in London, under the current Labour Mayor, they have fallen?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the flexibilities this Government have sought to put in place to deal with the essential issue of housing, which will be a core priority for me in the time ahead. I thank him for his kind wishes. Investment and flexibility will make a difference, provided they are taken up and we have partnership across the country, in delivering the homes people need.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. Does his Department have any targets for the number of affordable houses? Will he promise to take a look at the definition of affordable, which is at far too high a price under this Government?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady will know that our ambition is to get building up to about 300,000 homes a year. That is the real focus and commitment of this Government. Yes, it is about affordability and it is about ensuring that people have a positive sense for the future about getting into the housing market, and that is what this Government are determined to do.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend encourage planners to negotiate higher proportions of affordable housing in new developments?
James Brokenshire
I will certainly reflect on the feedback that I receive from across the House in the days ahead. These are just the first few hours of my tenure in this role, but I will listen closely to the comments from my right hon. Friend and others, and certainly, as we look at the national planning policy framework, we will consider those matters carefully.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Although all Speakers become politically neutral, Labour Members welcome and endorse with particular strength your tribute to our former colleague, Michael Martin, as well as your condolences to Mary and the family, Mr Speaker.
I warmly welcome the new Housing Secretary; it is good to see him back. He has a big job to do and the Opposition wish him all the very best in doing it. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was right to highlight Labour’s analysis of his predecessor’s pathetic surrender of housing cash to the Chancellor. It shows the new Secretary of State’s real challenge: the huge cut in housing investment—from £4 billion in 2010 to less than £500 million now—and the huge fall in genuinely affordable new homes to rent and buy. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least make the modest commitment that while he is Housing Secretary, we will build more new social rented homes than we lose?
James Brokenshire
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome to me. As he will know, it has certainly been a challenging personal few months for me, and that is why I am so delighted to have been given this new responsibility on such an important policy issue, as he rightly points out. I point him to the fact that, with the £2 billion that was added last year, this Government are investing £9 billion in affordable homes. I also draw his attention to the fact that more affordable homes have been delivered in the last seven years than were in the last seven years of the last Labour Government. We will continue to have that focus on building more homes and on building more affordable homes, too.
John Healey
The record is clear: 40,000 new genuinely affordable social rented homes were started by councils and housing associations in Labour’s last year in government, and fewer than 1,000 were backed by his Government last year. Does the Secretary of State not accept that the housing crisis demands that both central Government and local government do much more? In this local elections week, will he confirm a couple of important facts? Labour councils build five times more council homes than Conservative councils, and Labour councils get 50% more homes of all types built than Conservative councils, so does he agree that to fix the housing crisis, it is clear that we need more Labour councils and more Labour councillors to be elected on Thursday?
James Brokenshire
Even Labour councils build more homes under a Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman does raise the important issues of housing supply, the housing challenges that we need to meet and the roles of national Government and local government. I very much look forward to working with local government to make sure that we deliver on that agenda, because that is what this country needs and what will make a difference to people’s lives.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
We are undertaking a fair funding review of local authorities’ relative needs and resources to address concerns about the fairness of the current system. We are making good progress in collaboration with the sector to introduce a simple, fair and transparent funding formula.
Jeremy Lefroy
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and welcome the news on the progress of fair funding, but will he look carefully at running more business rates retention pilots, particularly in my area of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, as I believe they provide at least a short-term answer to unfair funding?
James Brokenshire
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I welcome Staffordshire’s interest in future business rates retention pilots, and I hope it applies when the prospectus for 2019-20 pilots is issued. As the prospectus is open to all local authorities, as I think he knows, the decision on which applications are successful can be made only once they have all been considered, but obviously I will be examining the matter closely.
Alan Mak
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. He will know that about one third of households in my Havant constituency contain an older person. Will he confirm that under his leadership the social care precepts and the better care fund will mean an extra £4 billion for social care in this Parliament, and will he continue to work with Hampshire County Council’s adult services department?
James Brokenshire
I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members from across the House care deeply about this subject. As he will be aware, in February my predecessor announced an additional £150 million for adult social care, which means that councils now have access to £9.4 billion in dedicated adult social care funding over three years.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware—and has he had a word with the Secretary of State for Education about it—that there are schools in Coventry that cannot afford school meals provision? What is he going to do about that?
James Brokenshire
I know that there are pressures in areas such as children’s social services and I am aware of the joined-up work my Department is doing with the Education Department. I look forward to talking to Cabinet colleagues about some of these overlapping issues. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that, in the short time since my appointment, I have not had a chance to do that, but I will certainly be doing so.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Office for National Statistics defines Haringey and other similar boroughs as inner-London boroughs because of their demographics and socioeconomic characteristics. Despite that, Haringey is excluded from the Government’s definition of an inner-London borough. Will the Secretary of State look at that carefully in his funding review so that boroughs such as Haringey can be brought up in line with the Islingtons and Camdens?
James Brokenshire
I will be looking at several issues as part of the fair funding review. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, which I will consider as part of the overall review, and I am grateful to her for flagging it up.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
The business rates retention pilot has been a lifeline to hard-pressed West Berkshire Council. Will my right hon. Friend also continue his predecessor’s pledge to tackle negative revenue support grant, because that will have a huge impact on hard-pressed local authorities?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting the business rates retention pilots. We are looking at the issue he raises quite closely and will be making further announcements in the coming weeks.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I echo your lovely words of condolence to the family of Michael Martin, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s reappointment to Cabinet. He has two shadow Secretaries of State to contend with, and I look forward to working with him and holding him and his Ministers to account on all things communities and local government. His appointment should bring a fresh approach to the crisis engulfing local government. He will know that Tory Northamptonshire is effectively insolvent and that Tory Worcestershire is now also experiencing financial pressure, with its chief executive saying last week that
“there comes a point where cost-cutting can’t go any further—there has to be a solution, and I think it has to be a national solution.”
Given that the pressures on children’s services and adult social care, alongside a 50% cut in their Government grant funding, are exacerbating these problems, will he now do what his predecessor failed to do and demand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the funding that our councils—all of them—so desperately need?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. In some ways, local government is in my blood: my father was the chief executive of a council, and some of the current debates about councils are ones that I had as a boy, believe it or not.
Mr Speaker
It sounds as though mealtimes chez Brokenshire were enormous fun.
James Brokenshire
Let’s not overdo it, Mr Speaker.
I hoped that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) would welcome the additional funds that have been given to councils for core spending. They constitute an important statement from the Government, who have given councils a real-terms increase in recognition of the challenges that they face. I hope the hon. Gentleman will also note the forthcoming social care Green Paper, which will enable us to engage in a further and broader debate about long-term funding for social care.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
In recent months, we have launched the £250 million midlands engine investment fund and agreed on a second devolution deal with the West Midlands combined authority.
Lee Rowley
I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. Does he agree that the right infrastructure must be provided to support the economic growth to which he has referred? Although he is new to his post, may I give a quick plug to a bid from my part of the world, north-east Derbyshire, for a housing infrastructure fund to regenerate the Staveley area further, and will he commit himself to reviewing that closely when he comes to make a decision?
James Brokenshire
Obviously, my hon. Friend’s particular focus is on Derbyshire. The right social and physical infrastructure is indeed vital to driving sustainable and significant housing growth, and the £5 billion housing infrastructure fund will unlock up to 600,000 homes. This is a competitive process, but I am committed to funding the projects that will have the greatest impact.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The midlands seem to be leading the way in economic growth and job creation. Will the Secretary of State join me in celebrating, with Andy Street, the West Midlands combined authority and the midlands engine, the local achievement of 6.8% of gross value added, given that the national figure is 2.4%?
James Brokenshire
I will. Andy Street and the West Midlands combined authority have been pivotal to the success of the midlands engine. The number of businesses in the west midlands has increased by 9% since 2016, and its second devolution deal includes a £53 million allocation to prepare land and deliver jobs and housing throughout the Black country, including my hon. Friend’s constituency.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
Last month, high-level proposals were received from some councils in Yorkshire about the so-called One Yorkshire devolution deal. We are considering those proposals carefully and will respond to the authorities in due course.
John Grogan
Does the Minister accept that it is now the settled will of the vast majority of councils in Yorkshire, and the vast majority of the people there, that we move towards a One Yorkshire devolution settlement, and will he encourage the new Secretary of State to initiate talks with the Yorkshire councils so that he will be ever remembered as the man who delivered the first elected mayor to the white rose county?
Jake Berry
The hon. Gentleman is something of a Mystic Meg of the Labour party. Unlike him, I want the people of South Yorkshire to have their say in the elections next Thursday. The Conservative candidate, Ian Walker, has said:
“This is a golden opportunity to show what South Yorkshire can do.”
The Labour candidate thinks that it should be a part-time job, and the Labour authorities are fighting with each other so much that they cannot agree on what power or money the mayor of South Yorkshire should have.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
As the Minister will know, Yorkshire is a massive county—by far the biggest in the country. What assessment has he made of the ability of one mayor to cover effectively the whole of such a big county? My dad had the privilege of being the Mayor of Doncaster for a while, and that was a pretty full-on job for him, so how on earth can one person do the job effectively and look after the interests of the whole of Yorkshire? What level of bureaucracy and cost would be incurred by a single mayoral office for the whole of Yorkshire?
Jake Berry
I would not like to be drawn on responding to the high-level proposals we have received, but I will say this: later this year, the city of Leeds will be the only core city in the north of England that has not benefited from devolution, and that is a terrible shame for everyone who lives in West Yorkshire.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that the Humber economic area has to be included in any devolution deal for Yorkshire because of the energy estuary, which is vital to the northern powerhouse?
Jake Berry
All these devolution deals are ground-up, and if people from Hull and the Humber come to the Government with proposals for devolution for that area, the Government will of course look at them in the way that they do all devolution proposals.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Dominic Raab)
Last year, 217,000 new homes were delivered, which is the highest rate in all but one of the last 30 years, but we are restless to do more and get that level up to 300,000 per year by the mid-2020s.
Sir David Amess
I join others in welcoming my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State on his return to Government, and trust that he will not forget his Essex roots.
Conservative-controlled Southend-on-Sea Borough Council is keen to deliver as many new affordable homes as possible, so will my hon. Friend the Minister encourage local authorities to engage with innovative schemes that benefit the wider community, such as ZEDGeneration and the Ferdinand brothers legacy project?
Dominic Raab
We encourage all ambitious local authorities to be as innovative as possible, and my hon. Friend will know that in 2016 Southend council received £122,000 and Genesis Housing Association £420,000 for the regeneration of the centre of Southend, and that includes Conservative plans for more affordable homes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Dominic Raab
We want York to get its local plan in place; that is the best thing for the community, as it gives certainty and a greater chance of those homes being delivered. A local authority statement of community involvement is an essential part of that process and it will be tested against the statement in due course.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
My constituents recognise that we need more homes but are concerned about overstretched infrastructure and public services. What are the Government doing to ensure that those areas that are willing to build the most homes will get the maximum amount of funding for new infrastructure and public services?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we have brought forward £5 billion of approved funding for infrastructure funding—both viability funding and forward funding—which will unlock 600,000 new homes. The criteria are calibrated to make sure that the investment goes where there is the greatest demand for homes and where we can deliver the most homes and the best bang for the taxpayers’ buck.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
When the Minister looks at new housing, will he ensure that it is actually affordable to constituents on average incomes? Will he also look at the position of leasehold homes, which are still being sold in my constituency, in spite of commitments from the previous Secretary of State, because those homes are not affordable on an ongoing basis?
Dominic Raab
The No. 1 way to improve the affordability of homes is to increase the supply, which is why our agenda is to get the number of new homes built per year up to 300,000. I looked at the Labour party’s Green Paper and it seems to suggest going back in the overall number of homes delivered each year. As the Secretary of State has already said, we have delivered more affordable homes in the past seven years than were delivered in the last seven years of the previous Labour Government.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Will the Minister meet me and other members of the Right to Build Expert Task Force—one member is one of his own civil servants—so that we can brief him on the great work it is doing in increasing housing numbers and improving quality and customer choice?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are keen to see diversity in the housing market. It will be one of the key drivers for building more homes and getting more affordable homes, and I will be happy to meet him in due course.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Our first priority is the safety of residents. The remediation of buildings with aluminium composite material cladding is a complex process, and it is important that we get this right. Of the 158 social housing buildings, 104 have started remediation, and seven of those have finished the remediation work.
Andy Slaughter
With his new authority, would the Secretary of State agree that it would give more certainty and speed up the process if he were to say that only non-combustible class A1 materials should be used for external construction, as is the case in the rest of Europe? I doubt that he would live in a building that was clad in combustible or partially combustible material, so why should my constituents do so?
James Brokenshire
I understand the reasons for the hon. Gentleman making those points. At the outset, I want to underline my commitment to giving priority to these issues. This has been an utter tragedy, and our priority has to be—as it was with my predecessor—to ensure that survivors and communities receive all the support that they need. He will be aware that the Hackitt review is looking at a range of issues, and I would not want to prejudge that review, but he makes an important point and I am sure that it will be examined.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Secretary of State has referred to his father, who was respected for his work in the Local Government Commission and the Audit Commission, and as chief executive of the London Borough of Greenwich, where, when I was there, he helped to get cladding for the Nightingale Vale tower block, enabling people to spend £5 a week to be warm rather than £30 a week to be cold. When the Secretary of State is bedded in, will he look at the problem of tenant/leaseholders in private blocks, where freeholders and others who own the freehold such as developers seem to fail to understand that tenants cannot be expected to pay the cost of recladding their buildings?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about my father and his sense of focus and dedication as a public servant. My hon. Friend makes a point about the private sector and about landlords and those who own buildings seeking to pass on those costs. I would say clearly that the costs should not be passed on to leaseholders. They should be borne by the owners in the same way that local authorities and public sector buildings are maintaining that approach. I welcome the decision from one property developer, Barratt, to pay for remediation costs, and I hope that others will follow its lead.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
On 17 June last year, the Prime Minister said:
“My Government will do whatever it takes to…keep our people safe.”
Plymouth Community Homes says that its request for funding to replace cladding has been turned down, and it is not alone. We have heard the same thing from local authorities up and down the country. Will the Secretary of State update the House today on how many funding applications to replace cladding have been approved by his Department, to demonstrate that it is doing all it takes?
James Brokenshire
As the hon. Lady will know, I am relatively new in post, but I will investigate the specific question that she has raised and respond to her. Obviously, our commitment remains to working with local councils on this important issue.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
Local government will have access to more than £45 billion in core spending power in this financial year. In addition, local authorities estimate that they will keep around £2.4 billion in business rates growth.
Jeff Smith
I watched the Secretary of State’s impressive and moving speech in an Adjournment debate last week, and I know that the whole House will be pleased to see him in good health and back in his place. However, he is going to have to do better than his predecessor at supporting local government, because councils across the country are in crisis-management mode. They are raiding reserves to support revenue expenditure, and that is simply not sustainable. As Tory councils go bust, will he join me in congratulating Manchester’s Labour council on its excellent financial management in the face of some of the harshest and most unfair Government cuts faced by any council in the country under the Tories and the Liberal Democrats?
Rishi Sunak
I hope that Manchester is willing to thank this Conservative Government for backing it with the resources it needs: £13 million in housing infrastructure funds, £30 million for adult social care and, indeed, a business rates pilot that is delivering £20 million, benefiting businesses across Manchester. Those are the actions of a Conservative Government who are delivering for people across the country.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
If Leicestershire was as well funded as London’s Camden Council, it would be £350 million a year better off. Does the Minister agree that the only way of making good councils financially sustainable is to have a fair funding formula, with transparent formulae and up-to-date data? Will he look closely at the Leicestershire model for bringing that about?
Rishi Sunak
I could not agree more, and it was a pleasure to meet his local council to understand its model. It has a lot to commend it, and we will consider it as part of our fair funding consultation.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I am pleased that Labour’s Hull City Council rejected the Secretary of State’s predecessor’s and the local Liberal Democrat councillors’ proposal to spend all its reserves, because we have seen in Northamptonshire how badly that can go wrong. Does the new Secretary of State accept that spending the reserves is an incredibly bad idea?
Rishi Sunak
It is worth pointing out that council reserves across the country have actually increased over the past few years and that it is of course for local authorities to decide what prudent level of drawing down may be possible in any given year.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The previous Secretary of State was minded to put commissioners into Northamptonshire County Council. Will the excellent Minister update the House on when that may happen and by what method the House will be notified?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; I know that he is following this matter carefully, as are his colleagues from across Northamptonshire. The Department and the new Secretary of State will consider all the representations received over the past couple of weeks, and we will be making an announcement shortly, most likely through a written ministerial statement.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I wish the Secretary of State all the best in his new role and for his future health.
Despite the figures that the Minister has given, the Local Government Association says that there is a £5 billion funding gap in local government finances from 2020, and the National Audit Office says that the position is financially unsustainable. Will he therefore look carefully at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s recommendation about business rate retention? When business rate retention changes from 50% to 75%, instead of using that to cut public health grants and other grants, we say that local authorities should be allowed to keep the extra money so that they can properly meet the rising demand for social care for the elderly, for looked-after children and for people with disabilities.
Rishi Sunak
It was a pleasure to work with the hon. Gentleman’s Committee, and I look forward to reading its report in detail.—I thank the Committee for its work. As for the quantum of funding, he tempts me to pre-empt the results of the spending review, which is due next year. That will be the time to consider his point.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
Tackling homelessness is a key priority for this Government, which is why we are spending over £1.2 billion through to 2020, we have implemented the most ambitious legislative reform in decades—the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 —and we will be publishing our rough sleeping strategy by July this year.
Mrs Wheeler
The pilots will support some of the most entrenched rough sleepers in our society to end their homelessness. We are nearing the end of a detailed implementation and planning process with the three regions, and I look forward to updating the House further in due course.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Homelessness Reduction Act came into force this month, but many councils have raised concerns that the new burdens funding that the Government have allocated is simply not sufficient for the full implementation of the Act. The Secretary of State is new in his post, but the causes of homelessness under this Government are not going away, so may I urge him to take an early look at the Government’s decision to review the funding only at the end of the current two-year period?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Lady for that rant. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that she might be—what is the word we are looking for? [Interruption.] Some of the most important parts of the Act will be implemented in October, so councils have six months to get their places in order.
Mr Speaker
We probably will not reach the end of the Order Paper and it would be sad to be deprived of the intellect and eloquence of the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), so if he wishes to come in now, he can.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Mrs Wheeler
Homeless shelters will form part of the rough sleeping strategy we are bringing out at the end of June or the beginning of July. We expect there to be a sea change in how all the different parts of the social sector, the charitable sector and local government deal with rough sleeping and homelessness. I think my right hon. Friend will enjoy reading the rough sleeping strategy.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
On behalf of the Scottish National party, I pay tribute to Michael Martin. He was the MP for Dennistoun, where I lived, and I pass on my own and my party’s condolences to his friends and family and to the Glasgow Labour family, who will miss him very much.
I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Government. He is the third Secretary of State I have faced, which I am sure everyone will agree is a clear sign of a strong and stable Government.
Homelessness is soaring in England, but in Scotland there has been a 38% reduction over the past 10 years. The Minister recently visited Glasgow to discuss some of the projects happening in the city I represent. Will she tell the House a little more about what she learned on her visit?
Mrs Wheeler
That is a very useful question—a fiver is in the post. One of the reasons I went up to Glasgow is that, although homelessness and rough sleeping had been reducing for four years, there has been a blip and Glasgow and other areas were not sure why there has been an increase in rough sleeping, particularly in Glasgow. I was hugely impressed by the work being done on rough sleeping by the charitable sector and Glasgow City Council, particularly in implementing their own version of Housing First. Glasgow City Council and the charities are doing very innovative work.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Minister for her kind words. I am sure the sector in Glasgow will be pleased to hear what she has learned.
Another group who struggle to get housing and therefore end up in homelessness are those with insecure immigration status, who often have no recourse to public funds. Can the Minister tell us more about what her Government intend to do to ensure that vulnerable men and women do not end up sleeping in the streets because of the policies of the Home Office?
Mrs Wheeler
The situation differs slightly in different parts of the UK. There is Government funding for projects in England that look after people who have indeterminate national status. I honestly do not know whether the situation in Scotland is a UK matter or a Scottish matter. I will have to write to the hon. Lady on that issue.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing (Dominic Raab)
Over the past seven years, the Government have delivered 357,000 affordable homes, more than in the last seven years of the previous Government. Last year, the number of affordable homes delivered was up by 27%.
Ruth Cadbury
The new Secretary of State skirted the opportunity to address questions on social rented housing posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), so I will try again. In London in particular, for those on average incomes and below, affordable housing means only social rented housing—housing in which this Government are now investing virtually nothing for the first time since records began—so will the Secretary of State work with the Treasury to ensure that the Government go back to investing in social rented housing so that councils and housing associations provide truly affordable, good-quality homes and, by the way, cut the housing benefit bill that is currently going to rip-off private landlords?
Dominic Raab
I gently remind the hon. Lady that more than 10,000 local authority homes have been built since 2010, which is three times more than were built under the last Labour Government. We are investing a further £9 billion in affordable homes up to 2021; we have raised the borrowing caps on councils by £1 billion; and we are giving local authorities greater rental certainty from 2020.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
We must deliver more homes in my constituency, especially affordable ones, so I would like to plug Chippenham’s housing infrastructure fund bid. Does the Minister agree that these new homes would serve as a vehicle to boost our communities with the infrastructure and services that we much need?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for that. She is absolutely right: where local authorities have the ambition to get homes built, it is right that they get support from central Government infrastructure funding, so that we do not just build the homes that our country needs but build up stronger local communities with them.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
As part of achieving our commitment to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and eliminate it by 2027, we are working with local authorities to deliver effective interventions. We recently launched an expert multi- disciplinary team to support local areas in reducing rough sleeping quickly. Our homelessness advice and support team has also been supporting local areas on the implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She will be aware of the work being done by the Torbay End Street Homelessness campaign, based on a £400,000 grant from her Department for a project to examine ways to end street homelessness. What assessment has she made of the work done so far? What further support will be available to reduce street homelessness in Torbay?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend for his follow-up question. We have been working with Torbay on this project, which has supported 70 rough sleepers into accommodation since its launch in December 2016. The impact of the grant programme will be evaluated. As I mentioned, we will be working closely with areas through our new team and the forthcoming cross-Government rough sleeping strategy. The team will be visiting local areas in the coming weeks to discuss this further.
Mr Speaker
The question was about Torbay, but as the Minister’s reply, perfectly properly, broadened the subject matter, it is legitimate to hear about the experience of the people of the Vale of Clwyd.
Chris Ruane
When the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was London Mayor, he described Tory housing policy in poor areas as “social cleansing”. Many of the victims of that social cleansing have ended up on the streets of Torbay, Rhyl, Prestatyn, Blackpool and other seaside towns. What specific additional funds has the Department made available to those seaside towns to deal with that appalling legacy?
Mrs Wheeler
I think the hon. Gentleman will find it is a devolved matter for the Welsh Government.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
Through the social care precept, the spring Budget last year and the recent local government finance settlement, councils will have access to £9.4 billion in dedicated funding for adult social care over the three years 2017 to 2020.
Ged Killen
May I associate myself with your kind words on the sad passing of Michael Martin, Mr Speaker?
Does the Minister believe it is economically viable for councils to continue to use what little reserves they have left in the delivery of adult social care in their area?
Rishi Sunak
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman of my earlier answer, which was that council reserves are some £20 billion across the country and are actually higher today than they were when we came into office. Councils will be able to increase spending on social care in real terms every year up to the end of this Parliament, and we are already seeing the results in action: delayed transfers of care are down by 34% in England. This is a Government who are delivering for people across the country.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Of the 575 beds in Kettering General Hospital, about 200 are occupied by patients, many of them elderly, who have completed their treatment but await transfer to social and other care. What can be done when the local county council simply is not up to the job of making sure that social care assessments are done in a timely way?
Rishi Sunak
I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me for not being drawn on Northamptonshire specifically, given the circumstances there and the decision to be made. In general, he is absolutely right to highlight the importance of getting people swiftly transferred to appropriate social care. That has been a focus of the funding that the Government have put in, and the better care fund is ensuring that joined-up care is happening. As I have said, delayed transfers of care are down by almost a third in the past year.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
May I ask the Minister how many local authorities his Department believes are close to not being able to carry out their statutory responsibilities for adult social care?
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
Growing the whole north is crucial to the delivery of our northern powerhouse. Since the northern powerhouse strategy was launched, direct foreign investment in the north has increased at a rate double that of the national average, and unemployment throughout the north is now lower than the national average.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for his response and extend to the new Secretary of State an invitation to come to Shields and explain to my constituents why, when the Government launched the northern powerhouse four years ago, they promised increased growth and increased employment, yet in the time since, growth in Shields has been painfully slow and unemployment stubbornly remains higher than in the rest of the north-east.
Jake Berry
I am a bit more optimistic for the north-east than the hon. Lady, because we are now entering a new golden era for the north-east, which can be seen in the Government’s commitment of more than £300 million—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Lady want to hear about what we are doing for the north-east? That new golden era can be seen in the Government’s commitment of more than £300 million to the Tyne and Wear metro, which the hon. Lady campaigned for, and in the historic devolution deal north of the Tyne. On top of that, this summer the first great exhibition in this country for 160 years will take place in Newcastle-Gateshead, showing that the north-east is at the heart of our northern powerhouse.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Jake Berry
We are already investing some £67 million in the Humber and the Greater Lincolnshire local enterprise partnership, and I note that £20 million of that is going into my hon. Friend’s constituency. He will be aware that we committed in the industrial strategy to work on a business case for a Grimsby and Cleethorpes town deal. I hope that, in demonstrating that success, we can put our northern power towns at the heart of the northern powerhouse.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
There is no surprise that the lived experience of people in Shields is of growth not happening, because when the northern powerhouse was launched in 2014, Government capital spending per person was £543 higher in London than in the north-east. London has seen its investment increase to £1,352 per person but, instead of the Government’s closing the gap, the north-east saw a cut in capital spending that increased the gap by 17% to £634 per person. How can the Government credibly claim to be the champions of the northern powerhouse when the evidence says that the money has not followed?
Jake Berry
I am certainly not going to take any lectures on the northern powerhouse from the hon. Gentleman, because after his election he described it as the “northern poorhouse”. Unlike Opposition Members, the Government are behind the north, not least by investing £13 billion in northern transport—more than any Government in history, including the Labour Government.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
I am delighted to have been appointed to this new role to deliver on housing—one of the Government’s top priorities is creating great places to live. In the past few weeks, my Department has announced important plans to tackle unprofessional estate agents and rogue managing and letting agents, as well as landlords who rent out dangerous and overcrowded homes.
I applaud my Department’s contribution to the magnificent Millicent Fawcett statue. The integrated communities strategy and the recent very moving anti-Semitism debate highlight the vital work being done to create a more united country, free from bigotry.
Liz Twist
I thank the new Secretary of State for his reply. Many people in Blaydon constituency feel strongly that green-belt land should be preserved, but without support for remediation it can be difficult to build houses on brownfield sites in former industrial areas, especially as the housing infrastructure grant is competitive. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to protect our green belt, to encourage building on brownfield sites and to prevent building on parks and green spaces, as Bexley Council proposes?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the importance of the green belt, about which I agree, and I share her desire to see more development on brownfield land. Yes, there are issues relating to funding for remediation, but there will obviously be careful consideration of the national planning policy framework, too.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
My hon. Friend raises an absolutely excellent point. I know that he will welcome the Government’s increased funding for pothole remediation after the winter that we have had, but I will take his point on board and ensure that local authorities are deploying those funds as quickly as possible.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
A recent survey, the first of its kind, into the working conditions of wellbeing and social workers, commissioned by the British Association of Social Workers, makes for sorry reading. Working conditions are described as extremely poor, and it is noted that nine out of 10 social workers work an average of almost 10 extra hours a week and that more than half are looking to leave the profession. What is the Minister doing to reduce the demands faced by social workers to avoid a disastrous exodus of talent and expertise?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady is right to point out the important work that social workers do across the country in caring for some of the more vulnerable in our society. I know that our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are examining the exact issue that she mentions, and I am sure they will be making a report in due course.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Dominic Raab)
I thank my hon. Friend. He will know that the Government are putting £4.5 million infrastructure funding into the Forge Wood scheme, but he is absolutely right that developers must do their bit and keep their commitments. We are looking at this both in the consultation on the national planning policy framework and in developer contributions. We want to see those developer contributions treated more like contracts for delivery and less like the starting point for an endless haggle with local councils.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Dominic Raab
The designation of a local green space needs to be consistent with the local planning framework. Landowners have an opportunity to make representations, but the final decision on designation rests with the local authority.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
In fact the latest figures show more people getting on to the council housing ladder. Council waiting lists have been reduced, and 95% of all local authority stock meets the decent homes standard.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for flagging up this important issue. I will certainly listen to the points that have been made, look at the report and see what consideration either I or my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing can provide to engage in its recommendations.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question on this very important matter. We are actually reviewing all licensing schemes across the whole country, and we will look into this one and get a decision to him as quickly as possible.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
What plans has my hon. Friend to tackle unfair leaseholds retrospectively, so that my constituents on new build estates in Offerton and Strines get a better deal?
Mrs Wheeler
My family will be delighted by how much exercise I am getting, jumping up and down.
We are committed to tackling unfair leasehold practices, which is why we are working with the Law Commission to make buying a freehold or extending a lease easier, faster, fairer and cheaper. We want to ensure that leaseholders have the right support to deal with onerous ground rent, and we will consider further action if developers’ schemes to compensate individuals do not go far enough.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Rishi Sunak
I am delighted that Manchester, like several other authorities, is a beneficiary of the Government’s 100% business rates retention pilot, which is ensuring that local authorities keep an extra £1 billion this year. We will announce plans for a further round of pilots shortly after the local elections.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
May I welcome the substantial central Government grants that have been made to enable Jewish buildings to be better protected? But given that three quarters of all anti-Semitic incidents happen in Greater London and Greater Manchester, will the new Secretary of State seek out the Mayors of those two cities to see what more can be done to protect their Jewish communities?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this significant and important issue. I pay tribute to the Community Security Trust for its work in providing safety and security in this area. I will certainly engage further not just with my right hon. Friend but with local government to ensure that we continue to make progress.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
May I ask the Northern Powerhouse Minister when he expects to make a further announcement about the northern powerhouse commitment in relation to the growth deal in north Wales?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
The north Wales growth deal is primarily the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. I am happy to update the right hon. Gentleman by saying that we are making good progress in looking at the proposals from local authorities. Once we have completed that work, we will make an announcement shortly about the next steps for all local authorities involved.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
There are five district councils in Warwickshire. Four are Conservative-led and one—Nuneaton and Bedworth—is run by Labour. Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council has the highest district council tax precept of the five, and one of the lowest satisfaction ratings. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that Conservative councils deliver better-quality services at a lower cost?
James Brokenshire
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point about the benefits of Conservatives leading local government.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Will the Minister acknowledge that youth offending teams have achieved huge success in working with and supporting young people to prevent them from getting involved in crime? Will he therefore tell me why their funding has been halved from £145 million in 2010-11 to just £72 million in 2017-18, and why councils are still waiting to receive their youth justice grant allocations for 2018-19?
Rishi Sunak
I am not aware of the particular grant mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to look into it and write to him in due course.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has now twice mentioned Worcestershire County Council and Northamptonshire County Council in the same breath in this place. Unfortunately, he seems to be trying to establish a false narrative. Is the Secretary of State aware that I have met Worcestershire County Council and received assurances that its finances are on a stable footing? To suggest otherwise seems simply to be scaremongering.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend puts it very well, as she has done on previous occasions. It is not right to come to this place and scaremonger with regard to ordinary residents’ services. Worcestershire is delivering, and she is right to defend it.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
May I welcome the new Secretary of State to his post and wish him well? Does he agree that no new house should be sold leasehold? There is no excuse for it. What steps will he take to help the many hundreds of thousands of people, including my constituents, who are now being financially exploited by their freeholds being sold on to dodgy characters?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Lady for her very important question. The scandal over feudal leaseholds on new build is absolutely disgraceful. We are working very hard with the Law Commission to change the rules as to how this should go forward. I am delighted to say that some developers have got the point. In South Derbyshire, we now have big signs up on new build saying, “Freehold houses for sale here”.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Harrogate Borough Council recently dedicated an additional £150,000 to tackle the root causes of local long-term homelessness. The Harrogate Homeless Project runs the initiative, which is called SAFE—Service for Adults Facing Exclusion. It has been widely praised and we are already seeing results. May I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to come and visit the project to see for himself the amazing results it is achieving?
James Brokenshire
I would be delighted to hear more about this project, which sounds as though it is making a big difference. That is what it is about: delivering on the ground.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but demand has exceeded supply, as per usual. We must now move on to the next business.
Sainsbury and Asda Merger
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the proposed merger of Sainsbury’s and Asda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
On 30 April, J Sainsbury plc and Walmart Inc. announced that they had agreed terms in relation to a proposed combination of Sainsbury’s and Asda Group Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Walmart, to create an enlarged business. There are no planned Sainsbury’s or Asda store closures as a result of the merger. The proposed deal is conditional on clearance by the Competition and Markets Authority.
The Competitions and Markets Authority will hold pre-notification discussions with the parties and, when it has sufficient information, will commence its phase 1 investigation. Usually, a phase 1 investigation will last up to 40 working days before the authority will decide whether to clear the merger or refer it on to a detailed phase 2 investigation. I understand that the parties have requested to fast-track straight to phase 2. As part of its competition inquiry, the CMA can look at the buying power of a merged company in relation to its suppliers and the impact that the merger would have on them. Decisions about mergers are taken independently of ministerial control and are subject to legal challenge. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, Ministers have the power to intervene in mergers only on public interest grounds covering national security, media plurality and financial stability.
[Official Report, 2 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 4MC.]Today, the Secretary of State and I have spoken to Sainsbury’s chief executive officer Mike Coupe, and Asda CEO Sean Clarke, so that we can better understand their plans. Additionally, I have today spoken to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and Unite unions, and I will speak to the GMB union immediately after leaving here. When I spoke to Len McCluskey this morning, I made it clear that I expect Sainsbury’s and Asda to conduct proper and thorough engagement with the unions. This afternoon, I have spoken to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, Christine Tacon, to reiterate the importance of ensuring that suppliers, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, are treated fairly.
The UK’s merger regime is designed to offer clarity for businesses and to build investor confidence. Mergers are an important part of a dynamic economy, and the Government appreciate that they can bring real benefits to consumers and the economy as a whole by attracting inward investment. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.
Rebecca Long Bailey
The landscape for retailers has become increasingly difficult over recent years, and I am sure that the Minister shares my concerns regarding this deal, given its potential to squeeze competition in the market and the risks that it poses to workers, suppliers and consumers. He confirmed that there will be no store closures, but will he also confirm that there will be no job losses, no changes to pay, terms and conditions, and no closure of any sites within each company’s estates portfolio—distribution sites and offices, for example? If so, for how long will that promise be effective, and will he seek legally binding assurances?
It is clear that a duopoly of the big supermarkets—Tesco, and Asda and Sainsbury’s—will now emerge providing never-before-seen bargaining power. Indeed, the statement this morning included a promise to bring prices down for consumers, but it is feared that that will be at the expense of suppliers, farmers and manufacturers whose prices and terms will be driven down, pushing many to the edge of collapse. Can the Minister confirm that that will not be the case? In addition, does he agree that control of 60% of the market by the duopoly may pose a risk to consumer choice and provide less incentive to entice with good offers? If so, what assurances has he received in that regard? I am sure that he agrees that an urgent CMA investigation is imperative, but can he confirm that the CMA will prevent the integration of the companies during investigation, as it is entitled to do?
The Minister will agree that many of the risks associated with this deal do not bear directly on the CMA’s remit of testing whether there would be a substantial lessening of competition. As he said, he has no power to intervene directly in the merger as it does not meet the public interest tests of national security, media plurality and financial stability. Given that the deal could radically alter the whole grocery sector—from farm and factory to supermarket shelf—will he finally use his powers to broaden the scope of the public interest test to include deals of such economic and national significance, as he has been repeatedly asked to do?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the hon. Lady for her important points. I share many of the concerns that she voices, but she says that the CMA’s remit does not extend to the substantial lessening of competition—[Interruption.] That is exactly what the CMA does. Its role is to examine competition matters—[Interruption.] If I misheard the hon. Lady, I apologise.
The CMA’s role is to consider the impact of this merger on not just competition in the marketplace, but suppliers. The hon. Lady rightly raised the impact that the merger could have on farmers and suppliers, and that was why the Secretary of State and I reiterated to Asda and Sainsbury’s when we spoke to them this morning the importance of their engaging with not just the CMA, but bodies such as the National Farmers Union and other unions to ensure that this is a proper process that we understand. The hon. Lady will know that section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 puts a duty on directors of the new company to have regard to the impact that their decisions would have on their suppliers, and we will be monitoring that very closely in the months to come.
We must also recognise, as the hon. Lady said at the very beginning of her contribution, that the retail sector is in a huge state of flux. We must all understand that the way in which consumers purchase these days is changing dramatically. There has been a 9% increase in sales through online vehicles in the last 12 months alone. That, by necessity, means that the retail sector has to change and adapt. One of the things that the merger will offer is reduced costs for the consumer, which I hope she will welcome. We all want to protect consumers and make sure they are getting great value for money, and that is one of the things that the merger promises. I can assure her, from the discussions I have had with the CMA, the Groceries Code Adjudicator and both parties, that ensuring the supply chain is properly protected is one of the priorities and something that I guarantee we will keep a close eye on.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
The Minister said that he had a conversation with Mike Coupe about store closures this morning. Given that the CMA insisted that 53 stores were offloaded when the Safeway-Morrisons merger occurred in 2003, how can Mr Coupe give the Minister such an assurance, and what does the Minister have to say about that?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question. The reassurances I was given this morning were first that there would be no store closures and secondly that the head offices of both Sainsbury’s and Asda would remain open. Those are both very positive things. My hon. Friend mentions the forced sale of particular branches, and that is clearly a matter for the Competition and Markets Authority. When Sainsbury’s and Asda move on to the phase 2 investigation, they will get down to the granularity of the merger’s impact on particular villages, towns and cities. If there is a feeling that it will cause a lack of competition in the marketplace, the CMA has the power, when making a decision, to force the sale of stores to competitors to ensure that there is greater competition for the consumer.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Secretary of State pointed out that the merger of Britain’s second and third largest supermarket chains will need to be approved by the Competition and Markets Authority and be scrutinised by regulators such as the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which was set up to protect small suppliers. As he said, the consumers’ voice is essential, and there are very real concerns that the merger will lead to reduced competition and be bad for shoppers, potentially hitting prices and the range of products available. Despite protestations to the contrary, fears remain that this could cost the jobs of the workers upon whose hard work these companies have been built. As we have heard, the Competition and Markets Authority may well demand that the combined group sells off some stores to prevent market dominance when there is both a Sainsbury’s and an Asda in the same area, but that can only be bad news for consumers and employees. Does the Secretary of State agree that the merger must not be at the expense of consumers’ interests or jobs, and will he commit to keeping the House updated on these important matters?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions; she raises some very important points. Sadly, my responsibilities do not yet run to my being the Secretary of State, but I am grateful for the confidence and faith that she has shown in me.
In relation to the consumer, this is at the heart of what the CMA will consider. It will look at how this merger will affect our constituents—people concerned about the price of a pint of milk or a loaf of bread—and it will be very attuned to such an impact. All the assertions made by both Sainsbury’s and Asda so far show that they believe that this will lead to a reduction in costs, and therefore a reduction in prices on the shelf. The CMA and the Government will of course be keeping a close eye on that, but Sainsbury’s and Asda believe that this will lead to better prices for the consumer.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
How does my hon. Friend believe the Competition and Markets Authority will react to the situation in the middle of Dunstable, where we have an Asda and a Sainsbury’s pretty much next door to each other, and also a Morrisons, a Tesco, an Aldi, a Lidl and an Amazon fulfilment centre in quite close proximity?
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend is spoilt for choice, I would say, and that is what we want to see. We want a dynamic marketplace with great competition between retailers to provide not only greater choice, but better prices. The CMA will clearly look at that—during the six-month phase 2 investigation, it will draw together all the information in relation to particular villages, towns and cities—and I confirm to my hon. Friend that if there is any concern about choice and competition in Dunstable, the CMA will act on that and, if it has to, it will force the sale of stores to competitors.
Mr Speaker
I am sure the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is a regular visitor to all those retail outlets in his constituency, and doubtless those shopping alongside him are veritably delighted to brush shoulders with their local Member of Parliament.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central (Lab)
Asda said this morning that it will continue to be run from its head office in the centre of Leeds, where just over 2,000 people are employed. Given that in the last few months there have been two rounds of job losses at Asda’s head office, and in the light of what the Minister has just said about the merger providing an opportunity to cut costs, what assurance can he give staff in the head office that their jobs are safe?
Andrew Griffiths
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that any merger will be designed to improve efficiency, productivity and value for money for shareholders. So far, we have been given reassurances by Asda and Sainsbury’s that there will be no store closures and no job losses in stores. I cannot confirm to him as yet the impact that the merger will have on the head offices, other than to repeat the confirmation that we have been given that both head offices will be kept open. However, this is a decision for the CMA. I urge the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members to bear in mind that the CMA will make a decision based on the evidence. If right hon. and hon. Members have evidence to contribute, they should make their case to the CMA to ensure that it considers all this on the facts.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. In Harlow, we have an Asda and a Sainsbury’s, and many hundreds of local jobs depend on those supermarkets. Although the companies say today that there will be no job losses, my concern is that in a year or so’s time, when this has all been forgotten about, hundreds of jobs will suddenly be lost not just in stores, but in logistics centres, distribution centres and so on. We need guarantees that those jobs will not be lost.
Andrew Griffiths
My right hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for his constituents, and I understand that he will be lobbying hard to ensure that there are no job losses. I reassure him that some 330,000 people are employed by this joint, merged organisation. It is a huge employer. It has given us very strong reassurances about jobs in stores. I urge him to engage not only with the CMA in relation to this investigation, but with both Asda and Sainsbury’s to make those points strongly and forcefully, as he always does.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister referred to the importance of online business in driving this merger. Can he explain how the CMA’s terms of reference enable it properly to take into account competition between domestic bricks-and-mortar businesses and global online corporations such as Amazon?
Andrew Griffiths
Very few people know this area of competition policy better than the right hon. Gentleman. As I have pointed out, phase 2 of the CMA investigation will involve drawing together a panel that will consider all the facts about the size of the market and the impact. As part of that, they will use all their resources to ensure that they fully understand not just, as he puts it, the bricks-and-mortar marketplace, but competition from online retailers.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I welcome the recent conversion of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) to the concept of liberal, free market competition—there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents and all that. Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that however the merger plays out, he will always promote diversity of provision and competition to give consumers the greatest freedom and choice?
Andrew Griffiths
As always, my hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. He is absolutely right that everybody benefits from a vibrant marketplace and increased competition. He will also understand that with my other hat on—as the Minister responsible for small business—I am keen to ensure that any merger such as this protects small suppliers and SMEs, which make up 99% of our business community and form the backbone of all our constituencies. Competition—yes, but it is hugely important that we have an eye to protecting those suppliers.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Following on from the question asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), Asda has been headquartered in Leeds for 50 years. It is a huge part of our civic and economic life and our infrastructure. Given the Minister’s answer and the lack of assurance that he has received in his conversations with Asda and Sainsbury’s, people working at the Asda head office will be incredibly concerned about their future. The industrial strategy is about rebalancing the economy away from London and the south-east. What assurances can he give that the merger will not rebalance the economy away from Yorkshire and towards London?
Andrew Griffiths
I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that I was given by both Sainsbury’s and Asda, which is that both head offices will continue to be maintained. Over recent months, we have seen the real pressure the retail sector is under with the loss of some very well loved and well known high street names as the result of a very challenging business environment.
I make no comment on the validity or the veracity of the merger details—that is for the CMA to decide—but clearly what we see is two businesses trying to get ahead of the curve and futureproof themselves in a very challenging market. The hon. Lady is a doughty champion for her constituents, so I am sure she will engage with both Sainsbury’s and Asda to seek further reassurances, but I can reassure her that that head office will remain open.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
For 11 years before I entered this place, I worked in the head office of Asda, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I can therefore understand the concerns of those who work there today. The Minister cannot provide assurances about the future of the head office—indeed, I do not believe that it will be there in a few years’ time.
I urge the Minister please not to view this as a merger. It is not a merger: it is a takeover by Sainsbury’s, in return for 42% of stock and £2.5 billion to Walmart. That is what it is, so let us stop using false terminology to describe what is actually happening. I urge the Minister to focus on the jobs in distribution centres, many of which are in working areas of the country. If this measure goes ahead, the distribution centres will be absolutely hammered a year or two down the line.
Andrew Griffiths
I understand very clearly the points my hon. Friend makes. He may not believe it to be a merger, but this is a merger within the legal definition that will be considered by the CMA. Clearly, there will be changes to the way the business is run to make it efficient and to keep it running well into the future. The assurances that Sainsbury’s and Asda have given us are that they will continue to run them as two separate businesses. I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that, from the information we have been given, those head offices will continue.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Asda is a substantial employer in my constituency. With £500 million of efficiency savings coming down the track, will the Minister tell us what discussions he had, in the meeting with the chief executive officers, about how to protect jobs and the number of hours worked by employees? Each job loss has a massive impact on my community, which is already suffering under Tory austerity.
Andrew Griffiths
Asda and Sainsbury’s believe that the way to protect those jobs is by making the business efficient, effective and able to compete and improve its market share. The shareholders will be asked to vote to approve the merger deal, so they, too, believe that—otherwise they would not vote for it.
I think the hon. Lady needs to be careful not to cause undue concern. The public assurances provided by both Sainsbury’s and Asda so far are that there will be no job losses in stores and that there will be no store closures. Clearly, the aspiration behind the public utterances from Sainsbury’s and Asda is that they want their businesses to improve. The recent takeover by Sainsbury’s of Argos saw efficiencies and improvements in that business that lead to more people being employed. I am responsible for any merger and competition issues, which will be considered by the CMA. I urge her to engage with, and make her points to, the businesses themselves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. As always, I am keen to seek to accommodate the extent of colleagues’ interest in an urgent question, but I remind the House that there is a further urgent question to follow this and thereafter, a statement by the Secretary of State for International Development on the situation in Syria, which, judging by precedent, I anticipate to evoke much interest. Therefore, there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Dairy farmers in my constituency supply milk to both Asda and Sainsbury’s. Will there be an easy way for those family-run businesses to be able to feed into potential efficiencies that may threaten the supply chain?
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend makes an important point—I have dairy farmers in my constituency—and this is one of the issues that I have raised with Christine Tacon, the Groceries Code Adjudicator. My hon. Friend will know that in the last few weeks, in conjunction with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, we have brought forward new proposals on dairy contracts to help exactly the kind of small suppliers that she talks about. In conversations with Sainsbury’s and Asda, both of them talk about the very real relationships that they have with their suppliers—with their dairy farmers. I hope that we can get some assurances to protect those relationships.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Just to be clear, suppliers will not be squeezed, head offices will stay open and stores such as those in Flint, where there is an Asda next door to a Sainsbury’s, will both be open in two years’ time. Has the Minister sought those assurances from the companies today?
Andrew Griffiths
Let me reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that the matter of stores in the same town will be considered as part of the phase 2 investigation by the CMA panel. It will consider the impact of the merger on individual towns. If it believes that it is anti-competitive, that it will lead to a worse deal for the consumer if the two supermarkets—one being Asda, one being Sainsbury’s—stay open, and if it has concerns, it will force the sale to a competitor.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, where there is a wider marketplace with a huge number of supermarkets, the CMA’s view may well be that there is no impact on competition in the town as a result of the merger. However, it is clear that this will be judged on a case-by-case basis, to protect the individual consumers in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Asda in Longwell Green and Sainsbury’s in Emersons Green have been huge economic success stories in recent years, taking on hundreds of extra jobs since 2010 without Government interference. Will the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s duty to be heavy-handed about the business interests of companies, but instead to create the right economic climate that will create jobs for the future?
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we want these businesses to grow and thrive. We want a dynamic retail sector. That is why, just last month, I established the Retail Sector Council to bring together the major players in the retail industry to ensure that the Government are creating exactly the conditions that he highlights, to allow these businesses to grow and prosper. But as I said, look at the facts: the combined company will employ some 330,000 people. We as a Government want to encourage those jobs—not to get in the way and prevent them.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Although I am encouraged to hear the assurances about store closures and store jobs—I am also a former colleague at Asda—I encourage the Minister to be very careful about making assurances, particularly about Asda House, but also about jobs in distribution centres. Forces are at play that are far wider than just this merger—worrying though this is—and that will not be examined by the CMA. Specifically for me, the issue is automation in the logistics and warehousing sector, where I can imagine about 80% of jobs no longer existing in the future. That would particularly hit the north-east of England, south Wales and other areas that have become dependent on these jobs. As well as looking at this issue, the Government need to look more widely at those broader trends. Is the Minister going to do that?
Andrew Griffiths
I knew that the UK was a country of shopkeepers, but I had not realised that so many Members had retail experience in our supermarkets; it is encouraging to have such a well-informed debate. The hon. Lady raises issues about the supply chain and distribution sector. Clearly, that is not within the scope of the CMA investigation. The Enterprise Act 2002 clearly sets out the role that the Government and Ministers can play in relation to takeovers and mergers, and it is important that we stick to those established rules. That is what we will be doing in this case.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Following on from the Minister’s last comments, it is right that concerns be raised about jobs and consumer choice, but will he confirm that producers will be able to provide evidence to the CMA on the potentially devastating effect of this concentration of market power through this market consolidation?
Andrew Griffiths
Not only can I confirm to my hon. Friend that producers’ voices will be heard in the CMA deliberation—this six-month detailed process that will consider all the aspects, vertical and horizontal, of the merger—but I positively urge him to go back to his constituency, engage with his dairy farmers and small suppliers, and make sure they contribute to it to guarantee that their voices are heard.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I hear what the Minister says about the dairy industry, but this is not just about the small producer; it is about the relationship between the producer, the processer and the retailer—and that has been a poisonous relationship for decades. How will this increased concentration at the retail end help that relationship?
Andrew Griffiths
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience in this area—I know that his constituency was badly affected by the foot and mouth outbreak and that he did a very good job at the time. The correct formula for finding a resolution for his dairy farmers and the supply chain is through the Groceries Code Adjudicator. She has proved to be incredibly effective in standing up for the supply chain—not just for the small dairy farmers, but for the wider industry. If he has concerns, I know she will take them very seriously, so I urge him to take them up with her.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Today’s announcement will be of concern to staff at Sainsbury’s store support centre at Ansty Park, in my constituency, where they are engaged in buying, design and merchandising—functions that came up to the midlands from London. I had the opportunity to visit the site a couple of years ago. Will the Minister reassure those staff that they will have an opportunity to make representations to the CMA?
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Huge strides forward were made in getting these jobs out of London and further north, and I know he has done a very good job in representing employees’ views. I can reassure him that their voices will be heard. He should convene a meeting, talk to the workforce and encourage them to contribute to the CMA inquiry.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the GMB. I met members of the GMB in Asda in my constituency last year and other retail workers represented by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and Unite. Does the Minister understand the concerns in Cardiff, given the loss of almost 1,000 jobs in the last year at Tesco House in Cardiff, which affected many of my own constituents, and given that his Government’s own analysis on Brexit shows it will hit the retail and food and drinks sectors extremely hard in all the scenarios?
Andrew Griffiths
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s points, which is why one of the first things I did after being made Minister was to pick up the phone to the union representatives he talks about. We want to make sure that employees’ voices are heard and that there is proper engagement over the merger. It is clear, though, that in no way is this a response to Brexit. These are businesses based in the UK and competing in the UK, and the business will continue to be listed on the London stock exchange post the merger. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which he raises on behalf of his constituents, but perhaps we should stop playing politics with Brexit.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The town of Kettering has a large Sainsbury’s and a large Asda. If this merger goes through, what Kettering shoppers and supermarket employees want to know is: will we still have both stores in two years?
Andrew Griffiths
I think that what Kettering’s shoppers and workers want to know is first that they have choice and competition and secondly that those jobs are protected. If both supermarkets are thriving, either the Competition and Markets Authority will decide that there is no competition issue and allow the merged company to continue to run both, or it will say that there is a competition issue and that it has concerns for my hon. Friend’s constituents, and it will force one of them to be sold to a competitor who will, hopefully, run it just as effectively.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
May I press the Minister on the question of distribution depots, which Mr Coupe has chosen not to protect? I remind the House that many of the distribution sites were established because of the decline in manufacturing, to replace manufacturing jobs. What assurances will the Minister seek from Mr Coupe and his fellow directors to guarantee that the jobs remain in those difficult areas?
Andrew Griffiths
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. He is clearly concerned about those jobs. There are a number of distribution jobs in my own constituency, Burton being at the centre of the country and well connected.
Let me make two points. First, the number of supermarkets being serviced will be the same, so the number of lorries, distribution outlets and goods being shipped will also be the same. Secondly, I have no power over the issue of jobs in relation to mergers. The Enterprise Act 2002 limited such powers. While we can have conversations, I urge the hon. Gentleman to do the same to protect those jobs.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Having previously been a supplier to both companies, I read about the proposed deal with much interest. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the implications for all parties will be considered—particularly the implications for the smaller regional food producers?
Andrew Griffiths
Let me say again that, as the Small business Minister, I am particularly attuned to that issue. I think that all of us, as consumers and as parliamentarians, want those small food producers—those artisanal businesses—to grow and thrive. Both Asda and Sainsbury’s have given assurances that they want to continue those important relationships. However, the Competition and Markets Authority, within its powers, will consider the impact on the supply chain.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Does the Minister think that this is a good deal or a bad deal for British farming?
Andrew Griffiths
I think the hon. Lady will understand that it is a deal that must be considered by the shareholders of both Asda and Sainsbury’s. It would be inappropriate for me as the Minister, given my role, to pass judgment on its validity or veracity.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister said that he had had discussions with the National Farmers Union. Many in the agricultural sector already think that the large supermarkets have too much power over buying and prices. What assurances can the Minister give the farmers, growers and food producers in my constituency—[Interruption.] What assurances can the Minister give them that they will be able to work on a level playing field and obtain fair prices for their produce?
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend can hear for herself the support that there is in the House for the suppliers, growers and farmers in her constituency.
Let me clarify one issue. I did not say that I had spoken to the NFU; I said that I had urged both Sainsbury’s and Asda to engage with the NFU to understand the position properly. As I have said, the CMA will be concerned about the impact on the supply chain, but, just as important, the Groceries Code Adjudicator will also be there to champion the small producers to whom my hon. Friend has referred.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Sadly for the Minister, here is another question from a Member who started his working life in a supermarket—luckily, probably, only as a butcher in Tesco, but there we are.
Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable to keep workers waiting until 2019 for certainty about their jobs, as indicated in the CMA’s statement? What will he do to try to improve the process as soon as possible?
Andrew Griffiths
I can honestly say that Tesco’s loss is the House’s gain.
I recognise that this is an uncertain time for workers—that is why we have engaged with the unions to try to give them as much reassurance as we can—but this is clearly a complicated and complex process. These are huge businesses, and we need to understand properly the impacts that the merger will have—not just on jobs in those businesses, but on the supply chain and competition throughout the country. While I am keen for us to secure a resolution as quickly as possible, I think that, unfortunately, we must let the process run its course.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
A new Asda store recently opened in Raunds; that has been particularly welcome for my constituents because of the positive impact it has had on petrol prices. What timescales does the Minister envisage for this process and is he aware of any impact on portfolio investments?
Andrew Griffiths
Those are important questions. If there is a phase 1 investigation, that will take 40 days. As I have said, both parties are urging the CMA to consider a fast-track approach. If it does that, phase 2 could be completed in six months. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the CMA will take very seriously the other issues he raises.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I know from my union experience that supermarkets are powerful both as employers and along their supply chains. They must not be allowed to abuse that power. Does the Minister understand the dismay of employees about this announcement that came out of the blue, and will he act to ensure that the guarantees given by the two supermarkets, about which he has waxed lyrical today, are not just day-one guarantees, but can be counted on by workers in the years to come?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern and recognise his passion as a previous trade union representative. He asks about the validity and veracity of the assurances given so far by Sainsbury’s and Asda. It is early days—we are not even at day one into this process—so we will see how that develops. On his aspiration that we protect the farmers and small suppliers, I gently point out that it was this Government who introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator and brought in those tough measures and protections to help our farmers and the supply chain.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Four of the five major retail supermarket sites in Torbay are occupied by either Asda or Sainsbury’s, and the two stores are right next to each other in Paignton. What reassurances can the Minister give me that communities and local councils will be able to feed in their views to the CMA, to ensure that competition at a local level is preserved?
Andrew Griffiths
My hon. Friend raises important points, and I know that his constituents will be concerned. I can assure him that the CMA will take representations. If he would like to meet personally with the CMA, I would be delighted to try to help facilitate that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foss Islands Sainsbury’s and Asda are also adjacent to each other, and staff will have woken up this morning to hear the announcement not from their employers but on the radio. What is the Minister doing to ensure staff get the support now that they need?
Andrew Griffiths
We have engaged with Sainsbury’s and Asda to urge them to speak to their staff, and we have also engaged very openly and honestly with the trade unions. We want to see proper and early engagement and consultation in this process to ensure that the workforce is protected, but the public assurances that both Sainsbury’s and Asda are giving at present are that all the stores, and all the jobs in the stores, will be protected.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We know in takeovers and mergers of this nature that, as sure as night follows day, it is the workers who end up paying for the efficiency savings that have been set out. I have to say that, given the number of assurances the Minister has talked about today, I think attacks on terms and conditions are almost inevitable. When that happens in two years’ time, what will the Minister do?
Andrew Griffiths
The rules under which we operate in relation to mergers and takeovers were established in the Enterprise Act 2002 under a Labour Government. They have worked well and allowed businesses to grow, develop and merge to the benefit of both shareholders and the employers. The Department is, of course, closely following what is going on, but decisions in relation to this merger are for the CMA.
Windrush
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the Government’s handling of the Windrush crisis.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
I am honoured to have been asked this morning to become Home Secretary. I start by making a pledge to those of the Windrush generation who have been in this country for decades and yet have struggled to navigate through the immigration system: this never should have been the case, and I will do whatever it takes to put it right.
Learning about the difficulties that Windrush migrants have faced over the years has affected me greatly, particularly because I myself am a second-generation migrant. Like the Caribbean Windrush generation, my parents came to this country from the Commonwealth in the 1960s; they too came to help to rebuild this country and to offer all that they had. So when I heard that people who were long-standing pillars of their communities were being impacted for simply not having the right documents to prove their legal status in the UK, I thought that that could be my mum, my brother, my uncle or even me. That is why I am so personally committed to, and invested in, resolving the difficulties faced by the people of the Windrush generation who have built their lives here and contributed so much.
I know that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), felt very strongly about this, too. Mr Speaker, please allow me to pay tribute to her hard work and integrity and to all that she has done and will continue to do in public service. I wish her all the very best. I will build on the decisive action that she has already taken. A dedicated taskforce was set up to handle these cases; more than 500 appointments have been scheduled, and more than 100 people have already had their cases processed and now have the necessary documents. We will continue to resolve these cases as a matter of urgency.
We have made it clear that Commonwealth citizens who have remained in the UK since 1973 will be eligible to get the legal status that they deserve: British citizenship. That will be free of charge, and I will bring forward the necessary secondary legislation. We have also been clear that a new compensation scheme will be put in place for those whose lives have been disrupted. We intend to consult on the scope of the scheme and we will appoint an independent person to oversee it. I hope that I can count on the full support of all hon. Members to make this happen as soon as possible. I end by making one thing crystal clear: we will do right by the Windrush generation.
Ms Abbott
I congratulate the Home Secretary on his new position occupying one of the great offices of state and thank him for coming to the House to answer this urgent question after what must have been quite a busy morning.
Is the Home Secretary aware how ashamed many British people are about the Windrush scandal, how frightened and angry the Windrush generation and their families are and how the scandal has resonated around the Commonwealth? He talks about the Windrush generation getting the legal status they deserve, but actually they were always British. They were always British citizens.
Is the Home Secretary aware that this is a matter not just for the Windrush generation and Commonwealth citizens from the Caribbean? The plight that befell the Windrush generation could also affect Commonwealth citizens who came here from south Asia and west Africa. What steps does he intend to take to protect later cohorts of Commonwealth citizens from the indignity and humiliation that the Windrush generation have had to suffer?
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was the Prime Minister, as Home Secretary, who introduced the Immigration Act 2014, which removed Commonwealth citizens’ protection from deportation. The new Home Secretary has been part of the Government’s immigration implementation taskforce. Was he aware of the problems being caused to Commonwealth citizens? Was he aware of the warnings in an internal Home Office impact assessment? Was he aware of the warnings from the previous Communities and Local Government Secretary that the “costs and risks” involved in the “hostile environment” would “outweigh the benefits”? Will the new Home Secretary commit at the very least to reinstating the protection for Commonwealth citizens that was removed by the current Prime Minister in 2014? What progress has been made in identifying Windrush people who have been deported, detained or improperly refused re-entry? We will also soon want to know more about compensation and its levels.
The Windrush generation was my parents’ generation. I and most British people believe that they have been treated appallingly. The Home Secretary will be judged not on the statements he makes this afternoon, but on what he does to put the situation right and to get justice for the Windrush generation.
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Lady for her kind remarks at the start. She asks whether Members are aware of just how angry so many people from the Windrush generation are. Of course we are aware. My predecessor was aware and the Prime Minister was aware, which is why they rightly issued apologies for the treatment of some members of that generation. I am angry, too. I shared with the right hon. Lady just a moment ago just how angry I am and the reasons why I am angry. Like her, I am a second-generation migrant, and I know that she shares that anger, but she should respect the fact that other people share it, too. She does not have a monopoly on that.
The right hon. Lady asks whether I am aware that the same issues could—I stress “could”—have an impact on other Commonwealth citizens, perhaps people such as my parents and others from south Asia who settled in this country. I am aware that that could be the case and I intend to look at that carefully. Right here and now, though, all the cases that have come up relate to the Windrush generation of people from the Caribbean who settled in Britain. That is why they are rightly the focus.
The right hon. Lady claims that protections were removed in 2014, but no such protections have been removed. People who arrived pre-1973 have the absolute right to be here, and that has not changed.
The right hon. Lady asks whether I am aware of anyone who may have been wrongly deported. I am not currently aware of any such cases, but I stress that intensive work is being done right now in the Department, going back many years and looking at many individuals, so I will keep the House updated on that.
The right hon. Lady closed her remarks by rightly reminding everyone that her parents were members of the Windrush generation. My parents were also part of the generation of migrants who came to this country in the 1960s. I hope that she can work with the Government to help those people.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Notwithstanding my sadness at my right hon. Friend’s predecessor’s departure, may I unreservedly welcome him to his new position as Home Secretary? He is absolutely right to have divided the subject clearly. Those who were wrongly taken up in the drive to get those who are here illegally out of the country should have their rights restored; they should be dealt with appropriately and helped accordingly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also right, for very good reasons, to pursue those who are here illegally? [Interruption.] Actually, many of them are abused by the people who traffic them over here. What happened to the cockle pickers in Morecambe bay and many others was the result of illegal migration that had not been cleared up. Will he therefore show his determination both to sort out the Windrush generation and help them and to continue to ensure that illegal migrants are taken away?
Sajid Javid
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s warm remarks. I very much agree with him that our first priority is to help those members of the Windrush generation who have been affected. I also remind people that there is a separate issue of illegal immigration, and everyone in the country expects us to deal with that.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his place and congratulate him on his appointment. It is only right to acknowledge the fact that he is the first person from a black and minority ethnic background to hold the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department.
I also acknowledge that the Home Secretary’s predecessor has done the right thing in resigning, given the circumstances in which she found herself. It was her misfortune to preside over a mess of the Prime Minister’s making. Although I have my political differences with the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), I wish her all the best for the future.
A mere change of personnel at the Home Office will not resolve the underlying causes of the Windrush scandal. What has happened to the Windrush generation is not an accident, nor is it a mistake or the work of overzealous Home Office officials; in fact, it is the direct result of the unrealistic net migration targets set by the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary and of the “hostile environment” created on her watch. It is the Prime Minister who created the fundamental reasons for the Windrush scandal. If the policies that she put in place are not changed by the new Home Secretary, we will have more disgraceful instances of maltreatment of people who have every right to be in the United Kingdom. EU nationals in particular are concerned about what awaits them after Brexit, for all the fine words of assurance.
I therefore have the following questions for the new Home Secretary. Will he commit to a root-and-branch review of the immigration policies that have led to this disaster? Will he commit to an evidence-based immigration policy that, in the words of the director general of the CBI, puts people before numbers and works to benefit our economy and society? Will he look seriously at the concerns of EU nationals living in the UK? And will he look at the clear evidential case for the devolution of powers on immigration to the Scottish Parliament, in recognition of Scotland’s particular demographic needs?
Mr Speaker
While it is always a pleasure to listen to the mellifluous tones of the hon. and learned Lady, who is a distinguished practitioner at the Scottish Bar, I hope I can be permitted gently to point out that she has nearly doubled her time allocation.
Mr Speaker
She does not get paid by the minute. [Laughter.] I remember one very distinguished lawyer in this place in the last Parliament who I rather fancy had been paid by the word.
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for her kind remarks about my predecessor. She asked a number of questions, but she started by saying it is not just about a personnel change. Of course, it is not; it is about action and having the right policies, and that is certainly what she will see from my Department.
The hon. and learned Lady talked about the kind of immigration policy she would like to see. I commit to a fair and humane immigration policy that, first, welcomes and celebrates people who are here legally—people who have come in the past or who are looking to come, and who want to do the right thing and contribute to our country—and what they have to offer our great country, but that at the same time clamps down decisively on illegal immigration.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I assure my right hon. Friend that he will receive very strong support from Conservative Members in his new job, which I am sure he will find stimulating and challenging in equal measure. Can he give some more detail on the progress of the special taskforce set up in the Home Office to deal with the Windrush problems? Clearly, the best way to remove the anxiety that so many people are feeling is to ensure that the taskforce gets on with its job quickly and gives people the assurance that they are getting the rights they have always deserved.
Sajid Javid
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. The taskforce was set up on 17 April and it has already looked at a number of cases. It has received some 6,000 calls, of which we estimate some 2,500 fall into the category of the Windrush generation. They are all being dealt with by an experienced case officer in a sympathetic way. More than 500 appointments have been scheduled and more than 100 cases have already been successfully resolved.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post and the statement he has made about supporting Windrush families, whom we all agree have been shamefully treated, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said. Given the number of Home Office decisions that were got wrong in these Windrush cases, is he concerned about a wider culture of disbelief, about whether a net migration target is distorting decisions and about the lack of checks and balances in the system to prevent injustice? As well as responding to the questions the Select Committee sent on Friday, will he look again at reinstating independent appeals and legal aid to prevent injustice in future, because this is not just about a fair immigration system; it is also about the kind of fair country we all want ours to be?
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks. I look forward to working with her, particularly on the work she does as the Chair of the Select Committee, and to the scrutiny that she will no doubt continue to provide. She asked a number of questions and I will take a lot of that away and think about it a bit more, if she will allow me. On targets, there were some internal migration targets and I have asked to see what they were before I take a further view on them.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I say to my right hon. Friend that if he does as well in this as he did on leasehold in his previous job, everyone will be grateful? May I also say to him that where people of my generation, who might have been Windrush generation, have been on the electoral roll for 30 or 40 years, it should be up to somebody else to prove that they were not on the roll by right? If they were on it by right, they should be assumed to be legitimate, resident citizens here and there should be no case of trying to prove where they were 14 years ago or 34 years ago. They were here; they are British; and they should be accepted as such.
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know Home Secretary sounds very similar to Housing Secretary, but it is Home Secretary. He is right about making the right assumptions. The taskforce is making the process of helping some people to find the right documentation a lot quicker, and this is being done in a way where we are able to act much more subjectively, taking into account all the evidence that has been put in front of us.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
May I add my welcome to the Home Secretary in his important role? Will he help to clear up the question about who knew what and when about Windrush deportations by publishing in the House of Commons Library the report prepared by the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), in 2016, following meetings he had with Caribbean Ministers, because apparently this was copied to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary at the time?
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has forcefully made it clear that he shares the desire of his two predecessors to resolve this issue as swiftly as possible. Does he agree with the Windrush constituent who spoke on Radio Kent this morning to indicate that, although he was going to find it difficult to provide the necessary documentation, he nevertheless recognised that as a legal migrant he wished to control illegal immigration into this country?
Sajid Javid
I did not hear that interview this morning, but, from the way my hon. Friend explains it, I very much agree with that analysis.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Given the comments the Home Secretary made over the weekend and repeated today about how he felt at the treatment of the Windrush generation, is he able to give an assurance to the 3 million EU citizens who have also been legally living here, in some cases for many years, that none of them will go through the same experience as they apply for settled status just because they are not able to provide all the documentation the Home Office requests from them?
Sajid Javid
I do not want any person who has legally settled here, whether from Europe or any other part of the world, to go through the same experience.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give serious attention to the introduction, as soon as reasonably possible, of not only secondary but primary legislation, to deem that all those caught up in this deeply regrettable omission, which has built up over decades, will have the same legal status as those who benefited from the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971, while at the same time controlling all illegal immigration?
Sajid Javid
I refer my hon. Friend to the comment I made earlier, when I said that I will do whatever is necessary to help, which means considering all legislative options, if necessary.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
May I press the Secretary of State further on legal aid? Is it not the case that at the very moment at which people who had a perfectly legitimate right to be in this country were facing a hostile state, the means by which they could secure advice, advocacy and representation was removed from them? Will he ensure that nobody who now faces a similar situation will be denied the opportunity to get such advice and help?
Sajid Javid
I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said, and she makes an important point about legal aid more generally and when it can and cannot be provided. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is currently conducting a review of legal aid. A consultation is open and the hon. Lady should contribute to it.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and pay handsome tribute to his predecessor.
The Windrush scandal really should not have taken us by surprise: it is the natural consequence of a system that has as its default position an assumption that a person is here illegally, with the onus being on the applicant to prove that they are here legally. That is the problem. A person has to prove that they are who they say they are and have a right to be here. Too often in offices, as a result of policy—let us not shift the blame—the default position is that the computer says no. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to have a radical rehaul of all these policies, so that we shift the onus back on to the state to prove that a person does not have a right to be here?
Sajid Javid
I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks. I can make this commitment to her. We need to make sure that when dealing with inquiries from the public, the immigration system behaves more humanely and in a more fair sense, and that it takes more into account what I would call the obvious facts, rather than just asking for a piece of paper to prove everything. I will look into the matter very carefully.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I say to the new Home Secretary that it is not that, as he says, this could be happening to a wider group of people than those in the Windrush generation, but that it is happening, and it is because of the “hostile environment” policy, the cuts and pressures in his Department and the cuts to legal aid, discretion and appeals. How many people are his Department aware of who have been wrongfully deported or detained? In the midst of last week’s discussions, we were told that the Home Office was going to scrap the net removal target that has been at the heart of this argument; will the Home Secretary commit now to removing it?
Sajid Javid
First, if the hon. Gentleman knows of any cases of other affected people of which he thinks my Department might not be aware, please will he make me aware? He asked whether I am aware of any cases of wrongful deportation; I am not currently aware of any cases of wrongful deportation. He talked about the so-called hostile environment; let me say that hostile is not a term that I am going to use. It is a compliant environment. I do not like the term “hostile”. The terminology is incorrect and that phrase is unhelpful, and its use does not represent our values as a country. It is about a compliant environment and it is right that we have a compliant environment. The process was begun under previous Governments and has continued. It is right that we make a big distinction between those who are here legally and those who are illegal.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position, but share my regret that we have lost the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), a parliamentarian of the highest calibre, from the Cabinet. Given the devastating impact on the lives of the Windrush generation of getting this policy or its implementation wrong, will he commit to ensuring that we do not repeat these mistakes with EU citizens on whose skills our country also greatly relies, plus develop a people-focused immigration policy that welcomes the contribution and skills that this country will need now and in the future?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with my hon. Friend on the contribution that EU citizens have been making for many decades to our country, and that they continue to make. That is why I am absolutely committed to following through on our commitment so far that those who want to stay can stay that we make that as easy as possible for them and that we celebrate their contributions.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State pledges a fair and humane immigration policy. Will he put those words into action by ending the practice of brutal mass deportations by charter flight? These secretive flights are routinely used to send people to countries from which they may have fled in terror for their lives or with which they have little or no connection. Given the Home Office’s poor history of decision making and that it is almost impossible for people to appeal from abroad, does he agree that this cruel practice should end?
Sajid Javid
What I commit to is making sure that, at all times, our immigration policy is fair and humane. If the hon. Lady wants to write to me about what she thinks needs to be done, I will look at it.
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new job, though I wish that the circumstances of his elevation had been different. We need a new immigration policy for after Brexit. May I urge him—I believe that I speak for everyone on the Conservative Benches—to put his own stamp on that policy? We want to see the policy of the Home Secretary, one of the four great offices of state, and if that means retiring some legacy policies then so be it.
Sajid Javid
Having worked with me in a previous Department, my hon. Friend will know that in every Department in which I have worked, I have almost certainly put my own stamp on it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
There is no question but that the commitment to get net migration down to the tens of thousands led to the “hostile environment” that affected the Windrush people. The Prime Minister recommitted the Government to that policy on 8 May during the previous general election. It seems inconceivable that she would make such a policy statement and then pay no attention to how that policy was delivered. I do not expect the Secretary of State to have the details now, but can he write to me, and put a copy in the Library, of all the occasions when that has been on the agenda when his Department has met the Prime Minister to discuss how to deliver reducing net migration to the tens of thousands?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new job. He is absolutely right to focus his attention immediately on righting the wrong that has happened to the Windrush generation and the terrible way in which some of them have been treated, and I cannot think of anybody better to do the job than him. Will he also assure the House that he will not use this issue as a Trojan horse, like the Labour party has, and go soft on illegal immigration? Once people have gone through the full process and through the court system and are found to have no reason to be here, there should be a target for removing them from the country, and that target should be 100%. Anyone in this House who does not think that is out of touch with the vast majority of people in this country.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend rightly says that we should focus on the immediate issue of helping in every way we can those from the Windrush generation who have been affected; we share that determination. He also rightly pointed out that helping in every way we can those people who are here legally is perfectly consistent with having a compliant environment that ensures that everyone has to abide by the same rules on immigration.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has a golden opportunity to turn the page on a toxic debate around immigration in this country, so he should dump the net migration target or at least take students out of it. Why do we not focus more on how we better integrate immigrants who come to this country, rather than attack them? The right hon. Gentleman said that he is the son of an immigrant—I am too—but what is he actually going to change and do differently from his two predecessors? All the warm words are great, but what will he do differently to stop this happening again?
Sajid Javid
With respect, I have had only about seven hours in the Department. If the hon. Gentleman gives me a little more time, I will set out what I am going to do.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming the first Muslim Home Secretary. Having worked with him, I know that there is no one better to sort out this mess. I also pay tribute to his predecessor, who did the very honourable thing.
Does the Home Secretary agree that we need to remember while sorting out this mess that it is due, in no small part, to the last Labour Government’s illegitimate open-doors immigration policy? Many of us at the time warned that the policy would trigger huge problems for those who had come here happily and settled here as citizens; and so it has come to pass. Does he also agree that the Conservative party should take no lectures from the Labour party, as we have given the country its first woman Prime Minister, second woman Prime Minister and first Muslim Home Secretary?
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. He will get the unanimous support of this House if he really does sort out the terrible legacy of the Windrush situation, but will he also look at the nitty-gritty of the immigration department? All Members who deal with immigration cases day in, day out get so fed up—as do our constituents—with lost passports and lost letters. It is just incompetence. If the Secretary of State can get a grip on that sort of detail, things will really improve.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady is quite right to point out the importance of looking at the detail. All hon. Members hold surgeries and deal with our constituents’ cases, but our constituents really should not have to come to us with such issues. They should be dealt with properly and fairly through the system, and I will be looking at that very closely.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome my constituency neighbour to his new position. Does he agree that he needs to use his competence and managerial skill to get a grip on the detail of the Windrush situation and resolve it quickly—but, at the same time, to develop and ensure that we maintain a focus on controlling illegal immigration into this country as we move towards Brexit?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He once again points out the important distinction that must not be lost between legal migration and illegal migration.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for his response to the urgent question and wish him well in his new position. What steps will he be taking to reassure migrants from other parts of the Commonwealth, and will he proactively make staff and time available to assist those people with any problems that they are experiencing?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about other members of the Commonwealth, to which I referred briefly a moment ago. I want to ensure that we are looking at this carefully to see whether we need to take further steps where people are affected. The hon. Gentleman will know about the taskforce that we set up for the Windrush generation. I will not hesitate in taking any further steps that would help.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role. Like him, I have an immigrant background. I am not a second generation, but a first generation, immigrant. The fact that we are both sitting on these Benches is a testament to how open and welcoming our country and, in fact, our party is to new immigrants. In the Secretary of State’s previous role, he would have been overseeing plans this year to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Empire Windrush arriving in the UK, so he knows that this is not just an immigration issue, but a communities issue. Will he tell us of any opportunities that he may see for cross-departmental working to ensure that this situation does not happen again?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there is a huge amount to celebrate about the Windrush generation, with the 70th anniversary of the arrival of MV Windrush occurring this June. My previous Department has done a huge amount of work on that, and I hope to work closely with it to make sure that we have the very best celebration we possibly can to show people from that generation exactly what they mean to this country and how much we respect everything that they have done for us.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role and recognise his achievement as the first British Asian to be appointed to one of the four great offices of state.
On 17 April, I asked a named day parliamentary question of the Home Secretary’s predecessor requesting the number of Windrush citizens who have been denied or charged for NHS treatment. The answer was due a week ago, but it has not arrived. Will he please now tell the House how many of the Windrush generation have been charged for or denied NHS treatment? One such case would be one too many. What is he going to do about it?
Sajid Javid
First, I thank the hon. Lady for her opening remarks. I do not have the information she has requested. I am sorry that she has not received the reply to her named day PQ. I will certainly look into that when I go back to my office.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Having worked closely with him, I know that he will do a diligent and good job. I welcome his statement. He is absolutely right. The Windrush generation have every right to be here legally. They are British citizens. My constituents expect that everything that can be done will be done to make sure that we regularise their legal position. My constituents also expect this Government to tackle illegal immigration. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend gave them reassurance on both fronts.
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend’s constituents an assurance on both those issues. We will absolutely do everything we can, and go much further if we have to, to help in every way with the problems that some members of the Windrush generation are facing. At the same time, we will maintain our policies around illegal migration, because that is exactly what the British public wish to see.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The new Home Secretary does not like the phrase, “hostile environment”, but it came from his boss, the Prime Minister. It was she who presided over the immigration targets, she who introduced the “Go Home” vans, and she who allowed the Home Secretary’s predecessor to make a speech at the Tory party conference about targeting companies taking on foreign workers. That is the “hostile environment” that this Government have created. When will the Prime Minister accept personal culpability for Windrush and the net effect of the hostile environment?
Sajid Javid
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the phrase “hostile environment” actually existed under successive Governments and began under a previous Labour Government. But this is not about which party introduced a phrase; my point was that I do not like the term, “hostile”, and I will not be using it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Given the level of interest, the House’s propensity for rehearsed mini-speeches as prefaces to questions needs today to be curtailed. I am looking for short, preferably single-sentence inquiries. I am looking, in fact, in the direction of the author of the textbook on the matter, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), but I do not know if he was standing. No. What a pity: he could have educated colleagues.
Sir Desmond Swayne
While I know that the Home Secretary favours the word, “compliance”, some of us believe that hostility to lawbreaking is a proper response.
Sajid Javid
I think we both agree that we must have a compliant environment.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Unlike the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), I welcome the Home Secretary’s rejection of the “hostile environment” policy. It has affected many alongside the Windrush generation. More than 30,000 students, mostly from the Indian subcontinent, had their visas cancelled midway through their studies because of allegations, which I believe are largely untrue, of cheating in the test of English for international communication. I will write to him about their plight. Will he undertake to look carefully at the case of TOEIC students?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Just as my right hon. Friend did in his previous Department in fighting anti-Semitism, looking after the victims of Grenfell and championing affordable housing, will he make social justice a defining part of his mission in his new role, so that something like the Windrush saga can never happen again?
Sajid Javid
I can make that commitment. Every part of this Government is committed to furthering social justice, and that will be at the heart of my Department.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
To follow on from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), such is the chaos of our immigration system post the Windrush crisis that a gentleman called my office this morning asking whether he was going to be “Windrushed”. He arrived here from Italy in 1967 at the age of seven. What does the Home Secretary want to say to him?
Sajid Javid
First, I am sorry that the gentleman whom the hon. Lady refers to has those concerns and that anxiety. No one wants anyone to suffer in that way. I do not know if she has already passed the details to my Department, but if she does, I will certainly look at that.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
As a Kent MP, I fully recognise the mixed blessing of the UK as an attractive place to live for migrants, both legal and illegal. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Windrush generation and all cases dealt with by the Home Office will be treated with humanity and compassion?
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. It is rumoured that there will be a chartered flight this week deporting people back to Jamaica. Can the Home Secretary confirm whether a flight is scheduled, and if so, whether there will be any individuals on that flight from the Windrush generation?
Sajid Javid
I can tell the hon. Lady that I am not aware of any such information, but I will take a close look.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
The Windrush scandal is appalling—there is no doubt about it—but there seems to have been some wilful conflation here, not helped by the crashing irony of the shadow Home Secretary talking about my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) not being on top of her brief. Will the Home Secretary outline to me and others in Plymouth what exactly is wrong with a compliant policy—I know he does not like the word “hostile”—on illegal immigration, which is what we want to see from this Government?
Sajid Javid
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the answer is absolutely nothing. It is right that we have a compliant environment when it comes to immigration, and in fact when it comes to all laws, to make sure that those laws are enforced. It is not just the right thing to do for everyone in the country, but it is particularly right for migrants who come here legally and wish to settle in our country. They also want to know that that is the correct route and that those who are here illegally will be dealt with.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
First, from the daughter of a Pakistani migrant to the son of a Pakistani migrant, mubarak upon your appointment.
DCLG played an integral part in the implementation of the “hostile environment” policy under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch. Can he outline exactly what he did to resist that? Can he confirm that he now has permission to bring the axe down on his own Prime Minister’s shocking and shameful legacy in the Home Office?
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Lady for her opening comments. She talks about the compliant environment. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 were introduced not by this Government but by the previous Labour Government. Many Governments have been working consistently to make sure that we have a compliant environment.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role. Having worked with him, I know what a good, compassionate and caring man he is, and I know he will make an excellent Home Secretary.
The Windrush generation and their children, some of whom sit in this House, have made an enormous contribution to the making of modern Britain. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must all do more to celebrate and communicate the enormous role that they play and have played over the years? With that in mind, will he agree on his first day in the job to meet with me, or even better visit with me, Paul Reid, the director of the Black Cultural Archives, based at 1 Windrush Square in Brixton, to discuss the excellent work it does not just in the community but for the nation?
Sajid Javid
That sounds like a very worthwhile invitation. I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the contribution made to this country by the Windrush generation is immeasurable, and we should all celebrate that when it comes to the 70th anniversary.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State assure me that the targets about which we have all heard so much and, although he does not like the term, “hostile environment”, are not being used to encourage civil servants and officers to pursue people who are legally in this country and are British citizens, but who are now—like a constituent of mine who has been affected—being asked to prove once again that they are entitled to the passport they already hold?
Sajid Javid
I refer the hon. Lady to the comment I made a moment ago, because it is just as relevant: there were some internal migration targets, but before I comment further, I would like to take a closer look at them and form a view.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. The actions taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) were widely welcomed by the high commissioner of Barbados when he met the Home Affairs Committee last week, but the Home Secretary’s predecessor accepted that there was an issue with confidence in the measures put forward. What does my right hon. Friend think all Members across the House can do to ensure that the Windrush generation have confidence to come forward and to believe that the system will work for them, not against them?
Sajid Javid
I will continue to look at what further measures we can take to build confidence in the measures put in place, particularly the hotline and the taskforce. One thing we have made very clear, and I am happy to repeat it now, is that any information provided by anyone who comes forward—whether they call the hotline or come to one of the centres covered by the taskforce—will be used for no other purpose than that of helping them with the issues they face.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Given the focus of Conservative Members on illegal immigration, does the Home Secretary wish to comment on the fact that under his Prime Minister’s “hostile environment”, which has seen so much injustice done to the Windrush generation, we have seen the Government’s total failure to achieve what they set out to achieve, with neither voluntary nor enforced removals having actually increased in recent years?
Sajid Javid
No, I do not wish to comment on that question, because it was just political point scoring and not serious in any way.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
From his earliest days as a Member of this House, my right hon. Friend has spoken out uncompromisingly against all forms of anti-Semitism. What will he do to encourage some other people in some other parts of this House to follow the fine example he has set?
Sajid Javid
In my previous role as Communities Secretary, I obviously had a big role to play—I was privileged to do so—in fighting race and hate crime of all types. In my new role as Home Secretary, I will work very closely with my successor to make sure that we are fully co-ordinated in fighting hate crime and that we look carefully, particularly with regard to anti-Semitism, at what more we can do.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position, but let me give him some advice: whether the term is “hostile” or “compliant”, it is deeds not words that matter in this place. Three families who came to my surgery at the weekend have Windrush generation family members who have been deported from this country, so he has to be aware that there is a serious issue with deportation. He has told us how many people have called the hotline, but these families could not get through, so will he tell us how many members of staff there are? What will he do specifically to get legal advice to people who have already been deported, so that we can truly have justice for the Windrush generation?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady asks me about the taskforce. I understand that more than 50 officials are working on it, and we can increase that number if necessary. They are dealing with all the calls as they come in, and they have set up appointments for face-to-face meetings. As I said earlier, 500 appointments have been scheduled and 100 cases already resolved. If we need to add further resources, we will. If any member of the public who is listening wants to know, the number for the hotline is 0800 678 1925.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. My constituents want to know not only that the taskforce is doing its job and reaching out to encourage people to get in touch with the Home Secretary, but that the Government are using all the resources at their disposal to find out about registration for national insurance, electoral registration and registration for council tax to help people prove that they have been in this country for a long time.
Sajid Javid
I assure my hon. Friend on that front that officials and Ministers have been looking carefully to see what else can be done to help with finding appropriate documentation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has already had meetings with other Departments to try to achieve just that.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Windrush generation and others have more than two weeks to apply for British citizenship and that fees will continue to be waived until the Windrush generation issues have been fully resolved?
Sajid Javid
I am not aware that there is a completely inflexible deadline by which people can make applications. I want to take a closer look, if the hon. Lady will permit me to do so. I have not had enough time to look at the detail of every aspect of the matter yet, but I will take a closer look and get back to her.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position and on launching it with such power and style with his statement today. Does he agree that it is vital that we ensure that any compensation scheme is designed in consultation with those affected?
Sajid Javid
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we do not rush to judgment about how the compensation scheme should work and that we listen in particular to those who have been affected. That is why it is right to have a consultation on the compensation scheme.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
In my surgery this morning, I saw a young asylum seeker who came to the UK nine years ago aged 15 and is still awaiting indefinite leave to remain. He has attempted suicide twice. I also saw a grandmother who came here from Barbados in 1970 aged 10, and who is still waiting and hoping for British citizenship. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government’s failures on immigration policy go way beyond the Windrush scandal, and is he determined to tackle all aspects of discrimination and excessive delay by his Department?
Sajid Javid
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am determined to tackle all aspects of this and make sure that we deal with everything as quickly as we can.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment, and I commend the speed at which the Home Office taskforce has, over the last week, assisted my constituents in applying for their permit cards. Given the advancing age of some of the Windrush generation, will he confirm that any reimbursement for travel to immigration centres will cover the most appropriate form of travel for the needs of an individual, especially as they get older, rather than just the cheapest option?
Sajid Javid
We have already confirmed that any out-of-pocket expenses, including travel costs, for any individual in relation to the work of the taskforce will be reimbursed. I am glad that my hon. Friend has highlighted the issue of speed. To reassure people who call the hotline and come to the taskforce, I make it clear that of the 100 cases I have mentioned that have already been resolved, most were resolved on the same day.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
In just two of many cases, the already deported Zielsdorf family from Laggan and my current constituents the Felbers in Inverness were deported, or threatened with deportation, on the basis of highly technical conditions or abrupt rule changes, without notification, during attempted compliance. Will the Secretary of State look into the role that the Government’s hostile targeting has played in those families’ unfair treatment, which has caused great distress to our highland community?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman mentions a couple of cases with which I am not familiar. If he wants to send me details, I shall take a closer look.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his position, to which he brings his own particular personal insight and integrity. I also welcome the new fast-track system and wish to report that my constituent, who was thrown out of Uganda in 1973 and had a very hard time, has, as a result of the new system, been fast-tracked through and is delighted with his treatment. I have high hopes that he will be confirmed for ever to remain in Taunton Deane. Is it not right and essential that we have an immigration policy that is fit for the future, respects people’s rights and encourages aspiration?
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
How would the new Home Secretary respond to this quote, which is not from me but Anthony Bryan of the Windrush generation, who spent 50 years in the UK, followed by five weeks in a detention centre? He said:
“I feel like I helped bring down the Home Secretary…I feel sorry for her in a sense, because it looks like she is taking the punishment for Theresa May.”
Sajid Javid
I am not aware of all the details of Mr Bryan’s case, but I know it is being or has been dealt with and prioritised. If he knows anyone else who is in a similar situation, he should encourage them to contact the hotline.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the waiving of the citizenship fee will apply to individuals who have documentation as well as those who do not?
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Some people think that there is a link between political rhetoric that is hostile to migrants and hate crime. What does the Home Secretary believe?
Sajid Javid
I have seen no evidence of such a link. If the hon. Lady thinks there is and has some evidence, I will happily look at it.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I join colleagues in welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new post. The children of the Windrush generation who are in the UK will in most cases already be British citizens. Can he confirm that where that is not the case they will be able to apply to naturalise at no cost?
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his place and the commitments he has made this afternoon on fairness and justice. Will he offer that commitment to constituents who have already been deported, particularly my constituent who was deported two weeks ago in spite of his partner being 34 weeks pregnant at the time? He was in the process of an appeal and there were no papers to deport him.
Sajid Javid
Clearly, no one should be wrongfully deported—of course not. If the hon. Lady has any details—forgive me if she has already shared them with the Department—I will certainly take a very close look at them.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State’s personal commitment to the Windrush generation, but any credible immigration policy must distinguish between those who are here legally and illegal immigration. Is it not striking that there is an absence of policy on illegal immigration from the Labour party?
Sajid Javid
I am glad my hon. Friend points that out. I very much agree with him about making that distinction. I believe the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was asked just this morning, in a number of interviews she gave, what would be the policy of the Labour party, and she had no answer.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), it says on the Government’s own website that the Windrush citizens have two weeks to “regularise their immigration status”. Will the Secretary of State look urgently at removing that statement from the website—it says that they have only two weeks—and give them a lot more time to deal with this situation?
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Similar to the Windrush situation is the plight of the Chagos community, who were exiled from the British Indian Ocean Territory under the Wilson Administration. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to look at my British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill, which is currently before the House, with a view to righting this injustice?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the Chagos community, and I will very happily meet him.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Windrush generation built Birmingham and Britain only to be treated shamefully in the twilight of their years. This is a national scandal for which the Prime Minister must take personal responsibility. Will the Home Secretary clarify his earlier remarks about the compensation scheme? After 50 years in this country, Gloria Fletcher lost her job. As a consequence, she and her husband Derek are now deeply in debt. Given what the Home Secretary said, it looks like they might have to wait many, many months for compensation and justice. When will they finally see that justice delivered?
Sajid Javid
I think that I speak for the whole House when I say that we all want the compensation scheme in place as soon as possible. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is right that we first consult on it—I hope to set up the consultation very quickly and to get input in particular from people who have been affected, including perhaps his constituents and others—to make sure that we are right on the detail and that the scheme properly compensates all those who have been affected.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. Does he agree that there is absolutely no question but that the Windrush generation have a right to stay? However, that does not reduce the need for, or the importance of, policies that act as strong deterrents to those who are trying to enter the country illegally or are currently here illegally.
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the need to clearly articulate the distinction between those such as the Windrush generation, who have every right to be here and need to be helped in every way with this difficult situation, and the need to maintain a strong, compliant environment to ensure that our immigration rules are followed by everyone.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My constituent, Gretel Gocan, had lived in the UK for 30 years when she was wrongly denied re-entry after visiting Jamaica for a family funeral several years ago. Arrangements are now being made for Gretel to return home to the UK. Her health is fragile and her family would like her to be able to travel this week, but they are struggling to raise the £972 cost of the flight. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the travel costs of repatriating Windrush citizens who have wrongfully been denied entry to the UK will be met by the Government so that Gretel’s family can bring her home this week?
Sajid Javid
If the hon. Lady sends me details of that particular case, I will take a closer look at it.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary assure the House that he will do everything in his power to make sure that nobody faces unnecessary delays or costs for NHS treatment in the future, as we saw in the case of Albert Thompson? Will he meet me to discuss the wider policy so that other people do not face unnecessary delays in the NHS as a result of our policy on visas for NHS staff?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue and I very much agree with what she says. What happened to Albert Thompson was completely unacceptable. We do not want anyone else to be in that situation, and I will very happily meet her.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister received a letter from the former Home Secretary on 30 January 2017 apprising her of her continued work on the immigration policy. The Prime Minister is therefore complicit in all that has taken place. Is not the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) merely a scapegoat for the Prime Minister?
Sajid Javid
My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, was a fantastic leader of the Department. She did some great work that I hope to build on.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Key to putting wrongs right will be the work of the new Windrush hotline, which has already responded very quickly to my efforts to help one of my constituents to get British citizenship. There is a wider opportunity for my right hon. Friend to recognise the migrant contribution to our nation, so may I invite him in principle to come to an event at the Gloucester history festival at which we will celebrate the arrival of the Empire Windrush this September?
Mr Speaker
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be inviting the Home Secretary to deliver an oration, rather than simply to sit there decoratively.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It appears from the outside that the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) left her post in part because of incorrect briefings and because papers were not sent to her, or were sent to her but not seen. May I ask the new Home Secretary, in all sincerity, whether he plans a root-and-branch review of the Home Office to decide whether it is fit for purpose in the long term?
Sajid Javid
From what I have seen already of the Home Office, I can say that I am lucky to have such a strong and professional team, but of course improvements can always be made in any Department, and I will be looking carefully to see how I can do that.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary to his post—I know the whole team at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will greatly miss him—and also welcome the rapid action that has been taken to right the injustice that the Windrush generation have suffered. They are, of course, as British as any of us. When it comes to people here illegally, however, does he agree with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who, when shadow Home Secretary, said we needed proper enforcement and proper action to combat illegal immigration?
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a vital distinction between the Windrush generation, who came to this country as British citizens, and tackling illegal immigration? As such, will he reject any calls for an amnesty on illegal immigration, which would only encourage traffickers and undermine those seeking legitimate routes to citizenship in this country?
Sajid Javid
I agree with my hon. Friend. No one in the Department is talking about an amnesty. It is right that we welcome those who are here legally, but maintain a strong, compliant environment for those here illegally.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome my former colleague from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to his new role. It is a delight to see him in his place today. I also welcome his comments about ensuring this matter is resolved quickly. Can he reassure me that he will work with local councils regarding records that they have that might help members of the Windrush generation to prove that they have been living here and their eligibility to remain?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He will know that I love working with local councils and I will continue to do so in my new Department. Local councils have a role to play in our immigration policy, particularly in helping those from the Windrush generation.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his historic appointment. Will he assure the House that, as his Department engages with the Windrush generation, it will look expansively and sympathetically at the types of records and documents that it will accept as people build a picture of their time here, so that these issues can be resolved quickly?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The taskforce is already looking sympathetically at requests for documentation, which is why it is able to resolve many of the cases within days.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that once the consultation on compensation has been finalised, an attitude of generosity will be applied and his Department’s famed proactivity and alacrity will be brought to bear when deploying the compensation scheme?
Sajid Javid
I agree with my hon. Friend. I look forward to discussing the issue of generosity with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wonderful new position. The Windrush generation, like many others, were a generation of pen, paper and hard-copy documents. On the decision in 2009 to do away with those hard-copy documents, will he, when he has a quiet moment, look back and see why no decision was made to back them up, in a computer age, and how that decision was brought about by officials or those leading the Department at the time?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes an important point that deserves to be looked at.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary to his new post. Will he assure the House that his primary focus will now be on giving practical assistance to those who need help?
Sajid Javid
My most urgent priority now, as I enter this Department, is to continue to build on the work set out by my predecessor to help the Windrush generation as quickly as I can, and in every way that I can.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s ground-breaking appointment. Does he agree that while a humane immigration policy demands that we take action on the Windrush generation, it is not inhumane to act on the legitimate concerns of ordinary working people about illegal immigration in this country?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who has reminded the House of an important distinction. This is about acting correctly and fairly in respect of those who are here for all the right reasons and are helping to make our country strong, while at the same time cracking down on illegal immigration.
Syria
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Penny Mordaunt)
Let me take this opportunity to put on record that the aid workers who have been attacked in South Sudan are very much in our thoughts. Aid workers should never be a target, and I am sure that the whole House will want to send our good wishes to them and their families at this difficult time.
I want to update the House on the United Kingdom’s support for the people of Syria. I am keenly aware that Members are deeply concerned about the level of suffering experienced by millions of Syrians. The United Kingdom has shown, and will continue to show, leadership in the international humanitarian response.
In the eighth year of the conflict, the plight of the Syrian people remains grave. The Syrian regime appears to have no intention of ending the suffering of its own people, although the opposition have placed no conditions on peace negotiations. The barbaric attack in Douma on innocent civilians, including young children, was yet another example of the regime’s disregard for its responsibility to protect civilians. Some may seek to cast doubt over the attack and who was responsible for it, but intelligence and first-hand accounts from non-governmental organisations and aid workers are clear. The World Health Organisation received reports that hundreds of patients had arrived at Syrian heath facilities on the night of 7 April with
“signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals.”
Regime helicopters were seen over Douma on that evening, and the opposition do not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs.
Assad and his backers—Russia and Iran—will attempt to block every diplomatic effort to hold the regime accountable for these reprehensible and illegal tactics. That was why the United Kingdom, together with our United States and French allies, took co-ordinated, limited and targeted action against the regime’s chemical weapons capabilities to alleviate humanitarian suffering. Britain is clear: we will defend the global rules-based system that keeps us all safe. I welcome the support that we have received from Members and from the international community. We will work with the United Nations and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to create a new independent mechanism to attribute responsibility for chemical weapons attacks. We will work with France on the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, and we will work with the EU to establish a new sanctions regime against those responsible for chemical weapons use.
In wielding its UN veto 12 times, Russia has given a green light to Assad to perpetrate human rights atrocities against his own people. This is a regime that has used nearly 70,000 barrel bombs on civilian targets; a regime that tries to starve its people into submission, although the UN Security Council has called for unhindered humanitarian access; a regime that has continued to obstruct aid to eastern Ghouta and removes medical supplies from the rare aid convoys that do get in; a regime that deploys rape as a weapon of war, with nearly eight out of 10 people detained by it reported to have suffered sexual violence; and a regime that deliberately bombs schools and hospitals, and targets aid workers and emergency responders as they race to the scene to help.
We must support the innocent victims of these atrocities. All warring parties must comply with the Geneva conventions on the protected status of civilians and other non-combatants. There must be an immediate ceasefire, and safe access for aid workers and medical staff to do their jobs.
We also want to adapt what we do to the new reality of this war. That is why I have announced the new creating hope in conflict fund with USAID, to work with the private sector to find new technology to save lives in conflict zones. Britain will establish a humanitarian innovation hub to develop new capabilities to hinder regimes that appear determined to slay innocent men, women and children.
Our aid has made a difference. Despite the horrific violence meted out by Assad, we have been able to prevent mass starvation and large-scale outbreaks of disease. When we are able to reach the people who need our help, our aid works. We are the second largest bilateral donor to the humanitarian response in Syria. Since 2012, our support has provided over 22 million monthly food rations, almost 10 million medical consultations and over 9 million relief packages. But the suffering continues. Some 13.1 million people are now in need of humanitarian assistance. Over half of Syria’s population has been displaced by violence, with nearly 6 million seeking refuge in neighbouring countries. In north-west Syria, an intensification of hostilities and the arrival of an additional 60,000 people from eastern Ghouta is stretching scarce resources. Today, 65% of the population of Idlib—over 1.2 million people—have been forced from their homes.
At last week’s conference, I announced that the UK will provide at least £450 million this year, and £300 million next year, to alleviate extreme suffering in Syria and to provide vital support in neighbouring countries. This will be in addition to our support for the second EU facility for refugees in Turkey. We have now committed £2.71 billion since 2012, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.
Our pledge will help to keep medical facilities open to save lives. We will deploy protective equipment to keep medics and rescue workers safe. We will deploy antidote stocks to treat any further victims of chemical weapons. We will train doctors and nurses to treat trauma wounds. We will focus on education, making sure that every child in the region has access to quality education even in the most trying circumstances, on steps to protect civilians and on ensuring that those responsible for attacks face justice.
We will help to support the millions of Syrian refugees sheltering in neighbouring countries. Our friends in the region—Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey in particular—continue to demonstrate extraordinary generosity by opening their doors to millions fleeing the conflict in Syria. We must continue to offer them our fullest support. Last week, I also announced that the UK will host an international conference with Jordan in London later this year. It will showcase Jordan’s economic reform plans and aspiration to build a thriving private sector, and mobilise international investment.
There are refugees who cannot be supported in the region: people requiring urgent medical treatment, survivors of violence and torture, and women and children at risk of exploitation. We will work closely with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to identify those most at risk and bring them to the UK. We are helping but, with Russia’s support, Assad continues to bomb his own people, and that is why so many continue to die and so many have fled their homes.
There can be no military solution to the Syrian civil war. As UN special representative Staffan de Mistura said in Brussels last week, the Assad regime risks a pyrrhic victory unless it and its backers engage in a genuine political process. Only this can deliver reconciliation and the restoration of Syria as a prosperous, secure and stable state. The UK will continue to support the efforts of the UN, under the Geneva process, to this end.
The obstacles remain serious. The regime has shown no inclination to engage seriously so far, and the Security Council remains divided. But the international community cannot, and should not, resign itself to failure. The costs for Syria, for the region and for the wider international rules-based system are too great. The Foreign Secretary was in Paris last Thursday to discuss with key partners how we should intensify our efforts to bring this conflict, and its causes, to an end. While we actively work to find a political solution, the UK will continue to stand alongside the people of Syria and the region to do what we can to alleviate human suffering and to demand immediate access for aid workers to all those who need our help. I commend this statement to the House.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I thank her for giving me advance sight of it. Let me join her in expressing my anger at the attacks on aid workers in South Sudan. Let me also congratulate her on her appointment today as Minister for Women and Equalities.
The war in Syria has gone on for more than eight years, and 100,000 civilians have died, 1 million have been injured and 12 million displaced. For all our differences, I believe that we in this House are united in our desire to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Syrian people and, as fellow humans, to help to bring an end to their suffering.
Turning first to money, I welcome the fact that last week the UK pledged £250 million more in new funding to help Syria. That can sound like a lot, but the truth is that last week’s pledging conference in Brussels raised less than half the $9 billion needed. It also raised less than was raised at a similar conference this time last year. Indeed, Mark Lowcock, the UN’s emergency relief co-ordinator, has warned that we have a $5 billion shortfall and that the UN will now have to make hard choices. The Prime Minister of Lebanon, where 25% of the population are refugees, has warned that his country remains “a big refugee camp”. Without enough funding, tensions are rising in Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan, so will the Secretary of State say more about how the UK intends to help to fill that remaining shortfall and about what plans exist to increase our own contribution? Given that delays have been reported in the United States’ pledge and that pledges from the Gulf states have so far been less than was hoped, what assurances can she give the House that she is putting extra pressure on those others also to come to the table?
It is not all about the money, however—it is not enough just to get the chequebook out. Without a political solution, our aid budget will only ever have a limited impact, so what are the Government doing to show political leadership in securing a ceasefire? After they ignored the UN and joined US airstrikes, will the Government now recommit to a joint multilateral solution to peace through the UN, even if that seems difficult? Let us remember that, a fortnight ago, this House debated the decision by the Prime Minister to bomb Syria without even coming to this House for a vote. We were told then that the action was intended to alleviate human suffering. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether her Department ever carried out an assessment of the likely humanitarian impact of the airstrikes before they were authorised by the Prime Minister?
Opening the chequebook overseas counts for nothing unless we also live up to our responsibilities to Syrian refugees here in the UK. The Government promised to take 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020, yet the UK is taking just 4% of the number of refugees received by Germany, and the numbers across European countries are dwarfed by those in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. We are not even able to hit the Dubs amendment target of 3,000 children, and that is pitiful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) also reported recently that his constituents were unable to host and help Syrian refugees because of the logistical and bureaucratic hurdles set up by the Home Office. That pattern is being replicated up and down the country. If the Government can prioritise targets to remove people from this country, why are we not able to hit a simple target to let in a handful of refugee children from countries such as Syria? Will the Secretary of State please sit down with the new Home Secretary and urge him to remove these barriers straight away so that we can, at the very least, hit the UK’s very modest targets for resettling Syrian refugees and children?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her warm words at the start of her response. We are doing many things to ensure that we and the international community have the funding we need to alleviate the immense suffering being endured by the Syrian people. The first part of our contribution is obviously asking others to lean in, so my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East and I have been asking other nations to do that. We obviously heavily co-ordinate our efforts with UN agencies and with their asks. We are also leading the charge on reforming the humanitarian system. We lose about $1 billion a year globally because the system does not work efficiently, so if we can get it to work better, we will have more money to deploy where we need it.
We are also helping in other areas. To give one example, I was recently in Jordan looking at the costs of healthcare; particular prices must be paid for vaccines for refugees. We are looking at the specific cost issues for the countries that are shouldering an immense burden and at what we can do to try to alleviate those costs or to get more sensible pricing systems in place.
We are also working with the multilateral system; as the hon. Lady will know, the capital replenishment of the World Bank was a huge success for the UK’s development goals. That formed part of our desire to ensure that the countries that are shouldering burdens, specifically Jordan and Lebanon, have their contributions taken into account when decisions are being made. I am pleased to be working with the president of the World Bank and Bill Gates on being human capital champions and on ensuring that all multilaterals are making decisions about which nations are stepping up and not only funding their own people, but supporting refugees from other nations.
The hon. Lady mentioned the UN, and we all know about the problems we have with the Security Council and Russia’s veto. We must find other ways of working and to encourage people to come to the table, and we have to put pressure on Russia and Iran to play their parts in getting the situation resolved.
As for the air strikes, their purpose was to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons, as the hon. Lady knows. The vast majority of Members across the House recognise why they were a good thing for the people of Syria, for our own safety and for trying to ensure international norms. One reason why we are not able to share information with the House in advance of such strikes is that we can only make the judgment to which she referred when we know what the targets are. We can only make a judgment about whether a strike will be legal, effective in its objective and compliant with our targeting policies if we know what the targets are, and we cannot share that information with the House for understandable reasons.
We have chosen to support millions in the region. We are taking a number of refugees into the UK, but we are supporting millions of individuals not just with the basics of life, but by trying to ensure that they have some kind of future, particularly with our investment in education. Since I became Secretary of State, I have set up several new groups with the Home Office, both recently and last year, to consider issues in which there is Home Office interest, including the administration of the situation of refugees. For example, if people caught up in the Rohingya crisis have relatives here, we are trying to be proactive and to ensure that we are doing everything we can to get sensible things to happen.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I must express disappointment that, while rightly damning the monsters in the Syrian Government, my right hon. Friend still has nothing to say about the maniacs—the jihadists—who lead most of the armed opposition. Can she tell us whether this aid will be supplied only to displaced Syrians outside Syria or, if it will be supplied to Syrians within Syrian territory, whether it will be supplied to Assad-controlled territory, to territory controlled by the armed jihadist opposition or to territory controlled by the only people we have ever been able to support militarily—the Kurdish-led Syrian democratic forces? Those forces are currently under attack from Turkey, which she has just described as one of our friends in the region.
Penny Mordaunt
Turkey is a key NATO ally—I hope my right hon. Friend would want me to describe it as such—and it is supporting an enormous number of refugees. I very much understand his concern on this issue. The way we distribute aid is based on need, and we obviously have protections to ensure it is distributed as it should be. The main obstacle to that happening is access to particular areas, but aid is not being given to terrorist groups and it is not being abused in that way.
Most of the armed opposition are now dead. Back when we had the vote on the Floor of the House in 2013, there were 12 groups that nobody could describe as extremists or terrorists, and they were the best hope for a peaceful and good outcome to this situation. We are now faced with a situation in which Assad will continue his campaign, despite no restrictions being put on negotiations by the opposition groups. The only peaceful outcome in Syria will be with the consent of all parties, which I am afraid does not point to Assad remaining there.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I wish her well with her new ministerial responsibilities, and I associate the Scottish National party with her words on the aid workers in South Sudan.
The Syrian conflict is making the Schleswig-Holstein question look positively simple by comparison, but there are a number of questions that I hope the Secretary of State will be able to help me with this evening. Can she tell us a bit more about the new sanctions she has announced? Will they target the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre and the network of shady bank accounts connected to it? Will she seek to address the large imbalance between the number of UK and EU sanctions and the number of sanctions brought in by the US Treasury? The US Treasury has almost 300 sanctions, but I understand there are fewer than 30 from the United Kingdom.
Can the Secretary of State tell us how she plans to strengthen the chemical weapons convention and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons? Isopropyl alcohol and hexamine are required to make sarin gas, but neither of those two components is covered by the chemical weapons convention. Are there plans to address that? Can she tell us a bit more about the US aid imitative she mentioned in her statement and how much new money will go to it?
The UN Security Council is tasked with underpinning global security, and it worries us all that it is now effectively an entirely broken instrument. Although, like the Secretary of State, I hold no candle for the Russian veto, if the veto is dead for Moscow, it is dead for every permanent member of the Security Council. Given that with the airstrikes the UK Government have essentially acted, whether we like it or not, outwith the norms she says the Government have acted to defend, what is the long-term plan to bring back some decorum, some decency and some order to the UN Security Council?
Mr Speaker
It is always in the interest of our proceedings that they should be entirely intelligible to those who attend or who watch on television. If memory serves me correctly, only three people knew the answer to the Schleswig-Holstein question: one died, a second went mad and the third forgot the answer.
Penny Mordaunt
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope to do rather better in my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald).
Whether through financial levers or through having other options in our humanitarian toolbox, we need to be able to do more in future. When I was a Defence Minister, I was fed up of coming to the House to say why we could not do airdrops; as Secretary of State for International Development, I am fed up of coming to the House to say why we cannot protect people better. We are a smart nation. We have great brains in our armed forces and in our civil contingencies, and we work very closely with our US allies. We have to come up with some better capabilities, and I am determined that we will do so.
We also want to focus on financial levers, and we are working with the EU and other international partners to develop them. I cannot give details on that today, but it is in train. I will update the House at a later date.
The US aid initiative is a joint partnership with the UK. Initially, we are each putting in £5 million to invite competition. We are asking people to come in with ideas, and we will then look at and develop those ideas, which could be about protecting civilians, getting power or water supplies back up or getting aid to individual people.
Additionally, we will set up a humanitarian innovation hub in the UK. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East will lead on that, and it will use the best brains from across many sectors to come up with solutions that we can use and that may help our defence and civil contingency capabilities.
On the UN, huge efforts are being made by our dedicated team in New York. I have spent time with them and I have visited them, and they are making a sterling effort. We need to keep pressure on Russia and Iran, which is the only way we will get things back to how we want them to work. In the meantime, we have to find other ways of making sure that we adhere to international norms. We will all be safer if that is the case.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Is any expenditure from the conflict, stability and security fund planned for Idlib province? If so, what are the objectives of that expenditure and how will it be accounted for?
Penny Mordaunt
Expenditure from that fund has already been put into Idlib in particular. I am looking to do more with DFID’s funding in Idlib and in other areas that are next in the firing line. We still have some access to four such areas, and I can write to let my hon. Friend know exactly what expenditure has come out of the CSSF.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I associate myself with her comments about South Sudan, and I put on the record my deep concern about today’s situation in Kabul, where we have seen significant loss of life, including journalists and others.
The Secretary of State talks about the importance of humanitarian access. Given the issues we have seen with Turkey’s operations in and around Afrin and Turkey’s role in controlling many of the crucial border points around Idlib where, unfortunately, we expect there to be significant military action in the near future, what conversations have she and her ministerial colleagues had with the Turkish Government at the highest levels to ensure that those border posts are open for humanitarian access?
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East has spoken to the Turkish Government and to a number of individuals at the UN. We want this situation to de-escalate. It is, at the very least, a distraction in the fight against Daesh, as I reported to the House in the quarterly counter-Daesh update a few weeks ago. We remain concerned, and we will continue our diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, by helping refugees closer to Syria, rather than inviting them here, we can help many, many more people? As those refugees will obviously want, in due course, to return to their country, is there any news on possible progress on a diplomatic solution?
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are able to help millions of individuals, and it is not just about providing a safe haven; it is also about providing them with education and skills training to ensure that when they are able to return to their homes—and we hope that will be sooner rather than later—they are equipped to pick up their lives as swiftly as possible.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The last chapter of the history of Syria’s destruction has already been written: it is the complete annihilation of Idlib by barrel bombs delivered by Assad’s murderous forces, backed up by the equally murderous Russians. What can the UK Government do to try to avoid tens of thousands of additional deaths in Idlib? Will the Government expand the family reunion scheme and increase the number of Syrian refugees who are able to come to the UK, to protect more vulnerable people?
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Gentleman is right, in that we think Idlib and some other areas are going to be next hit. We have done a tremendous amount to forward deploy equipment to protect individuals—everything from sandbags to personal protection equipment. He will understand that in some areas access is extremely difficult and there are enormous numbers of people. Our priority is to protect those individuals who can protect others—the civilian defence workers and medics in those areas. Of course, we urge those who are in control of those events, who do not have to bomb their own people, to desist from doing so and to come to the negotiating table.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Minister for Women and Equalities, in addition to her current job, and I know she feels passionately about that. An estimated 478 health facilities have either been destroyed or attacked since the conflict began. What is she doing to make sure that vital medical care can be given?
Penny Mordaunt
In addition to the protection for those individuals I have just mentioned, part of our funding will be going to train thousands of medics in advanced trauma care. It is vital that we keep health services running, provide medical consultations and keep pushing for access for medical supplies. I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right to say that hospitals, medical facilities and aid convoys containing medical equipment have been targeted by the regime.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her new responsibilities. May I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of St Bernadette’s parish in my constituency, which is developing resources to enable it to host a Syrian refugee family? In the context of the debate about the Windrush scandal and a “hostile environment”, many people reasonably ask why, following the Dubs amendment in the House of Lords, this country is not fulfilling its moral responsibility to Syrian child refugees. How many Syrian child refugees have we taken and what are her plans for the future?
Penny Mordaunt
On the resettlement of vulnerable individuals, we have taken about half our commitment to date—just over 10,000 individuals. I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s urging us to do all we can to ensure people are safe. We have chosen to prioritise those who are extremely vulnerable and in need of a particular health treatment, or those who are vulnerable for some other reason, but we are supporting millions of refugees. We are the major contributor to that, taking care not just of people’s basic needs, but of education. I recently visited some of the education facilities in countries in the region, and Britain should be very proud of what we are doing to assist people. I visited a school that is particularly focused on children who have disabilities and have been injured in the shelling in Syria. UK aid is doing great work. We are helping not just a few thousand individuals in the UK but millions in the region.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
In her opening statement, my right hon. Friend referred to the “barbaric attack in Douma on innocent civilians, including young children”. Last week, in the margins of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Mr Slutsky, who is Mr Putin’s spokesman on earth, whined that the Russians only faced obligations, not rights. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Russian Federation has absolutely no right either to use or promote the use of chemical weapons and that if the Russians want to be accepted in the civilised world, they should join the UK and others in seeking a political solution, rather than exacerbating the suffering?
Penny Mordaunt
I could not agree more. There is a very good reason why these weapons have been outlawed: they cause immense suffering. This regime is choosing not only to bomb its own people, but to exterminate them in the most cruel ways imaginable. Any nation that facilitates that should be ashamed of itself. I do not think the Russian people would approve of that kind of behaviour, and the Russian Government should look to their conscience and to the security of their own people, because by breaking these international norms they are putting their own people in danger, too.
Mr Speaker
I cannot say I have heard of this Slutsky fellow, but I am sure that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) can take it upon himself to educate the gentleman—very useful.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The statement is welcome, and I hope it will be followed by further regular and frequent updates. The Secretary of State knows that many of us are pushing for far stronger actions than sanctions to deal with the full spectrum of Assad’s atrocities, but when she talks about “A new sanctions regime against those responsible for chemical weapons use”, do we firmly put Iran and Syria among those “responsible”? Will she consider a wider sanctions regime, covering siege, starvation and deliberate targeting of civilians, as well as chemical weapons use?
Penny Mordaunt
Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He will understand why we do not want to make announcements until we are ready to act on these matters, but we are looking closely at what we think would be effective and what will deter future action. He is right to say that chemical weapons are against international norms, but barrel bombing children is against international norms, too.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Given that we had an opportunity in 2013 to make a real difference but it was opportunistically rejected, may I say to my right hon. Friend that she should not take any advice from the Labour party? To ask her a specific question, some 500 medical centre and general practice buildings have been destroyed; what is her Department doing—is there anything it can do—to restore medical aid in Syria?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend will know that the most appalling things have happened. Even when co-ordinates have been given over with a view to ensuring that strikes avoid medical centres, they have been used to attack those sites. We saw the report of the surgeon David Nott, who was conducting an operation on an injured Syrian child down the line from London and who found that the signal he was using to perform that operation was used to target a hospital. This is why we have launched these new challenges, calling on people who have expertise, technical know-how and great ideas to enable us to be ahead of individuals who choose to unleash this barbaric behaviour on their own people. We want to do better. We want to have more options in the future to protect people.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were in New York for discussions with the United Nations Secretary-General, members of the Security Council and other UN member states. It is clear that far from ignoring the UN, our ambassador Karen Pierce and her colleagues are making prodigious efforts to get progress on Syria. The Secretary of State referred to the 12 Russian vetoes. Given that there will continue to be Russian vetoes, what are we going to do when Assad carries out mass murder of civilians in Idlib? Are we going to walk by on the other side or will we have another effort, with our coalition partners, France and the United States and others, to stop these atrocities?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that one reason why we took action against the use of chemical weapons a few weeks ago—as well as to degrade Assad’s capability—was to deter that kind of action in future. The hon. Gentleman’s support and strong stance on humanitarian issues have strengthened that message. The fact that Members from all parties have condemned not only the chemical weapons attacks but the use of conventional weapons against civilians, and have expressed our resolve that those things should not happen, will have helped that message. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot talk today about specific future action that we or our allies might take, but Assad and his backers should be under no illusions: we will not tolerate such breaches of international norms.
David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and congratulate her on her new ministerial responsibilities. What assessment has she made of the recent levels of religious persecution in Syria? What steps is she taking to ensure that persecuted religious minorities have access to humanitarian aid?
Penny Mordaunt
That is an important issue. In the new development offer that I unveiled a couple of weeks ago, I included new programming specifically in respect of the protection of civilians being persecuted for their religious beliefs. A great deal of protection can be afforded to people who are being persecuted—whether it is for their religious beliefs or they are women and children, who are particularly vulnerable—by having good reporting mechanisms in the way we deliver aid. If the recipients of aid know who to go to when, for example, aid is being withheld, we will be able to stop these things much quicker, so we are looking into that.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I supported the action against the use of chemical weapons the other week, and I consider any failure to take action to be appeasement in the face of the atrocities committed by the Assad regime and the increasing levels of aggression from the Russian state. My question relates to the White Helmets, who have played a significant part in saving tens of thousands of lives in Syria. What support will the Government continue to give to the White Helmets, and in what form?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I thank the hon. Lady for the stance that she took. The sentiments I expressed in my response to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) also apply to her and to many other Opposition Members. The White Helmets have done a phenomenal job, and I very much regret some of the false propaganda that has been put around about their work. We are supplying them with financial assistance, and as I said, we are looking to forward deploy as much protective equipment as we can. It is people like that, along with medical teams, who we really need to ensure are protected in the four areas that I think will be targeted next.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to Syria’s neighbours that have taken in refugees? Will she set out what support she is offering to those countries to undertake what must be an enormous humanitarian task?
Penny Mordaunt
In addition to the aid that we are supplying and, as I mentioned, the other things we are trying to do to help those countries with the costs that they are having to bear, we need to help them in other ways. That is why we have announced the conference with Jordan—an amazing country with a huge amount to offer. We want to help Jordan to grow its economy, as well as to enable it to continue the tremendous generosity and hospitality that it is showing to refugees.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for highlighting so very well the suffering of millions of Syrians. The Syrian Christian population is estimated by Open Doors to have halved since 2011, down from 2 million to 1 million, and the number of displaced in Syria stands at 6.7 million. Will the Secretary of State confirm that DFID aid has been delivered to where the Christian minorities are now located? Has it reached large numbers of the displaced?
Penny Mordaunt
As I have said, we are completely reliant on what access we can get to certain areas. We cannot get aid convoys into some areas into which we wish to get them. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the mechanisms and partners with which we work to deliver aid on the ground, we are very conscious of these issues and we are strengthening those systems all the time. I have met individuals who are particularly concerned about protecting those who may be being persecuted for their religious beliefs. As I said, I am announcing some new programming to give us more options on that front.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Last week, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), I was at the Council of Europe, where I spoke about Jordan’s effort to educate so many Syrian refugees. What is the Secretary of State going to do to help with the crisis in early years education in that country?
Penny Mordaunt
We are doing a range of things. As a general principle, I am keen that, whether in respect of humanitarian or more traditional forms of economic development, we join up the different programmes that we run—that we join up our maternal health provision with our early years provision and our education provision—and that we build systems as we go. There are many things that we can do to strengthen the healthcare and education systems of those countries in the region that are hosting refugees. I hope that one day we will be able to make similar contributions and give similar technical advice to Syria.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
As a Government, we should resettle the people who are most vulnerable and those with the most complex needs, but the fact is that to go beyond that risks diverting resources from literally thousands of individuals and driving people towards the human traffickers and the perilous journey across the Mediterranean. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the strategy to support those in the region will allow Syrian refugees to go home safely when it is safe for them to do so?
Penny Mordaunt
Yes, and my hon. Friend enables me to make a further point, which is that many of the refugees who are resident in these host countries are not there passively receiving aid, but are actively contributing to those societies. They are running businesses and engaging in economic activity. We need to ensure that people who have been there for many years and may remain for some time have the best possible future. It is right that we in the UK take in those who need additional protections and additional care and support.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Syrian civil war is obviously controversial, as is the UK’s international aid budget. What more can the Department do to promote the good aid work that the UK is doing in respect of the Syrian conflict? As the Secretary of State mentioned, we are the second largest bilateral donor, after the United States.
Penny Mordaunt
The public are actually very supportive of humanitarian relief; it is something that they support uncontroversially. I know that because I see how much they give voluntarily through Disasters Emergency Committee appeals and so forth. We have to give the public greater confidence in what we do with their money. It is not that people are ungenerous or that they do not believe that the UK has an actual interest in building trading partners for the future; they are just a bit suspicious about how we have been going about it. That is why a couple of weeks ago I set out a new development offer that not only delivers the global goals better, but explicitly explains why that is in the UK’s interests.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
What progress has been made on working with smaller partners in Syria, such as the very brave medics supported by the Hands Up Foundation who are working in Idlib at this very minute? Will the Secretary of State join me in reminding Government and Opposition Members that Singing for Syrians is not just for Christmas and that the money donated now can go straight to Idlib?
Penny Mordaunt
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all that she and other colleagues have done through this amazing organisation? I know how keenly she feels the plight of those on the ground when there has been an attack in an area in which some of her team are working. The Department has made good progress with the launch of the small charities scheme, but I would like us to go further. Other Members have mentioned organisations in their own constituencies. We have tremendous organisations up and down the country that contribute a huge amount not just in financial support and aid, but in friendship to those in the developing world.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State, not least what she said about the work that we are doing with our allies given the way that, on the one hand, Russia and its apologists across the world have been saying that we should respect the UN, while, on the other, making sure that the UN cannot do anything effective. Can she reassure me and tell me how, in the long term, we can bring to justice some of these people who have committed such appalling crimes, given that Russia is likely to continue to veto any reference to the International Criminal Court?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. One of the sessions that I took part in at the Brussels conference was with civil society and we looked at how we will collect evidence and hold people to account for their actions. Some of our funding will support an international initiative to do just that, and it is vital that we do so. We should do everything in our power to stop the sorts of things that we have seen over the past eight years happening ever again.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
With respect to promoting our aid effort, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), is my right hon. Friend aware of anyone who spends 99.3% of their income on themselves?
Penny Mordaunt
I can see that I will have to deploy my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) to make the case for what we do. We do sometimes focus on that number of 0.7%, but we should actually focus on what that money does. If we can explain this better to the British public, who enable us to help people such as Syria’s children, they would be very proud of what the funding does.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment as the Women and Equalities Minister. Does she agree that protecting women and girls in Syria and in the region should be a priority, and will she set out her Department’s specific action in that regard?
Penny Mordaunt
The needs of women and girls are at the heart of our approach to humanitarian efforts. We have enshrined that in a tri-departmental policy with the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. It is vital, particularly in conflict and protracted crises, that we ensure that women and girls are shaping our humanitarian effort and that their needs are absolutely at the centre of what we do, which means that they are at the heart of our doctrine.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with Haian Dukhan, a PhD student at the University of St Andrews, who left Syria in 2012 because of the two evils of President Assad and Daesh and who described our action in Syria as “necessary and legitimate” because Assad had crossed a red line? Does she share my view that our response to the crisis in Syria also confirms that our aid budget is in our strategic national interest?
Penny Mordaunt
Clearly, we are involved in a lot of economic development to produce the trading partners for the UK of the future, but what we do on the humanitarian front is the hallmark of a great nation, and we should be very proud of that. I know that the British public are very proud of our humanitarian work.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
I recently met the Reverend Dr Grant Barclay of Orchardhill Parish Church in Giffnock and he said that many of his congregation have felt deeply affected by the humanitarian situation in Syria and want to help. How best can church and indeed community groups support the work that the Secretary of State and her Department are doing in response to this conflict?
Penny Mordaunt
There are many ways that they can help. Clearly, many community groups raise funds and give aid directly. There is also a lot we can do to show our support, particularly when groups such as the White Helmets are under attack. We can ensure that the truth is out there; we can confront people who decide to peddle falsehoods about what is actually happening on the ground; and we can show our support. Ultimately, though, it is the practical needs that we must address. I hope that, if we can develop the small charities scheme, groups such as my hon. Friend mentioned will be able to benefit from UK aid money.
Point of Order
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions last Thursday, I asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Government will not support my Food Insecurity Bill. He said that the Food Standards Agency food survey asked exactly the questions proposed in my Bill and that we also have an annual living costs and food survey. The Minister knows, as I outlined in a letter I wrote to him on 4 April, that the Food Standards Agency survey does not exactly include the questions proposed. He also knows that the annual living costs and food survey contains no questions relating to food insecurity or hunger and simply focuses on the expenditure of households on food. I wonder whether, through your good offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can compel the Minister to come to the House and correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for advance notice of it. As Mr Speaker reminded the House only last week, Members are responsible for the accuracy of their statements, and it is up to them if they wish to make any corrections to them. I cannot compel the Minister to do that, but she has very successfully put her point on the record.
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 6 March 2018 (Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.—(Claire Perry.)
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill
Monday 30th April 2018
(6 years, 7 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 Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 April 2018 - (30 Apr 2018)
20:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 125 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out “after this Act is” and insert
“, and within five months of this Act being”.
This amendment would require the Authority to insert the standard supply licence conditions within five months of Royal Assent.
Amendment 2, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) A cap imposed by tariff cap conditions shall be calculated so as to require that the difference between the cheapest advertised tariff and the most expensive standard variable or default tariff offered by a holder of a supply licence is no more than a specified proportion of the cheapest advertised tariff.
(1B) The proportion under subsection (1A) shall be specified by the tariff cap conditions.”
This amendment would require the tariff cap to be calculated with reference to the difference between supplier’s cheapest tariff and most expensive variable or default rate.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 24, at end insert—
“(c) “cheapest advertised rate” means the lowest rate or amount charged for, or in relation to, the supply of gas or electricity under any contract available to the customer.”
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 2 and provides a definition of “cheapest advertised rate”.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(e) the ability of the Authority to accurately forecast and model wholesale energy prices, and the need to minimise the impact of inaccuracies on domestic customers and holders of supply licences in the future.
(f) the difference between the cheapest advertised rate and the most expensive standard variable or default rate offered by a holder of a supply licence.”
This amendment would extend the matters Ofgem is required to consider when setting the tariff cap to include the matters listed in the amendment.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(e) the need to ensure that customers on standard variable and default rates have their annual expenditure on gas and electricity reduced by no less than £100 as a result of the tariff cap conditions”
This amendment would require the Authority to ensure that the tariff cap conditions result in customers on standard variable and default rates having their annual expenditure reduced by no less than £100.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(e) the need to ensure that adequate protection exists for vulnerable domestic customers, including ensuring those customers who currently benefit under a cap imposed by the Authority on rates or amounts charged for, or in relation to, the supply of gas or electricity because they appear to the Authority to be vulnerable, retain those benefits.”
This amendment would require the Authority to have regard to the protection of vulnerable customers, including ensuring those who currently benefit under a safeguard tariff continue to do so.
Amendment 9, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(e) the need to ensure that adequate protection exists for—
(i) customers who benefit from a cap imposed by the Authority on rates or amounts charged for, or in relation to, the supply of gas or electricity on the basis that they appear to the Authority to be vulnerable;
(ii) in circumstances where a cap described in sub-paragraph (i) has been withdrawn, customers who would have benefited from such a cap had it still been in force; and
(iii) other vulnerable domestic customers.”
This amendment would ensure that when exercising its functions under this section, the Authority must have regard to protection for vulnerable customers, including those who are protected or (in circumstances where it is no longer in force) would have been protected by a safeguard tariff.
Amendment 8, in clause 7, page 4, line 39, leave out from “must” to end of line 40 and insert “have regard to the extent to which—
(a) progress has been made in installing smart meters for use by domestic customers,
(b) incentives for holders of energy supply licences to improve their efficiency have been created,
(c) holders of energy supply licences are able to compete effectively for domestic supply contracts,
(d) incentives for domestic customers to switch to different supply contracts are in place,
(e) the barriers which prevent the customers from switching from different supply contracts quickly and easily are addressed,
(f) holders of supply licences who operate efficiently are able to finance activities authorised by the licence,
(g) holders of supply licences have eliminated practices that are to the detriment of customers in their tariff structures,
(h) District Network Operator costs and dividends are proportionate to expectations and the impact of that on domestic supply contracts, and
(i) vulnerable and disabled customers are adequately protected.”
This amendment sets out additional matters that the Authority must have regard to when conducting a review of competition for domestic supply contracts.
Amendment 1, page 4, line 39, leave out from “which” to the end of line 40 and insert “—
(a) progress has been made in installing smart meters for use by domestic customers; and
(b) holders of supply licences are using available data, whether collected through smart meters or through other means, to—
(i) assess the energy consumption patterns of domestic customers; and
(ii) use such data to identify, and move domestic customers onto, the most competitive tariff.”
This amendment requires Ofgem to consider the progress made by energy companies in offering domestic customers the cheapest available rate based on their individual consumption patterns when determining whether there is an effective market.
Dr Whitehead
We support the Government’s aim to introduce a temporary absolute price cap as set out in the Bill. We claim some intellectual property rights in this, in that Labour proposed a temporary price cap before the 2015 election, which was famously denounced by the then Prime Minister as
“wanting to live in some sort of Marxist universe.”
It is good to see that the Government have not flinched at the possibility of the apparition of its former leader returning to denounce this price cap in the same terms, but then we live in interesting times.
It is necessary to introduce an absolute cap, not a relative price cap, as soon as possible and for a limited period beginning no later than this winter. We have noted the continuing anomalies in the market, the continuing opportunities to game the market, and indeed, the report by the Competition and Markets Authority that customers were being overcharged by £1.2 billion over the recent period as a result of those anomalies. Therefore, a price cap and a pause in price increases, other than those agreed by Ofgem and relating to wholesale price movements, is the right thing to do now, providing, as we have always said and as we said when we introduced the idea of a price cap previously, that action is taken to correct those anomalies during the period of the cap, so that the market resumes at the end of it under circumstances that do not just result in prices running away again and our all being here a little further down the road, finding that nothing has changed and that perhaps a further cap is necessary.
We want to ensure that the Bill does just that—that the terms under which Ofgem operates the price cap give due attention to the current market problems; that the basis on which the cap is ended is clear in the legislation; and that, subsequent to the cap ending, there are measures in place to ensure that some of the more egregious problems of the present market arrangements are not repeated in the future. That is the basis on which we are judging the Bill and on which we are suggesting amendments, as we did in Committee. We do not want to overthrow or weaken the Bill, and we understand that it needs to be robust against possible challenges. Our amendments would therefore have the sole effect of strengthening the Bill and its purpose, and they would ensure that its architecture fully reflects that purpose.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw to my hon. Friend’s attention the comments of Miss Burdett from Rayners Lane in my constituency, who notes that online rates for energy bills are often cheaper than the standard rate, potentially leaving elderly and vulnerable people who cannot go online for whatever reason at a significant disadvantage compared with the rest of us. Would my hon. Friend’s amendments help people such as Miss Burdett, in the situation that I have described?
Dr Whitehead
I thank my hon. Friend for that important observation about what one might describe as one of the current market anomalies. It is not just about the differentials between the different ways that one can secure a tariff; it is about the issue of prepaid metering and the differential between the bills of people who are in fuel poverty or are vulnerable in other ways and the bills of those who have more resources. Indeed, some of the amendments that we have tabled—and one in particular—would secure firmly in the Bill matters that Ofgem and the Minister would be required to take into account when considering the introduction of the price cap and the period after which it ends.
Amendment 5 would start the process of strengthening the Bill by ensuring that the cap takes effect within no more than a known period that is stated in the Bill. That is because we want the cap in place for this winter. We know that the equivocation on the cap has lost valuable time. The Government introduced it as a manifesto item before the last election, but then apparently went cool on the idea, before suggesting that it was the administrative responsibility of Ofgem. Only then, after a pause of a number of months, was it actually introduced as legislation, and we are now rushing to get the Bill on the statute books so that the cap can be in place this winter.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The shadow Minister has brought forward his definition of winter from 30 November in Committee to something that is hopefully a bit sooner. Does he still not agree, as we discussed in Committee, that setting a date for the Bill to be implemented may mean that we rush Ofgem in a way that may not prove to be helpful? Indeed, if Ofgem exceeds our expectations and gets this done quicker, we may be giving the energy companies a target by which to raise their prices. It might be better to let Ofgem go away and prepare the cap as quickly as possible, and act as soon as possible thereafter.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has a point, which is why now—on Report—the amendment would put a maximum number of months, not a specific date, in the Bill. One might say that hon. Members listened to each other in Committee regarding possible future amendments, which is why I tabled amendment 5 in this manner. However, the fundamental point of the amendment is still to get the Bill working, so that the cap is in place before the winter. Ofgem has said that it thinks it can have a cap up and running in five months, as we have suggested in the amendment. We therefore want the maximum timeframe of five months to be reflected in the Bill, so that the cap is guaranteed at around the time when people get their winter fuel allowance, not when winter returns, as it seems to do these days, in the middle of next spring.
Amendment 6 seeks to quantify the saving that customers might expect as a result of the cap, but we do not wish to make up a figure in so doing. We want to take the Prime Minister’s word on this, when she specified that customers would save £100 as a result of the price cap that her Government were about to introduce. To be precise, The Sun of 27 February this year had the splendid headline “Millions of Brits in line for £100 as Theresa May delivers on energy price cap promise”. This was just one of a number of sources reporting the Prime Minister’s price save promise, but The Sun went further, stating:
“Government insiders say the cap should save at least £100, potentially rising to £300 a year with increased competition and faster switching.”
Now, I do not know whether there are any Government insiders in the Chamber—or, indeed, whether the Minister is one of those cited—but we can assure them that we will take the conservative route on this occasion and propose only that the Bill will do what the Prime Minister says it will.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I am slightly perturbed that the hon. Gentleman is quoting The Sun as the authority by which we make legislation in this House.
Dr Whitehead
On reflection, I can join the hon. Gentleman in being slightly perturbed that I am quoting The Sun in this context. I assure him that although I quoted The Sun, a range of authorities from the Daily Mail —getting better?—up to the BBC’s website suggested that the Prime Minister did actually say that people would save £100. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that quoting The Sun was not entirely appropriate under all the other circumstances, I can do nothing other than agree with him.
Amendment 7 would ensure that vulnerable customers, including those already protected by a tariff cap, do not lose that protection as a result of the overall cap being introduced.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
If we put together the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about amendments 5 and 6—the general gist of which I have no quarrel with—and if Ofgem were subject to legal challenge as a result of trying to impose a cap of this size on that timetable, what does he suggest would be the effect of his amendments if they had entered law? How would Ofgem deal with the conflict between the courts and an Act of Parliament?
Dr Whitehead
My understanding is that the question of a timeframe for implementation of the cap would be strengthened considerably regarding a potential legal challenge by providing for a maximum period for the introduction of the cap, rather than a specified date. I think that we accept the principle that there should be some indication in the Bill of when the cap is to arise; certainly, in previous discussions of the Bill, there has been a real concern about the body responsible for implementing a cap after the legislation has been passed through the House taking any or no specified period to prepare the cap for its actual execution. The preparation of the cap will also be part of the process by which it is strengthened against legal challenge. That therefore needs to be done carefully and properly so that it is implemented it in a way that is proofed against such legal challenges. Ofgem indicated in its evidence to the Committee the period that it thought reasonable for it to be required to take forward the implementation of the cap. Placing that period in the Bill therefore seems, at least to the Opposition, to be adding to the proof against legal action rather than detracting from it.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I completely accept that it is advantageous to give Ofgem a push to do this on the timescale that the hon. Gentleman is describing. However, clause 1(1) says that
“the Authority…must modify the standard supply licence conditions”,
and under his amendments, it would have to have done that by a given date, yet the court may be preventing it from doing so. I still do not understand how he deals with that legal conflict.
Dr Whitehead
The Bill says that what needs to be done to modify licences to bring the cap about, among other things, has to be done by Ofgem as part of its implementation process. The question of legal challenge to Ofgem concerns, at its heart, what Ofgem does over whatever period may be specified to ensure that the implementation of the cap does not deviate from what is set out in legislation. That is the clear basis on which the cap should be undertaken, and that is the responsibility of Ofgem.
The second issue is the time within which Ofgem considers that it can introduce that cap in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has described, given its workload and capacity to do so. Indeed, Ofgem is on the public record, through the evidence that it gave to the Committee—he will know that that has some weight through being a public statement in Hansard—as saying that it felt that it could do it within five months. The amendment merely tries to tidy up the process by putting that timeframe into the Bill, while not in any way detracting from the strength or otherwise of what Ofgem is required to do in acting to implement the cap in a way that is both effective and legally watertight.
I am not sure that I can go too much further with the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am happy to take it up with him separately if he wishes. However, I have explained where we are in seeking a combination of watertightness in the Bill and clarity that the wishes of this House can be undertaken in through the price cap coming in during the period when it is supposed to come in.
Amendment 7 relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) about vulnerable customers and people who are not in a position to take advantage of all the devices that other, less vulnerable customers would be able to take advantage of—that is, customers protected by the existing tariff cap in particular. In our view, it is important that those who are protected by the tariff cap do not lose that protection as a result of the overall cap being introduced. It would be helpful if the Minister, even if she is not minded to accept the amendment, put it beyond doubt that that is the Government’s intention and that they will not seek to lose the current safeguard tariff as the overall tariff cap comes in.
James Heappey
Clearly amendments 7 and 9 both have real merit in getting the protection of vulnerable customers right, which is important, but why does the hon. Gentleman feel that his amendment is better than amendment 9?
Dr Whitehead
I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assessment, because I think that both have equal merit in dealing with very similar issues.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed, but both have equal merit, and I would not want to distinguish between them in what they would add to the Bill. They both have the central concern that vulnerable customers should not be treated adversely as a result of the overall tariff cap coming in. That is the point that I wish to pay attention to. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) will also want to do so when she speaks to amendment 9.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Without wanting to enter into a beauty contest regarding whose amendment is best, will not my amendment 1 be quite consistent with what the Government wish to achieve, which is to require Ofsted—I mean Ofcom—[Hon. Members: “Ofgem.”] Yes, Ofgem—or Ofcap, perhaps. The Government wish to require Ofgem to write to companies to ensure that those who are poorest and least likely to change have been offered the best deal by their provider. I promise that by the time I speak to my amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will know which regulatory body it is.
Dr Whitehead
Yes, there is certainly merit in that idea. It is true that some of the amendments take some of the specific actions that may be taken a little further than is suggested in amendment 7. However, whichever of the amendments one wishes to pin the first-place rosette on to, the key point is that vulnerable customers need to have proper protection as the tariff cap comes forward.
It is in the Government’s interests, I think, to clarify exactly what they intend the Bill to do regarding that protection. That can easily be done by the Minister clearly stating today, as I hope she will, that vulnerable customers will not lose the current safeguard tariff as the overall tariff cap comes in. Indeed, if the overall price cap consumes the safeguard tariff, vulnerable customers could see their prices could go up by more than £30 as a result of the difference between the safeguard and the absolute tariff. That would, as I am sure she will agree, be a perverse outcome that she would be anxious to disavow.
The Minister will have to clarify for us that the Bill means that Ofgem can bring forward the extended safeguard tariff at the same time as the standard variable tariff cap; that the extended safeguard tariff can continue after the absolute cap has ended; and that she will bring forward the necessary secondary legislation before the summer to enable the data sharing needed to extend the safeguard tariff. I am sure that she will be able to reassure us on these points. I look forward to what she has to say about all the amendments before us.
Amendment 8 seeks to introduce to the Bill the symmetry in architecture that appears to be missing from what Ofgem must consider in introducing the cap. As hon. Members can see, the Bill lists a number of matters to which Ofgem should have regard in setting the cap, which relate to
“protecting existing and future domestic customers who pay standard variable and default rates”.
However, when we cast our eyes forward in the Bill, we see that those conditions are wholly absent from the matters that Often is required to consider when it reports to Government on whether circumstances exist that allow the cap to be terminated, as it is required to do by clauses 7 and 8.
Indeed, there is no guidance in the Bill at all on what Ofgem will have to take into account, except, alarmingly, for one consideration: the extent to which progress has been made in installing smart meters, a provision that, if taken too literally, might mean that the cap will be with us until the end of 2023. Our amendment essentially seeks to place in the outbox—the point at which Ofgem reviews the expiry of the cap—the same considerations that it is required to pay attention to in its inbox when it sets the cap.
Finally, we seek in new clause 1 to start the process of introducing what needs to be in place to ensure that the market works well for customers and does not recreate the anomalies that have led us to where we are today. I have no doubt that there will be a number of such provisions, but in our view one of them should be that the arrangement of tariffs by energy companies should not continue as it is.
That is also the substance of amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), whom I salute for his unflagging work in bringing the idea of a price cap to this point. He introduces in his amendment the suggestion that tariffs should have a piece of elastic on them for each company, to prevent companies from introducing customers to apparently low tariffs initially, only to place them on much higher tariffs when the first offer expires and relying on their loyalty to gain a lot of profit and cause an unfair outcome for customers. That is essentially the instrument that his amendment would introduce, but it is cast as a relative price cap. We do not think it is a satisfactory mechanism for a price cap, but he will no doubt argue his corner. The relative nature of a tariff range restriction means that it can be introduced at any price and is not therefore a cap as such. It is, however, a vital means of keeping prices and fair dealings with customers on a steady trajectory.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee heard an overwhelming amount of evidence opposed to a relative price cap. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he rejects that evidence and has tabled this new clause?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Lady is, I think, under the impression that the new clause seeks to introduce a relative price cap. It does not seek to do that at all, or indeed during the period when an absolute price cap is in place. When the absolute price cap has come to an end, which could happen on various dates, there should be a mechanism in place to ensure that tariff differentiation is within certain bounds—I mentioned having a piece of elastic on tariffs—so that companies cannot return to the practice that unfortunately exists today whereby they can take people on board on one particular tariff, and even introduce a discount tariff for a certain period to entice people on to it, and then place people on one of their highest tariffs when that one comes to an end. It is a long piece of elastic in that case. That disadvantages the customer and is not what they thought would happen when they first went on to that tariff, and it seems thoroughly laudable to prevent that.
We need to ensure that market mechanisms are in place to prevent us from returning to where we are at present and to the situation that got us into this position in the first place. We believe that the mechanism for a relative tariff differential has a different function entirely from the relative price cap being suggested in some quarters. I think we would all agree that a relative tariff differential is not a price cap in its own right, as the Select Committee concluded strongly, but a strong mechanism for ensuring that the market works better in future.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
One concern about a relative cap is that there could be a bit of floor-raising, with some of the cheaper tariffs disappearing. Although there might not be a cap in future, what is to stop the same thing happening with a relative tariff system, where we lose the bottom tariffs in the market?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the possibility that within a relative tariff range arrangement, a company could put forward a very high tariff as a starting point and then put customers on an even higher tariff subsequently, if that tariff is within the piece of elastic keeping the tariffs within reach of each other. If an energy company were to do that outside a price cap, it would be a sure way of losing a large number of customers, because it would have put its initial tariff way above that of any competitors. If it was agreed that market circumstances were such that those sorts of arrangements should be able to return, companies would have to be kamikaze-inclined to pursue that way of doing things.
Alan Brown
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is that not why we are introducing an energy tariff Bill in the first place—because people have been on standard variable tariffs that are too expensive, but they are not moving? It is the same with a relative tariff differential; people will not necessarily move, and that is what we really need to sort out in the market.
Dr Whitehead
We have to bear in mind that people will be introduced to a new tariff. Indeed, we hope that by the time the market returns, the issue of people remaining on SVTs for years and not switching will be a thing of the past and there will not be SVTs in the system, but also that there will be other tariff arrangements that effectively prevent SVTs from playing the role they have played before.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
In amendment 6, the hon. Gentleman is trying to ensure that people get money off, which we would all like to see, but would it not be necessary to include some kind of rider so that it applies only if people are burning the same amount of energy year after year? If we went from a warm winter to a very cold one, presumably he would not think we could guarantee the same amount.
Dr Whitehead
Amendment 6, as I recall, would simply place the Prime Minister’s words into legislation. It was estimated that a saving of at least £100 would result from the measures, and one aim of the legislation was to bring that saving about. It does not mean that the amount would be exactly £100—indeed, had the Prime Minister not reported that to The Sun, we might have got a rather more complex version of that price promise. We are merely reflecting what was heard on that occasion, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I just want to be clear, because I have got very confused about these propositions on a relative cap. On the face of it, the words of new clause 1 are strikingly similar to those of amendment 2. Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that after the absolute cap, there should be a relative cap?
Dr Whitehead
It can be interpreted in that way. We are fully in accord with the Government’s idea of an absolute cap, as opposed to the relative cap proposed in the amendments. We suggest that what has been characterised as a relative price cap plays an entirely different function, which is to narrow the gap between tariffs after an absolute price cap has been in place so that companies cannot game the market by switching tariffs in the way I have described. That is nothing to do, at that point, with a price cap; it is about tariff stability over a period and, indeed, an assurance for customers that they are not going to be ripped off as a result of entering on a particular tariff and subsequently being placed on a very high tariff once that initial tariff has come to an end.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 2 to 4, which stand in my name and those of a variety of Conservative colleagues, including two members of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee as well as former Ministers and Cabinet Ministers.
I should pause to say that I am not arguing against the Bill overall—I spoke and voted in favour of it in principle on Second Reading—and I hope that everyone involved in the campaign I have headed in this area for the past year and a half appreciates that I believe an energy price cap is much needed. I pay tribute to the 214 cross-party MPs who signed up to the idea, plus the Prime Minister and the Minister, who have all been vital in getting us to this point today.
My concern is about not the principles but the detail—the type of price cap envisaged under the Bill—because, to put it bluntly, a fair number of free market Tories are pretty concerned that we are choosing the most anti-competitive, complicated, bureaucratic and inflexible cap on offer. It is inflexible because the Bill specifies an absolute cap that will be set by an all-knowing committee of Ofgem regulators every few months. However, the international price of energy moves around every day, and it is impossible to know what the price will be in the next six minutes, let alone six months, so the cap price will be out of date in moments and will stay out of date until it is reset again months later. That means it will not protect customers in the way we all want and, because it will be officially blessed by Ofgem, it will embed and legitimise high prices. It is not just me who is worried. Which? says it is
“not certain that customers on a capped default tariff will benefit as market conditions change in future”.
The proposed cap is also complicated—hideously complicated. Why? The assiduous folk at Ofgem have already started publishing details of how they might go ahead and they are warming to their task. It would not be just a single cap, they say; it would be 42 different ones to cover gas and electricity, different meter types and different parts of the country. There would be more than 42 different caps, however, because each one may be split into several different versions depending on whether people pay by direct debit or in some other way, and each will have a fixed standing charge and a variable element—oh, and there is headroom, too. Each of those three items can be calculated in a marvellously technical and complicated variety of ways. For example, the variable element could use a basket of market tariffs, an updated competitive reference price, or a bottom-up cost assessment. Those things might be calculated using a periodical review of realised costs, or third-party data with pre-specified allowances for certain cost items, and so on and—turgidly, complicatedly—on.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. Friend and I have had an engaging conversation about this for many months, but given all the things he reports Ofgem as planning, surely that means we will have not a single point tariff that rapidly becomes outdated, but rather a tariff that will respond—for example, to input costs?
John Penrose
As my right hon. Friend says, he and I have had many conversations about this over many months. I can only say to him that if his argument is that Ofgem might come up with a version of an absolute cap that is a bit less absolute and a bit closer to what I am proposing—in effect, one that caps the gap: a relative cap—I would agree with him that that is a good thing, but if that is the case, as a source of advantage for the cap, why would it not be even better to go the whole hog and have a relative cap in the first place?
John Redwood
Does my hon. Friend think that a relative cap is more likely to deliver a better deal for the customer than an absolute cap?
John Penrose
Yes, absolutely. We heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) what I thought was actually rather a good explanation about why such a cap is so wonderful. The Opposition disagree about the purpose, but the fundamental reason why we are all in the Chamber is that we agree about the injustice in the way the energy market works at the moment, which is that people can start off on one tariff and then get secretively pushed on to a much higher one. It is the clandestine mark-up that riles everybody and really upsets people. By definition, a relative cap would affect what is hacking everybody off, and it would be precisely targeted on dealing with the mischief that is the reason behind the Bill in the first place.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I want to put to my hon. Friend something that has been said by MoneySavingExpert, which is that a relative cap would simply result in firms withdrawing the cheapest deals—the shadow Minister mentioned that—and create the “worst of both worlds”. We do not want to fall into such a trap, as some consumers on expensive tariffs would still be paying more than they need to while many firms would not offer the cheap deals they currently offer.
John Penrose
That argument has been advanced for both a relative cap and for an absolute cap; some people argue that it applies to both. We heard earlier a rather good explanation of why the argument does not really apply, which is that it would be commercial suicide, or a commercial kamikaze effort, for anybody to try to raise their prices in the switching market, which is highly competitive, because they would very rapidly start losing customers hand over fist. I understand that argument, but I do not think it would be relevant in practice.
Stephen Kerr
Just to underline the delicate nature of the balance that we are talking about in terms of caps, the majority view of the Competition and Markets Authority in its report was that a standard variable tariff cap would
“run excessive risks of undermining the competitive process”.
This would be likely to result in worse outcomes for consumers in the long run by
“reducing the incentives of suppliers to compete”
and
“reducing the incentives of customers to engage”,
so a delicate balance needs to be struck.
John Penrose
That is absolutely bang on the money. For goodness’ sake, the Competition and Markets Authority is suggesting such a thing, and that is after all its business.
John Penrose
I will take one more intervention, but then I must make some progress.
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend is talking about people moving from a competitive rate to the default, which he describes as the standard variable tariff. Does he think that people would be less inclined to put up with the higher rate if it had an alternative name, such as an “emergency tariff”?
John Penrose
There is now a whole range of underlying pro-competitive reforms—I am not normally one to give Ofgem a vast amount of credit, but it really deserves some in this case—that are needed in this market. Renaming the default or standard variable tariff may not have a huge effect, but it might have a positive effect. There is a series of other things, some of which are even more important, that must happen. It is crucial—I agree with the Labour spokesman about this, as I think we all would—that we do not waste our time and that Ofgem continues to reform the market while this temporary price cap is in effect because, when the price cap comes off, we will want the market to have been sufficiently reformed that no further price caps are necessary, because it works like a normal market in which the customer is king. If we have not done that, we will have wasted our time and everybody else’s.
I was talking about the complications and the hideous complexity of Ofgem’s proposals, but if all that inflexibility and complexity has not put Members off already, they should have a look at the bureaucracy. Pretty much every free market economist will agree that the best way to discover a price is not through a committee that meets every couple of months, but with a genuinely competitive market in which supply and demand are matched from moment to moment all day, every day. Fortunately, we just happen to have one of those handy. The switching market is full of deals on which energy firms compete like mad for business. It is innovative; it has razor-sharp prices; and it takes changes in wholesale energy costs in its stride every day of every week. The customer is, in other words, genuinely king or queen.
That is, as we have just discussed, exactly what we want to see in the rest of the market, so why are we ignoring it? Why go for a far less competitive version that is inflexible, hideously complicated, bureaucratic and committee-based when we could simply tie rip-off default tariffs firmly to the switching market and go down the pub for a drink? The mechanism, as we have heard, would be simplicity itself: a maximum mark-up between each energy firm’s best competitive price and its default tariff—we would cap the gap. Unlike with the arrangements in the Bill, there would be just one decision for regulators to take: the size of the gap. Everything else would be taken care of by the link to the competitive switching market.
James Heappey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend—my neighbour—for giving way. Has he given any thought to what a relative cap would do for time-of-use tariffs, the arrival of which we should surely be encouraging? They rely on a big differential from free or negative pricing to the most expensive prices, which disincentivises energy use at peak times. Is he concerned as I am that what he proposes might discourage the arrival of such tariffs?
John Penrose
Much would depend on the size of the cap on the gap proposed by Ofgem, and much would depend on the rest of the pricing structure of the energy firm in question with regard to where it chooses to put its default tariff. Many of these things are, as my hon. Friend points out, yet to arrive. They are starting to be introduced, but they are a relatively new innovation, with small but growing penetration. He is absolutely right that we need to make sure that we do not disincentivise such tariffs. They certainly will not be to everybody’s taste, but they may be to the taste of an increasingly large number of people.
I would prefer to start from a simple cap—capping the gap—and then have to make a couple of adjustments, rather than making even more complicated something that is, as I have described, already hideously complicated. If we manage to take care of all the complexity and bureaucracy by establishing a link to the competitive switching market—hey presto!—we will have driven a stake through the heart of the rip-off tariffs. Switching supplier would still be worth while, and there would be far fewer jobs for bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists. The customer would be king.
My amendments would make a relative cap either possible or required, depending on which version was chosen. I do not expect or intend to press the amendments to a Division, but I want everybody to realise that there is a more competitive, more flexible, less bureaucratic, more customer-friendly and generally better alternative, and that at the moment we are not taking it.
It is not just free market Tories such as myself who think that capping the gap is the right way to go. The Labour Front-Bench team, as we have heard, have tabled an amendment that proposes something similar. They might disagree with my description of it, and they have a fancy-schmancy name for it, but, broadly speaking—as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) pointed out earlier—the wording is very similar and the amendments would effectively do the same thing.
Labour Front Benchers and I disagree over timing, however. The effect of their proposal would be permanent, whereas ours would be temporary while we fixed the underlying anti-competitive problems in the market. There is, none the less, clear cross-party consensus on the principle, at the very least, so why does the Bill ignore this cross-party opportunity? Why are a notionally pro-competition Conservative Government choosing the less competitive, more bureaucratically inflexible and more complicated version instead? Why are we snatching defeat from the jaws of what ought to be a famous free market victory? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.
Frank Field
I will not press my amendment to a Division either, but I am very happy to speak to it for 30 seconds. It is designed to request an undertaking from the Minister that she will ask Ofgem to look at the poorest consumers on which it has data and offer them an automatic switch to the lowest rate that suits their expenditure pattern. On that happy note, because I am sure the Minister will give way later, I shall sit down.
Antoinette Sandbach
I rise to speak in support of amendment 9, which is in the name of the Chair and some of the members of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee; I know that the Chair of the Committee is also going to speak to the amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that there is adequate protection for vulnerable people while the cap is in force and beyond and to probe the Government and the Minister on the matter.
During the prelegislative scrutiny of this Bill in January, the Committee heard evidence from the chief executive of Ofgem. When I asked him about the need to protect vulnerable customers, he conceded that
“there is likely to always be a need to protect customers who would not be fully able to engage even in a…more competitive market.”
What is more, Mr Nolan admitted that Ofgem had
“not done as well as we could have”
when it came to its statutory duty to protect vulnerable customers. In fact, he apologised to the Committee for Ofgem’s failure to act appropriately to protect vulnerable customers.
The sheer number of people on standard variable tariffs was quite shocking to the Committee, and many of those people will be vulnerable customers. I note that the Minister agreed, saying that
“the regulator also needs to change. It also needs to use the powers it has more effectively.”
That evidence session did not fill me with confidence about Ofgem’s effectiveness at protecting vulnerable customers. I believe that the amendment will act as the necessary encouragement to the regulator to do just that. The amendment will also ensure that in the longer term, those who are least able to afford high bills get greater protection. That is because the amendment continues the requirement for due regard beyond the length of a cap.
I want to push the Minister on working with DWP colleagues and others to mitigate the impact of the general data protection regulation. Although the amendment targets the regulator, the Government are well equipped to handle this area. They need to ensure that the required data exchange can take place, so that vulnerable customers can be identified and offered the support that the Government want to make available to them. I am sure that the Government agree with the principle behind the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will address my concerns in full.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) in this debate. I want to speak to amendment 9, which is in my name and those of hon. Members from across the House who are members of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. As the Minister knows, the Committee did a large amount of work on the prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill, and we are all pleased that it has reached Report and Third Reading in time to ensure that the energy price cap is in place for next winter.
During prelegislative scrutiny, the Select Committee proposed several changes, all of which were either accepted by means of amendments to the Bill or accepted in principle. We welcome the collaborative approach of the Minister and her team. Amendment 9 addresses an outstanding concern relating to vulnerable customers that I know the Minister shares. As she knows, 83% of people in social housing, 75% of people on low incomes and 74% of disabled customers are on standard variable tariffs. The aim of the Bill is to ensure not only that everybody has a price cap, but that it will help the most vulnerable, who are predominantly on the standard variable tariffs.
One million vulnerable customers are already on Ofgem’s safeguarding tariff. The Select Committee’s first recommendation, as part of its prelegislative scrutiny, was for the Government to provide details on plans to protect vulnerable customers from overcharging when Ofgem’s safeguarding tariff and the Government’s price cap are lifted. My concern, and the concern of other members of the Committee, is what happens when the whole-of-market price cap comes in for standard variable tariffs. Will Ofgem continue with the safeguarding tariff at the same time?
In response to that recommendation, the Government gave a long list of laudable policies that are today in place for vulnerable customers. We of course welcome that list of policies, but concerns linger. Ofgem has been clear, including in a decision letter on 7 December last year, that it plans to do away with the safeguarding tariff when the whole-of-market price cap on standard variable and default tariffs comes in. Ofgem has said that the warm home discount safeguarding tariff will end in December 2019 if it has not already been replaced by other price protection—that is, the price cap we are debating and voting on this evening.
Some might say that that is fine, because the new price cap will replace the safeguarding tariff for customers on the warm home discount. That will only be the case, however, if the new price cap is at the same level or lower than the safeguarding tariff already in existence today. If it is not, then energy bills will rise for the 1 million most vulnerable customers when the price cap comes in. That would mean that the very legislation to protect consumers may hurt those who most need protection, and I know that the Minister, along with Members across the House, does not want that to happen.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend knows very well that in Leeds we have set up White Rose Energy, a municipal energy company. Its main mission is to protect those vulnerable consumers. When consumers move away from the cheapest tariff, it informs them repeatedly to ensure that vulnerable consumers are protected. Is that not a model of good practice for all energy companies?
Rachel Reeves
I am pleased that my hon. Friend and fellow Leeds MP mentions White Rose Energy, which is doing fantastic work. It ensures that customers in Yorkshire have a greater choice of energy companies and genuinely puts customers first. During prelegislative scrutiny, we heard from other small companies, including Bulb and Bristol Energy who are also trying to support their customers.
No one in this House wants a situation where the most vulnerable customers see their prices rise because of the price cap. Perhaps Ofgem could operate the safeguarding tariff and the price cap we are debating today simultaneously. That seems entirely possible and desirable to try to avoid the issues that National Energy Action and others have raised from coming into effect.
I hope we will receive assurances from the Minister this evening that these risks will not be allowed to materialise. In that case, I will not press this amendment to a Division. Let me urge the Minister, however, to ensure that the Bill does its job of protecting customers and that energy companies are not able to use any loopholes that would mean prices rising for the most vulnerable customers: those we have the greatest duty to protect.
Stephen Kerr
It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
There was no shortage of energy—or capping of energy—at yesterday’s Stirling Scottish marathon. There was, however, a lot of evidence of determination, particularly as competitors approached the finishing line despite the agonies that some were obviously going through. There was a great deal of grit on display. In addressing amendment 9, it is a lack of grit and determination—almost supine passiveness—that is causing me to have grave concerns about how Ofgem goes about its business.
During prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill, the Select Committee held an evidence session, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) referred earlier. I am sorry to have to say this, but I was unimpressed by the evidence presented in January by Dermot Nolan, the chief executive of Ofgem. He did not come across as a person with an appetite for what I feel needs to be done. He lacked that grit and determination. He admitted to my hon. Friend that, in respect of Ofgem’s statutory duty to protect vulnerable customers,
“I accept the point that we could and should have done better on vulnerable customers. We have relatively recently put in place principles for vulnerability, which will give a stronger level of protection.”
When the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who is not in his place, challenged Dermot Nolan on what was in effect an admission of failure on his part to fulfil his statutory responsibility towards the protection of those who are vulnerable, he answered:
“We have not done as well as we could have. I fully accept that.”
This perturbs me. It perturbed me then and it perturbs me now. The hon. Gentleman, who is an esteemed member of the Select Committee, seemed to me to hit the nail firmly on the head when he said to Dermot Nolan:
“If you do not mind me saying, throughout the testimony here and before, you have been describing what is happening in the market; you are the single most important player in the market, because you have the most extraordinary powers as a regulator, yet your testimony sounds so incredibly passive. Do you ever just roll your sleeves up and get stuck in? I do not really see the evidence of that.”
I share the concerns expressed so vividly by the hon. Gentleman.
Since becoming a Member of this House last year and having the privilege of being appointed to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, I have had the opportunity to hear first-hand evidence and testimony from a number of regulators. I have, in all honesty, been underwhelmed by every one of them.
Mark Pawsey
My hon. Friend is giving an account of the evidence given by Ofgem to the Select Committee. Does he share my concern that the Bill would give that very body the powers to set the energy price cap?
Stephen Kerr
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I share the concerns—I think they are shared across the whole House—about the performance of Ofgem as a regulator. I have broader concerns about the general performance of regulators full stop. Frankly, we seem to have a collection of regulators who either have powers but do not seem to be prepared to use them, or who do not feel they have adequate powers but are not prepared to ask for them. That seems incredible to me. I am very wary of leaving the issue of vulnerable energy customers to the discretion of Ofgem, because I am fearful that the discretion of Ofgem will mean that it will continue, by its own admission, to fail vulnerable customers.
This is an important issue that needs to be aired here and now on Report. Ofgem needs to sit up and take note. It is also important that we hear from the Minister, from the Dispatch Box, what change in the pattern of behaviour we should expect to see from Dermot Nolan and Ofgem. Will they have the determination and grit of the marathon runners in Stirling yesterday? Will they do something with the powers they currently have and the powers they will have when the Bill is passed? Above all, I want the Government to fulfil the promise of our Prime Minister who, on behalf of the Conservative party, said:
“Our party did not end the unjust and inefficient monopolies of the old nationalised energy corporations only to replace them with a system that traps the poorest customers on the worst deals”.
I am fearful that that is what we could do. I look for reassurance from the Minister.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I welcome back to the House this unfinished business. It has been a long-running saga and I have appeared in pretty much every episode for the past six years. I am hoping tonight will be my final appearance on this particular matter, with no repeats to follow.
I welcome the proposed absolute price cap. We have arrived at a place where there is much cross-party agreement, but it comes at a price. That price has been borne by consumers. The Competition and Markets Authority confirmed in 2016 that between, 2012 and 2015, the average detriment to the consumer—overcharging, in plain English—was £1.4 billion a year. The CMA found that the scale of overcharging, far from diminishing, was rising, reaching £2 billion a year by 2015.
James Heappey
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), with whom I agree on the risk to green tariffs and on making sure that we do not perpetuate the belief that green tariffs are a premium product. We want them to become the universal norm.
Generally, the Bill is a necessary evil. Interference with the market is not our first choice of action, but it is the consequence of a market that has stopped working and is exploiting customers, especially those who are least engaged in it. The Bill’s key point is its temporariness. I know that the Minister shares my strong belief that temporary should be as temporary as it absolutely can be. It therefore becomes essential that once the Bill is passed—it is good to see the Opposition’s continued support—Ofgem moves very quickly not only to come up with a mechanism for price capping, but to consider what sort of market transformation it can deliver as it changes the regulatory framework in the market, so that we end up with something that is markedly better than what we have now. The big savings come not from a cap that cuts bills by £100 or more, but from the delivery of an energy market that is digitised and cheaper because we have facilitated the disruptive powers of all the new suppliers that are coming in, which in turn will encourage the current large suppliers to change their ways to do business better.
I intervened on the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), about his amendment 5, so I will not say anything more about that. The purpose served by amendment 6, as we discussed in Committee, is to say to the energy companies that all they need to do is save customers £100—so they will just save customers £100. I passionately believe, therefore, that we should not tell them just to save customers £100. Instead, we should deliver the biggest saving that we reasonably can through whatever device Ofgem delivers, but the moment that we put a figure on it, lo and behold, that is exactly what all the energy companies will deliver.
The hon. Gentleman has made some changes to amendment 7 since Committee stage. He knows I share his concerns about vulnerable customers and possible unintended consequences from the Bill, and I know the Minister will be keen to reassure us that the Government have got this covered, but I prefer amendment 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), which has the support of many on the Select Committee and is well worth considering. The Government have looked at the vulnerable customer issue since Committee stage, and I wonder, given today’s very sensible amendments, if they might run one more lap on this between now and consideration in another place.
On amendment 8, which we also discussed in Committee and which the hon. Gentleman has also come back with, my concern is that the list could be much longer. If we are to specify all the circumstances, why not designate another dozen or two dozen things that we could legislate for, if we absolutely had to? I am not convinced it is necessary.
I also have a problem with new clause 1, because the Bill needs to be temporary. As I said either on Second Reading or in a Westminster Hall debate, it needs to be a raid into the energy market, not an occupation. New clause 1 is a raid with a few troops left behind thereafter, which I am not sure I like very much. We want to ensure that Mr Nolan and his team at Ofgem can, in delivering the price cap, facilitate a transformation in the market that makes such legislative provisions redundant. The consumer-friendly, disrupted, digitised market that awaits will be so much cheaper that we will be glad to have made this slightly un-Conservative, temporary raid into the market, to deliver something on the other side that is much better for consumers.
Alan Brown
The Bill is designed to intervene in the energy market and correct market failure, which is why it has cross-party support, but not surprisingly, because it is a reaction to market failure, there are nuanced differences in how people think that can best be dealt with. One good thing is that everybody seems keen to protect the most vulnerable customers. The question is: what do effective competition and a fairer market look like?
One fundamental still being debated is whether the cap should be a relative or an absolute cap. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who has been absolutely consistent in his belief that it should be a relative cap, should be commended for sticking by that, although obviously that does not mean I agree with him. As I mentioned in an intervention, one concern about a relative cap is that, because of the bunching effect, we might lose the competitive tariffs at the bottom end. We heard evidence of that in Committee. Some of the newer energy companies argue that they could deliver the lower tariffs even if there were a relative cap, but these companies appeal to those who switch regularly. He says the switching market works really well. Well, it does for those who switch regularly, but we are trying to protect those who do not switch and are stuck on these rip-off tariffs, which is why I agree with an absolute cap.
That brings me to new clause 1, tabled by the Labour Front Benchers. I am struggling to get my head around this. Labour says it does not believe in a relative cap but it believes in a relative tariff, and it would not be a cap but somehow it would work better being relative. It is too big a contradiction for me. I am not sure new clause 1 would work in the way suggested, and for that reason, if it goes to a Division, I will not support it, although I appreciate what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) is trying to achieve.
Let us look at who supports a relative cap versus an absolute cap. Ofgem, the regulator that will have to implement it and Citizens Advice are in favour of an absolute cap. Citizens Advice is a third sector organisation that works for the most vulnerable in society on a daily basis and often has to deal with those bearing the brunt of the Government’s austerity agenda, and if it says it is in favour of an absolute cap, I think we should listen. Now let us look at the company the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare keeps. Signatories to his amendments include the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)—two of the most right-wing, free-market capitalists in this place. That helps me to make up my mind.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and the amendments. Millions of consumers in the UK are facing challenges with their energy bills, and I find it outrageous that loyalty is punished by some energy companies. It is counterproductive, especially for those speaking up for the free market. We must be careful, however, not to commit the politician’s syllogism from “Yes, Minister”: “There is a problem. Something must be done. This is something, so let’s do this.” The amendments seek to ameliorate that.
I am not a great believer in the idea that the gentlemen in Whitehall know best when it comes to running energy, and I worry that the idea that said proverbial gentlemen in a panel are best placed to determine energy prices gives succour to Labour ideas that it, as the state, is best placed to run the whole sector. The fact that Labour does believe that is precisely why I would not support any of its amendments but will stick with a Government who, notwithstanding their occasional prices and incomes board-type moments, represent a strong—indeed, the best—bulwark against socialism.
I will not go into huge technical details other than to praise the work and determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who has argued for a more dynamic solution to this problem, proposing a maximum mark-up between the ultra-competitive, consumer-friendly deals and the default tariffs that loyal customers pay. I supported his amendments and the intention to point out a better way of stimulating the market towards greater fairness via relative cap mechanisms.
Nevertheless, the fact is we are facing an urgent problem for which we need an urgent solution. To this end, I will support the Bill with—and, indeed, because of—the added sunset clauses, for which I thank the Minister, and which make this a temporary measure up until 2020. I hope that comments from me and others will point the way ahead at that time.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to support the Bill, and I am glad to have worked with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who was instrumental in its introduction and in pushing for the cap. It is disappointing that Ofgem required five months in which to implement it, but at least we shall have it in time for winter 2018.
The amendments to support and protect vulnerable and domestic consumers during the cap’s implementation are of course welcome, and it is right for the Minister and Ofgem to take account of the distinct needs and circumstances of vulnerable consumers when setting the cap, but since entering the House I, like the hon. Gentleman, have developed a healthy scepticism in my opinion of the way in which regulators, including Ofgem, go about their business—or not, as the case may be.
More than a quarter of households that contain a disabled person—27%, or about 4.1 million—spend more than £1,500 a year on a year on energy, and 790,000 of those spend more than £2,500. In my constituency, consumers are overpaying for electricity by £5.5 million a year. There is no denying that high energy costs have a serious impact on disabled people’s financial resilience. They limit those people’s ability to access employment and training and savings, and their ability to participate fully in society. Vulnerable and disabled consumers face higher energy costs than any other consumers, and that must be factored into any consideration.
As we heard earlier, the amendments that are intended to establish either an ongoing tariff differential or a relative cap are simply not robust enough to ensure that consumers would ultimately benefit from them. There is a risk that both the relative tariff differential and the relative cap could trigger unintended consequences, such as energy companies’ raising their minimum tariffs to meet the required difference from their maximum tariffs. That poses a series of questions about consumers’ interests. Indeed, stakeholders such as Ofgem, the Government and Citizens Advice have warned that a relative cap would not prevent overcharging and might simply result in price increases for the best-value tariffs. There is widespread agreement that an absolute cap is the best option if overcharging is to be prevented. Moreover, a relative cap might decrease the number of people switching providers or tariffs, which would clearly not be in the interests of consumers.
We need to know more details of the criteria that Ofgem must follow when conducting its review of competition for domestic supply contracts under clause 7. Those criteria are set out in amendment 8. It is essential that the Minister and Ofgem are as transparent as possible when setting the targets, so that the price cap does what it says on the tin. The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) spoke about time of use tariffs. I am extremely suspicious of those, because they will inevitably penalise families with children, who have little flexibility when it comes to controlling when they use their energy. I do not think any of us want that.
James Heappey
The hon. Lady makes a good point, but I think that there will automatically be technology in white goods, for instance, that will allow people to shift their demand to take advantage of time of use tariffs. Most families will save significantly as a result.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I appreciate that such tariffs will benefit some consumers—I do not think anyone would deny that—but I question whether the system would be flexible enough to benefit all families with children, and others whose energy use cannot be as flexible as they might like.
The amendment to ensure that customers must benefit from the cap by at least £100 seems very arbitrary and risks unintended consequences. I agree with the hon. Member for Wells about that, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). There is widespread concern that the big energy companies will use exemptions and green tariffs to ensure that they meet the target.
It is essential that the Bill delivers for consumers and that the period of the cap is used to deliver a fairer, more competitive market for consumers. It must deliver a change for consumers who have been overcharged for too long. There is consensus that the energy market is broken and needs to be fixed, which is why the Bill was introduced in the first place. It enables us to begin to do that, but we must ensure that we get it right and that there are no unintended consequences for the very consumers whom we seek to protect and assist. I know that the Minister will be mindful of that. We need to ensure that consumers benefit from action on this issue after the tariff is lifted in 2020 or 2023.
The launch of the independently chaired commission for customers in vulnerable circumstances by Energy UK in January will report on its findings and recommendations on energy companies, the Government, regulators and consumer groups towards the end of this year. I hope that the Minister or the Secretary of State will note that as we approach the end of the tariff cap, so that the voices of consumers can feed directly into the process of ensuring that they are offered as much protection as possible as the broken market is improved to become more fair and transparent.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).
It is clear that the energy market is not working for the consumer, and with that in mind, I am pleased to support the Bill. However, I firmly believe that these additional measures must be temporary. Permanent Government intervention in the energy market of the kind that is proposed in new clause 1 is, I believe, unnecessary. Indeed, things are already changing. As recently as 2010, there were only 13 energy suppliers in the United Kingdom; now there are well over 60. Independent suppliers are growing and, rightly, posing new challenges for the big six. They already account for some 20% of the dual fuel market.
The basis of healthy competition is enabling consumers to go elsewhere with relative ease if they find a better deal. Nearly 20% of households a year already switch suppliers. By making switching quicker and easier, we can make that figure even higher and force big suppliers to stop taking long-standing customers for granted as they have done for many years.
There are now about 10 million first-generation smart meters in operation in the United Kingdom. While the roll-out is progressing, there is a long way to go to meet the ambitious target of 53 million by 2020. In the context of the Bill, a key element is the roll-out of the SMETS 2 meters, which is due to begin this year. SMETS 2 consumers will benefit from quick and easy switching, and the meters should be intelligent enough to identify the lowest tariff. They have the potential to be a real force for competition in the energy market. At that point, there will be no need for the price cap, which is why it would not be prudent to introduce a permanent relative cap. It would be bad for customers, and it would work against the positive changes that will be made over the next few years.
New clause 1 is the product of a belief that markets simply do not work. As a Conservative, I believe that they can work. I note the progress that we have made, and the progress that we will make in the coming years. I acknowledge that the market needs the temporary cap, and I support the Bill as a means of protecting consumers, not only in my constituency but throughout Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. I am sure that it will contribute to a reduction in the very real fuel poverty that some people endure.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I am delighted to speak about the Bill, having supported it throughout this Parliament and having been a member of the Bill Committee. I think it important that, when considering the new clauses and amendments, we consider the fundamental aim of the Bill, which is to guarantee protection for the 11 million households that are currently on the highest energy tariffs—as well as the 5 million vulnerable households that are already protected by Ofgem’s prepayment meter safeguard tariff cap—by introducing a measured temporary intervention to correct a market that is currently letting down and ripping off thousands of people in my constituency, and millions throughout the country.
New clause 1 would allow the Secretary of State to make requirements in relation to a differential between the cheapest and the most expensive rates offered by suppliers: in other words, a relative price cap. In practice, that would mean that once effective competition was in place in the market—or by the end of 2023 at the latest —and that tariff cap was removed, a maximum differential between the most expensive and the cheapest tariffs would be introduced. That goes against the principle of the Bill, which is to ensure that it is temporary. This should be a temporary measure to correct the market, and it should not allow Government intervention to remain permanent. This Bill is based on a mandate that came out of the Conservative manifesto, which set out a temporary intervention.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am bringing up the rear, as they say.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you.
I am delighted to speak in support of this Bill. It focuses on a temporary managing of the energy market, which has not been managed well enough, which is why we are talking about the whole concept of this Bill. I will speak briefly, and only to amendments 7 and 9. I do not disagree with the sentiment of, and intention behind, these amendments, and above all it is, of course, vitally important that we look after the vulnerable in society, in particular in terms of energy, and especially when the market is deemed not to be functioning properly.
It is crucial that people can keep warm and cook the right food and that they are comfortable and well, but this Bill already addresses that. It places a new set of duties and powers on Ofgem to protect consumers on variable and default tariffs, and Ofgem already has a duty under the electricity and gas Acts to have regard to the need to protect vulnerable customers. We should also remember that in 2016 the Competition and Markets Authority made an order, following its energy market review, to put in place a safeguard tariff for customers on prepayment meters, and about 4 million people have benefited from that. Last year, Ofgem took the decision under its principal duties in the electricity and gas Acts to extend the safeguard tariff to customers in receipt of the warm home discount.
Ofgem must have regard to the need to protect vulnerable customers when exercising its functions under these Acts, and I would argue that that is already being done. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) that it is crucial that Ofgem uses its powers and uses them well and that its feet are held to the fire in this respect—to use an energy term. It also introduced an enforceable vulnerability principle into the domestic standards of conduct, making it clear that suppliers must do more to treat vulnerable customers fairly, and this must be done.
Realistically, therefore, these amendments seem to be overkill, placing new obligations on Ofgem that are not necessary; however, it must use the powers it has. Also, as many Members have said, the powers in this Bill are only temporary: the price cap operated by Ofgem is not intended to last beyond 2023, and I fully support that. By contrast, Ofgem’s powers to protect vulnerable customers under the electricity and gas Acts are not limited.
It is necessary to bring in the fairness that this Bill has right at its heart. Its main aim is to place a new set of duties and powers on Ofgem to protect customers on standard variable tariffs. That is what this is really all about; far too many people have been taken for a ride. In 2016, about 11 million people were paying a total of £2 billion over the odds for their energy; that is simply not right. Individuals are said to be paying about £300 too much. Many people falling into this category are the elderly, and I am speaking on this Bill in part because Somerset has a particularly ageing population, and they have been taken advantage of, as indeed have many young people who are in rental accommodation because they are tied to one form or another of payment.
We must not mess about any further with this Bill. We must be able to see the wood for the trees; we do not want to bring in another lot of suggestions and regulations that delay the Bill, because it is more important than ever that its measures come into operation this winter. It is essential that we protect the vulnerable, but it is not necessary to legislate further on vulnerability, as suggested by amendments 7 and 9. I hope that on this basis the amendments will be withdrawn.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I thank all colleagues here this afternoon for their intelligent and sensible contributions to a debate that has run for several years. We are now within striking distance of bringing this Bill to a conclusion and sending it off in good order to the other place. I particularly thank my relatively close—geographically speaking—party colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), whose dogged and intelligent scrutiny, along with that of his colleagues, has made this a much better Bill, and I pay the same compliment to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and her Select Committee. This shows that when we work together we can deliver good legislation. I will respond to the amendments discussed today and my hope is that in doing so no Member feels obliged to press their amendments to a vote.
New clause 1, which we discussed at length in Committee and again today, seeks to introduce an ongoing, almost perpetual, relative price cap once the absolute price cap is removed. Like the Member speaking for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), I am a little perplexed by this amendment, as I said in Committee. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has spoken so powerfully on many occasions against a relative cap and in favour of an absolute cap, and yet this new clause suggests bringing in the opposite: a relative cap on a perpetual basis. I will talk more about the issues we have with relative caps, but this is a little counterintuitive. It would also mean—this will be anathema to many colleagues who have spoken passionately today in support of a relative cap—effectively perpetual Government intervention in the energy market. There is strong agreement across the House in favour of competitive markets delivering the best for consumers. When those markets are broken, or regulation slips out of date, it is right to improve the powers of regulators, but perpetual Government intervention, particularly in setting prices, is not the way to deliver the best outcomes. Therefore, the new clause is not necessary.
Moving on to the comments on relative caps, Ofgem said in its evidence, which others strongly supported, that a relative cap will be gamed by the largest suppliers. If we introduce this hypothesis, it will be gamed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) also pointed out, we also heard in Select Committee evidence sessions that there was overwhelming support for an absolute cap—now and then.
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend wishes to intervene, and I will of course give way.
John Penrose
I hesitate to pray the Labour Front Benchers in aid of my argument, but the Minister has just quoted Ofgem in favour of hers, so perhaps it will make sense. Does she not agree that it would be commercial suicide for a supplier to raise its tariffs in the competitive market, to protect its position, were a relative cap to be introduced? I think the shadow Minister said earlier that it would be commercially suicidal or a kamikaze move.
Claire Perry
I am afraid that I have to disagree with my hon. Friend and reject that point. That is what has been happening for many years to the most vulnerable customers, who have seen price rises recently and who are not switching for a variety of reasons. We are trying to deal with that customer group today. I hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will withdraw the new clause on the basis that it is not rational and not needed.
Amendment 5 proposes that a set period of five months be placed in the Bill. We debated that at length in Committee, and I believe that we are all seized of the need to bring the Bill into force in good order as quickly as possible—we do not want to wait any longer. We want the Bill to be in place by the time we rise for the summer recess, and obviously it has to go through the other place first. We want the caps to be transparent and to be applied in time for this winter, 2018, so that people can start to benefit and make savings on their energy bills immediately.
We heard from Back Benchers why they felt the five months provision would be difficult, and I will add my concern that if Ofgem were to go over such a legal limit, even by a couple of days, it could inhibit its ability legally to bring forward the cap. We must do nothing to reduce Ofgem’s ability to consult on the cap and put it in place. It is worth emphasising again—I am sure the regulators and others are listening—that we want and expect the cap to be in place by the end of the year. I do not think the proposal in amendment 5 is either legally permissible or necessary.
Amendments 2, 3 and 4 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and supported by many Members who have thought carefully about this issue. We have refined the Bill through the course of our discussions and made it into a better piece of legislation, and I am grateful for that. We have heard again today many of the arguments that we have heard during the Bill’s passage. We are talking about a theoretical position in talking about a relative cap, because the only cap we currently have is the safeguard tariff, which is an absolute cap and which appears to be working to save customers money.
Our concern is that with a relative cap, we could see suppliers lifting their skirts on their cheaper tariffs, and that there could be an inhibiting effect on some of the innovations that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) mentioned, with companies charging extremely low prices for time of use tariffs. We heard overwhelming evidence during the evidence sessions chaired by the hon. Member for Leeds West, and also in the Public Bill Committee, that absolute caps were considered a much better way of bringing forward the protections that we all want. That is the view of Ofgem, the Select Committee, Citizens Advice, moneysupermarket.com and some of the new energy companies, and I am persuaded that those organisations have the interests of the customers we are trying to help at heart.
I am also concerned that if we had relative caps, there could be a lot of gaming going on and a lot less transparency. We have talked about what would happen if suppliers lifted their prices. We know that the trouble we have is with a group of customers we refer to as disengaged. They are not digitally enabled; they tend to be older, on lower incomes and more vulnerable; and they are not as susceptible or sensitive to the price elasticity that would perhaps persuade others to switch. The aim of this price cap Bill is to protect those customers, so I do not believe that it is necessary to accept those amendments.
John Penrose
I just want to point out that the criticism that the relative cap can result in an increase in switching rates and tariffs has equally been applied to the absolute cap. There has been criticism of both kinds of cap, not just of the relative cap.
Claire Perry
There has been a lot of criticism of both kinds of cap, but if we look at the one sort of cap that we have—the prepayment meter cap that is extended to vulnerable customers—we see that those customers have saved between £60 and £120 on the basis of that cap. It has actually worked to reduce their prices. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is not intending to press his amendment to a vote.
Amendment 6 seeks to ensure that we have a stated amount of the savings that might accrue. I think that is perhaps slightly mischievous, and it does not really reflect the consensual spirit that we have had throughout the passage of the Bill. I can imagine that the people coming up with these numbers were looking at the savings that we have discussed in relation to the prepayment cap, or indeed the £300 average difference between the most expensive and the cheapest tariffs in the market. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, we need to calculate volume as well as price to estimate the service, and we do not yet know what cap Ofgem will set. We also do not want to constrain Ofgem’s ability to set the cap or to create targets for the big six to work towards as the maximum saving. I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will be content not to press his amendment.
Claire Perry
There has been a huge amount of scrutiny, and I am hoping that we can get the legislation through to the other place, but my door is open. We want a well-functioning energy market that works for everybody and provides competitively priced energy.
I was asked an important question about the statutory instrument, which is also going through the House, that enables data sharing between the DWP and others. It has completed its pre-legislative scrutiny and will be introduced during the passage of this Bill. It is a vital and necessary part of ensuring that the powers in the Bill work.
Dr Whitehead
Will the Minister be clear with us tonight that the safeguard tariff and the absolute cap do not contradict each other and that they can be introduced together, so that the protections can continue? Is she convinced that that is the way forward?
Claire Perry
There is nothing in the Bill that interferes with Ofgem’s ability to extend the safeguard tariff, which is part of an existing separate set of powers. By having this discussion, we are sending a clear message that we expect Ofgem to retain adequate protections for the most vulnerable consumers once the Bill is passed. I thank colleagues for putting that matter forward for debate today, because it is an absolutely vital point that we must get across. However, on the basis of my responses, I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds West will not feel the need to press amendment 9.
Amendment 8 essentially sets out the conditions that would determine success when we consider whether the price cap should be removed. As we discussed in Committee, it is not the job of Ministers to prejudge the regulator’s work on what a good market will look like in two years’ time. This country has seen some of the most rapid evolution in energy innovation, and in the future there may well be factors that are no longer considered relevant in establishing competition or factors that do not best address consumers’ needs. I do not want to put anything into the Bill that would give energy companies something to target. The Bill is supposed to be about giving the regulator broad powers to ensure that companies deliver a better price for consumers, not try to engineer a particular outcome. I hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test considers that a sufficient explanation and will not press amendment 8.
It has been great to have so much cross-party conversation and discussion on this important piece of legislation. I forgot to mention the vital point made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about green tariffs, but the process of setting such tariffs will be scrutinised as never before and we will have better, more transparent tariffs as a result. I hope that all Members are satisfied with the explanations I have provided and that we will not need to trouble the Lobby Clerks this evening.
Dr Whitehead
On the basis of the explanations that have been put forward, we will be happy not to press our amendments, but we will wish to press new clause 1, which has not been properly understood or responded to this evening.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Creating a more affordable and competitive energy market that works for British families was a central pillar of the Government’s manifesto last year. Every household in the country depends on gas or electricity, or both—they are essential services on which we all rely. On average, each household spends about £1,250 a year on energy at home. It is one of our biggest household bills, and for the poorest 10% of households, energy is about 10% of their annual household expenditure. Yet in the past few years, prices for customers on standard variable and default tariffs have not declined; they have continued to increase. The further price hikes we have witnessed in recent weeks from a number of the big six suppliers are consistent with the analysis of the Competition and Markets Authority that that part of the market is not operating competitively.
The Government’s ambition is to make sure that Britain has an innovative, competitive, productive and prosperous economy. To underpin that, we need an energy market that works to the benefit of consumers, workers, investors and, of course, the environment. This Government recognised, as did the CMA, that for 11 million customers on standard variable tariffs, the market is not working. In many cases, prices are above what they would be in a competitive market.
The Bill therefore focuses narrowly on a problem that has been exposed as highly significant: overpricing for consumers who have remained loyal to their energy providers. This segment of the market has displayed weak competition. Such behaviour on the part of the energy companies must come to an end, and the Bill, along with other measures, will help to end the abuse. The Bill requires Ofgem to introduce a temporary absolute tariff cap on SVTs—default rates—that will protect consumers. That will go alongside complementary measures enacted by this Government, including the roll-out of smart meters, together with other reforms that Ofgem is making to the market. This has been welcomed by new entrants in the market, which are providing more choice for consumers that ever before. A number of them provided evidence during the Bill’s scrutiny.
I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to hon. Members for the way in which they have engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. I thank Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to its development, especially those who served on the Select Committee, which gave the Bill valuable pre-legislative scrutiny, and those who served on the Public Bill Committee. The discussions were excellent and forensic, and the Bill has been strengthened during its passage through the House. I pay particular tribute to and thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth. I also thank the Clerks, the House authorities, the experts who gave oral evidence to the Committee, the organisations that took time to provide expert written evidence and my superb officials, who will continue their tireless efforts as the Bill proceeds.
I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team. In characteristic style, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) brought to bear his long-standing interest in and deep knowledge of these matters. Members have offered challenges and insight throughout the Bill’s passage, and their contributions will benefit the legislation. The debates have thrown light on important issues, such as the need for Ofgem to ensure that there is transparency when setting and reviewing the cap and to consider all customers, especially the vulnerable and the disabled, when doing so.
Our debates have resulted in a productive discussion on the important issue of the need for the exemption of green tariffs, about which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth has written to members of the Bill Committee. My right hon. Friend is a passionate champion of green issues in the House, and that, combined with her advocacy for the consumer, has made this an ideal first Bill for her to take forward in her current role. We are grateful to her for that.
The debates have sent a clear and consistent message from the House that its expectation is that Ofgem should implement a robust price cap to be in place for the winter. The Bill will require Ofgem to protect consumers on standard variable tariffs. It will ensure that loyalty is no longer penalised while also ensuring that efficient suppliers can continue to do business.
As the House knows, the Government are committed to reforming the energy market. The Smart Meters Bill, which is progressing through the House of Lords as we speak, represents another important stepping stone towards a more competitive market. The Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill will ensure that British families are protected as we correct an intolerable situation in which, according to the independent competition authorities, consumers have been exposed to paying £1.4 billion a year more than they would in a competitive market. That abuse should end. The Bill will not only give Ofgem the powers to achieve that, but introduce the requirement that it should do so, and I commend it to the House.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
You will be pleased to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will be brief.
I thank all Members who have contributed to proceedings on the Bill and all members of the Public Bill Committee, who worked diligently and in such a consensual way. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who over the past weeks and months has spent many hours working on not only this Bill, but a great many pieces of legislation. I thank the Public Bill Office and the Clerks for their tremendous support, as always.
Somewhat unusually, I am delighted that we are here to send a Bill to the other place in a speedy fashion. The Opposition will support the Bill’s Third Reading. However, the Minister and the Secretary of State, diligent as they are, may share some of my exasperation that wider Government inaction—shall we say?—and delay at the beginning of this Parliament has meant that millions of people are still suffering with big energy bills as the winter comes to a close.
The 2017 Conservative manifesto committed to implementing an energy price cap that would protect 17 million households. On 9 May 2017, the Prime Minister herself wrote of the cap in The Sun:
“I expect it to save families on poor value tariffs as much as £100.”
Yet the policy was thrown into doubt when the Queen’s Speech said merely that the Government would introduce
“measures to help tackle unfair practices in the energy market to help reduce energy bills.”
That was followed by numerous letters between Ofgem and the Secretary of State in which it was made clear that legislation was required, but the Government still did not introduce a draft Bill.
It was not until mid-October that we saw evidence of the Government’s commitment coming to fruition, but even then there were reports that some in the Cabinet had no intention of seeing legislation on the statute book. Thankfully, pressure from the Opposition, and indeed from Government Members, has ensured that the Bill has made progress. A price cap will therefore eventually be in place, but the fact sadly remains that in nine days’ time it will have been exactly a year since the Prime Minister wrote her commitment to energy customers in The Sun.
I am happy that we are here today—I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State—but it is disappointing to say the least that a year has passed and the cap is still some way from implementation. As a result, energy customers have not been protected during a winter in which we have seen some of the coldest weather on record. Prices have continued to rise, and in the past couple of weeks, British Gas has announced a 5.5% price rise, while EDF has announced a 2.7% rise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and other hon. Members attempted to improve this Bill and help the Government to ensure that their own commitments were met. Sadly, although the Minister was very amiable, the Government did not accept many of the amendments.
Caroline Flint
May I add another couple of dates to help Members to understand how long it has taken to get us here today? I think that, as I get older, collective memory becomes an even more important asset. It was in October 2011 when the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, held a summit to tackle rising energy prices, and it was in October last year—six years later—when we finally heard talk of a Bill.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My right hon. Friend is correct. I share her exasperation and that of many Members on both sides of the House about how long it has taken to tackle this very serious issue.
Briefly, let me turn to some of the amendments that were discussed—Members will be pleased to hear that I will not go through all of them. Amendment 6 would have required Ofgem to ensure that the tariff cap conditions resulted in customers on standard variable and default rates having their annual expenditure reduced by no less than £100, as per the Prime Minister’s election promise. If the Government had accepted that amendment, it would have given energy customers confidence that the Government were serious about their commitment significantly to reduce the bills of millions of customers. However, the Minister said that she felt that the Opposition had been mischievous in trying to place a Government policy within a piece of Government legislation. I do not think that I need to say any more about that—we will not try to do so again.
After our discussions in Committee, we redrafted an amendment that we had previously tabled. Rather than proposing a hard stop date, amendment 5 would have simply ensured that the cap would be in place within five months of Royal Assent. Ofgem has stated that it will take five months from Royal Assent to implement the cap. It indicated that placing such a deadline in the Bill would not cause it a problem or hinder its process so, again, it was sad that our amendment was not accepted.
Similarly, new clause 1 would have developed requirements for a differential between a supplier’s cheapest and most expensive rates after the termination of the cap. That would have offered a degree of ongoing protection for consumers while wider market reform could take place.
I wish to pick the Secretary of State up on a statement that he made on Second Reading. He said:
“Britain has long been a pioneer in not only the privatisation and liberalisation of industries but the regulation of these utility industries, too.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2018; Vol. 637, c. 206.]
I am afraid that I have to take issue with him. Although I am pleased that the Bill is completing its final stages today, the necessity of the Bill in itself demonstrates the Government’s abject failure adequately to ensure that our UK utilities have been regulated. In the past year alone, £120 has been paid by every household in the UK for dividends to energy company shareholders. As I have said before, the six distribution network operators had an average profit margin after tax of 32% a year between 2010 and 2015, which equates to £10 billion over six years. During that time, shareholders received £5.1 billion in dividends, or half the net profit generated. In the past 10 years, water companies paid 1,000 times more in dividends than in tax. Three of them paid more in dividends than they made in profit in that period, which means that they were borrowing on the back of household bills to pay their shareholders. Radical reform of our energy market is needed—it is not optional, but necessary.
We have yet to see any response to Dieter Helm’s consultation on the cost of energy, which included many proposals for reform. Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm when a response to that consultation will be published. It is urgent that we have such a response if effective competition is to be achieved by the end of 2020, or indeed by 2023, when the energy price cap will definitely be lifted.
I support the Bill and I welcome this Government action, but, as I have said, the cap is simply a sticking plaster. I hope that the Government will now act speedily and listen to the comments of Members about the wider reforms that our energy market requires.
Alan Brown
I will be really brief. Clearly, we all support the Bill, so there is no point in over-debating it and delaying things much further. As the Secretary of State said, an overpayment of £1.4 billion was collected from customers in 2016. Some £650 million of that was effectively excess profits that customers were paying to the energy companies. That proves the need for the Bill. We can argue that it should have been introduced before, but at least it is here now, so let us get on with it.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments about ensuring that there are safeguards for vulnerable customers. That is really important; it is the whole ethos of the Bill. I hope that vulnerable customers get the protection that they need. I know that the Conservative party and the Government really hope that the provision will be temporary and that there will be no further state interventions in the market. It would be fantastic if that were the case, but I am not sure whether that will happen—we will wait and see. That is the whole point of Ofgem having the correct measures and of ensuring that we understand how the markets and the companies work. It was interesting that the mere threat of the Bill was enough to make companies change their behaviour and start reviewing their standard variable tariffs. At the very least, we need to be willing to threaten further state intervention if the market is not working as it should.
If we really want customers’ bills to come down, we will need further state intervention, including home energy efficiency schemes. I will finish with my usual plea about getting onshore renewables back on to the market because they are the cheapest form of energy at the moment. We know how successful the bidding process has been for offshore renewables, so let us get the cheapest form of energy back to market and help to bring down customers’ bills. I commend the Bill and look forward to its implementation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Economic and Fiscal Outlook
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
I beg to move,
That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment of the medium term economic and fiscal position as set out in the latest Budget document and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.
Of course, we all look forward to the day when we have left the European Union and we no longer have to file this report. But while we are in the European Union, it is a legal requirement, as part of the stability and growth pact, to present our economic and budgetary plan. Owing, to the opt-out that we negotiated in the 1990s, there are no sanctions or actions should items of the plan not be met. In fact, the only stated requirement is to endeavour to avoid excess deficit. Now, that is something of which I approve anyway and with which we are happy to comply.
I am proud to talk about the record of this Government over the last eight years. We have reduced the deficit by three quarters and have now reached the turning point of debt falling as a share of the economy, which will happen in this financial year. As the Chancellor said in the spring statement, we are now in a much healthier position, but it is very important that we do not abandon this fiscal discipline.
In 2010, the economy was on its knees. We had the highest level of deficit since the second world war, youth unemployment was rising and 1.4 million people were left on the scrap heap. Since then we have turned things around, by reforming the economy and with our fiscal plans. There is a record number of new companies; real wages are increasing; we have record levels of employment; and there are positive signs right across the country. These strong economic fundamentals are down to the decisions of this Government.
We have reformed our welfare system to ensure that it always pays to go to work. We have reformed our education system to make sure that our children and young people have the skills that they need for the modern economy. We have made it easier for companies to take on staff. We have reduced corporation tax. Recently we have seen the two strongest quarters of productivity growth since before the financial crisis. Inflation is set to fall this year and we have seen an easing of pressure on living standards. But despite all this progress, every one of these measures has been opposed by the Labour party.
The shadow Chancellor has said that he sees business as the enemy. Labour Members have opposed our efforts to make Britain open for business and want to go back to the days of punishing taxes and red tape. They have also opposed our welfare and education reforms. [Interruption.] I hear mutterings from the Opposition Front Bench.
These reforms have been accompanied by fiscal discipline. Our fiscal strategy has been vital in boosting confidence in the UK economy and enabling growth in the private sector. We have brought down the deficit by three quarters, and at the same time we have maintained high-quality public services. We spend more per student on education than Japan or Germany, and we have seen our results in reading improve against our international peers. Our health spending is higher than the EU average, and we now have record cancer survival rates. Through our fiscal prudence—that phrase used to be popular on the Labour Benches—we have been able to spend targeted amounts of money to boost our productivity. Infrastructure spending will be at a 40-year high as a proportion of GDP by the end of this period. We are tripling the number of computer science teachers and encouraging more students to take maths at a higher level.
We are now at a turning point. After the highest debt that we have seen in Britain’s peacetime history, we will see debt as a proportion of GDP falling. To people who say that now is the time to turn on the spending taps, I say that would be premature. It is very important that we bring down debt as a proportion of GDP. We know that economies with high levels of debt see a drag on their growth rates and are less resilient to external shocks. We also know that we are spending a huge amount on debt interest. With the debt interest we spend—£50 billion a year—we could completely abolish council tax, business rates or fuel duty.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most tempting phrases that we often hear from the Opposition Benches, but the one to be resisted most strongly, is “Borrow to invest”? Irrespective of what one does with the money, one is still borrowing it and it still has to be paid back.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. We are switching spending from current spending to investment, and that is why we have a 40-year high in our infrastructure investment. He is absolutely right that any spending increases the national debt. Because of the actions of the previous Labour Government, who spent 45% of GDP in the public sector and built up a huge debt, it is our responsibility to bring the debt down and make sure that the country gets back in balance.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Bearing that strategy in mind, how does the Minister explain the fact that the debt has risen from 73% of GDP in 2010 to nearly 90% now, so it is higher than both France’s and Germany’s? Our debt was below those countries’ at the end of a Labour Government who had invested in public services, bailed out the banks and saved people’s savings.
Elizabeth Truss
I find it absolutely astonishing that the hon. Lady would say that, given that her party is planning to spend half a trillion pounds, increasing our debt. She has obviously not read the speeches of the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary. The 20% increase in debt that Labour is proposing would make us much more vulnerable to external shocks. The fact is that we have spent the past eight years repairing the damage done to the economy by profligate spending by Labour Members who did not fix the roof while the sun was shining.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that the previous Labour shadow Chancellor accused the Government of going too far, too fast? He thought that throughout the period of austerity we should have been spending more, leaving us with even further debt. The Government are to be commended for their robust approach.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Labour Members seem to believe that by spending more money and borrowing more, we can reduce debt. That simply does not add up. Under Labour’s plans, we would be vulnerable to an external crisis, as we were when it was last in office in 2009. The Labour party seems to welcome that prospect. The shadow Chancellor said that the 2008 economic crash was a “capitalist crisis” for which he had been waiting for a generation. We have a Labour party that is actively planning a run on the banks if it gets into office.
Elizabeth Truss
I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
Ten years ago, under Labour, we were in the grip of a financial crisis and scared for the future. It was a period of profligacy, when Labour was spending money we did not have. The state was 45% of GDP, and we saw the longest increase in debt since the Napoleonic wars. It crowded out the private sector, and youth unemployment was on the rise.
We have worked away at the deficit, replenished the public purse and got people back into work, and all while maintaining Britain’s world-class public services. This report shows our sound public finances and our growing economy. [Interruption.] It is a shame that those on the shadow Front Bench seek to talk down our excellent public services. What this debate shows us is that it is vital we stick to the course.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, a prerequisite of the UK’s participation in the EU has been regular submissions of the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. I think the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will appreciate that one of the advantages of leaving the EU—for once, everyone on the Conservative Benches will agree—is the humiliation, wincing and cringing that the Government will forgo when they no longer need to submit their economic record to the scrutiny of European colleagues. The Government are rudderless, collapsing in on the weight of their own contradictions and economic ineptitude.
Let us turn to the record. While countries in the eurozone post a 10-year high in terms of economic growth, the UK under the Tories is left behind. Let us look at the seven deadly sins of the Tories. No. 1 is self-delusion, which we had in spadeloads from the right hon. Lady. Last year, growth in our economy was the lowest in the G7, and growth in the first quarter was the weakest since 2012. The Office for Budget Responsibility has now revised forecast growth down in both 2021 and 2022 since the Government’s autumn Budget, and growth is lower in every year of the forecast compared with March 2017. The upbeat tone of the Chancellor at the spring statement betrays the economic reality that many have experienced over the last eight years of Conservative mismanagement, and while the Chancellor may want to blame recent poor growth on a bit of bad weather, those of us living in the real world see an economy desperate for investment.
The second sin is sloth. The Government have provided the slowest recovery since the 1920s, and productivity growth is at its worst for two centuries. On productivity, the Government’s record is one of failure. Productivity forecasts have been revised down this year and for every year of the forecast. While the Treasury celebrates a slight uptick in the productivity figures referred to by the right hon. Lady with a “thumbs up” emoji and manic optimism, the underlying figures show a fall in production and a fall in the hours worked.
Simon Hoare
Particularly in relation to point 2, were the hon. Gentleman to be making the report to the EU, which of the options of the shadow Education Secretary would he be reporting—would Labour’s policy be shit or bust?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Those are not normal terms that we would use in the House.
Peter Dowd
I would rather not respond to a rather crude comment, which is quite frankly almost as crude as the Government’s economic policy.
Number 3 is profligacy. The right hon. Lady talked about it, but here is a bit of profligacy: since coming to power, the Conservative Government have added more than £700 billion to the national debt. There was no mention of that. The UK’s debt-to-GDP ratio this year stands at a staggering 86.4%, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George). The UK has a higher debt-to-GDP ratio than 20 out of the 27 other EU member states after eight years of this so-called economic miracle.
Sin No. 4 is misplaced pride. The Government have long prided themselves on being the so-called party of business, yet in eight short years they have managed to alienate the business community. Business investment has been revised down for the next two years, and businesses are holding off key investment decisions due to the uncertainty caused by this Government’s shambolic approach to the Brexit negotiations. Ministers claim that the Government have raised an extra £175 billion from clamping down on tax avoidance—another visit to fantasy island—but they have refused to offer a breakdown of this figure, a list of the anti-avoidance measures involved and the amount each has raised.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
What does the hon. Gentleman think would be the view of the extra 1.2 million businesses that have been created since 2010 on his proposed increases in taxation?
Peter Dowd
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the Labour party’s “Funding Britain’s Future”—our Grey Book. I will send him a signed copy for him to look at, and it will show that what he has said is arrant nonsense.
Under the Conservatives, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has become a pale imitation of its former self, with staff and resource levels cut by 17% since 2010. HMRC’s failure to investigate Lycamobile, one of the Conservative party’s largest donors, for money laundering raises further questions about its independence and effectiveness. The Chancellor has been privately lobbied into supporting the former Prime Minister’s UK-China investment fund, but we now learn that it will be domiciled in the Republic of Ireland. That, presumably, is for tax purposes—it is certainly not for charitable purposes. So much for this being the most transparent Government in history.
Sin No. 5 is bullying. I have often heard Ministers speak about the resilience of the economy, but they say little about the resilience of the workers who work in it. The reality is that this Government have spent the past eight years laying siege to the poorest in our society and the public services they depend on. They bully the powerless and, in oleaginous fashion, suck up to the powerful. The Government’s austerity agenda has left our local services on their knees. Since they came to power, local authority spending on early intervention has had a 40% cut in real terms—and so it goes on. I could give a catalogue or litany of these issues, but we know what they are. Rather than throwing our indebted and overstretched local authorities a lifeline, this Government are instead pushing ahead with further cuts.
With sin No. 6, we turn to education, which the Chief Secretary mentioned. The Conservatives are responsible for the first real terms per capita cut in schools funding in 20 years, and they have deprived 1 million children of a decent free school meal. [Interruption.] They just do not like the truth. The trebling of tuition fees, the abolition of maintenance grants and the sale of the student loan book have ensured that students leaving university today will be the most indebted in our country’s history. Meanwhile, the NHS moves from a winter crisis to a spring crisis—and it will go on to a summer crisis —and the staff who run it continue to struggle. Under the Conservatives, they find themselves understaffed, underpaid and under-appreciated. While Rome burns and our public services crumble, the Chief Secretary can be found instagramming and tweeting selfies of herself at the Dispatch Box with other Treasury Ministers.
The last of the sins is pomposity, which the Government do very well: they are very good at pomposity. Listening to the Chief Secretary speak about the need for robust public finances and the merits of the free market, people would wonder which country she has been living in for the past eight years. After all, the Government have missed every deficit target they have ever set themselves. The former Chancellor’s target for a 2020 surplus is but a distant memory—an inconvenient truth, quickly forgotten. Public debt stands a £1.8 trillion, and the Government have put more debt on to the shoulders of the people of this country that any other Government. When they came to power, they proclaimed that we were all in it together—we are all in it together right up to our necks —but eight miserable, oppressive years later, communities have been left to fend for themselves.
What will be the Tories’ parting legacy as we leave the EU? It will be a divided, poorer, less confident, low-growth, low-wage, low-skilled and less productive country, all thanks to a clapped-out, self-obsessed and failing Government who rely on oligarchs to give them £160,000 bungs to help them to hang on to power—I hear the Foreign Secretary say, “Anyone for a game of tennis?”
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires Parliament to debate the content of this report on the UK’s economic and budgetary position. It is pleasing that although the UK has voted to leave the European Union, we are still complying with our obligation to submit the report.
Via the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we are enshrining in law the rights and obligations that emanate from our EU membership. We are building with the European Union a new relationship, which I very much hope will allow our constituents to trade with, work in, study in and visit the EU. Rather than turning our backs on the EU, we are building a new chapter of our working partnership and friendship, albeit on different terms—on our own terms—which will, I am positive, enable us to maintain our positive relationships in mainland Europe.
We are debating the Government’s assessment of the UK’s economic and budgetary position—a position that we have developed since taking office in 2010. Interestingly, while I was researching our economic position, I came across a page on the BBC website from 2010. Boxes on the right hand side of the page contained our key economic indicators, which in 2010 were as follows: UK economic growth would slow to 0.2%, UK borrowing would hit £163.4 billion, UK unemployment would increase to 2.5 million and UK inflation would rise to 3.4%. Those were the key statistics, as reported by the BBC, as the Labour Government left office.
Fast forward to 2018 and—of course, we still have more to do—growth is projected to rise by 1.5% this year, UK borrowing fell to £42.6 billion during the last financial year, UK unemployment has fallen to 1.4 million and UK inflation fell to 2.5% last month. So if Labour Front Benchers want to talk about how things look now compared with how they looked in 2010, those are the key figures that they need to consider. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) mentions debt. The UK’s total debt is still too high, but we have reduced the amount being borrowed each year from 9.9% of GDP when Labour left office to 2.6% now. We still pay £50 billion a year on our overdraft, and that is far too high. It is larger than the schools budget, and it needs to come down.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is vital that we do not confuse reducing the deficit with reducing the debt. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that according to the OBR’s current forecast, the debt will not start to reduce until 2027 at the earliest? Does he think that that is good enough?
Huw Merriman
If we do not reduce the deficit, we will ultimately never reduce the debt. In January, we had a surplus for the first time, so we are getting there. As I say, however, the debt is far too large and needs to be reduced. I applaud the steps that the Government are taking to adopt a balanced approach, whereby we invest in our public services but get the debt down.
The debt causes me a huge amount of concern, because the interest bill will be paid not by my generation or those above me, but by the young. If Labour is serious about adding an extra £100 billion to the debt, the younger generation will be forced to pay back an extra £8 billion a year in interest.
It should not be forgotten that we have focused resources on key public spending commitments, such as health and increasing the amount we spend on the disabled. Opposition Members criticise us for the size of the debt, but when push comes to shove the austerity years, as they are often portrayed, have actually seen spending decreases at about the same rate as those advocated by Alistair Darling in the 2010 Labour party manifesto, so it is either one thing or the other.
My main point on how our economy is working is the fact that an extra 1 million people are now out of unemployment, compared with the last year of the Labour Government. That is crucial. Not only are those people paying into the economy, but they have opportunity, aspiration and hope. That was lost to many people when, yet again, the Labour Government left office with more people unemployed than when they had entered it. We have taken millions out of income tax by lifting the personal allowance from £6,500 to £11,850, reducing bills for 31 million people who still pay income tax. We have introduced the living wage, which will increase pay for 2 million people. One third of my working-age constituents are on the living wage, so it has a huge impact—they are £2,000 better off each year. All those measures make work pay, as seen by the increase in employment to 32 million people—the highest number since records began.
Finally, I would like to make a comparison with our European Union neighbours. Let us consider France. By 2015, we had created more jobs in five years in Yorkshire than have been created by France as a whole. The French are now looking to adopt our welfare reforms. They know that unless they modernise their welfare state, their unemployment rate will never be reduced from a shocking 9.7% to our rate of 4.2%. Some 1.3 million youngsters in France cannot find a job. It is our Government’s policies, in this report, that our EU counterparts are now seeking to replicate. I therefore absolutely recommend the report. I am very proud to stand on the Government Benches on behalf of the party that has delivered it.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate, although I do so with some trepidation and a degree of puzzlement.
I speak with trepidation, because in preparing for the debate I had a look in Hansard for the equivalent debates in the previous two years and discovered that nobody who spoke for the Scottish National party came through unscathed at the general election. Looking at the empty Benches behind me, it seems the curse of Section 5 has driven others away, too. I speak with puzzlement, because for the past six months every time I have been in the Chamber and we have talked in the European context about Government economic analyses, those on the Government Front Bench have been at desperate pains to persuade us that Government economic analyses are not worth the paper they are written on and are not to be trusted.
Members will recall that those analyses indicated that leaving the EU could take about 9% off economic growth compared with staying in the EU. That was one of the “benefits” of leaving the EU that the Government tried to hide and still do not want to talk about. The Government’s own analysis indicated that even the much hyped opportunities for striking new trade deals are likely to restore only about 1% of the 9% of the economic growth we will lose. It must therefore strike our European neighbours as somewhat ironic—it certainly strikes me as ironic—that the Government need a parliamentary vote to give them permission to send some numbers to the EU to prove how badly they are running the economy, at the same time as they are doing everything possible to avoid giving a meaningful parliamentary vote on the hard Brexit that threatens to blow even their own projections to smithereens. Perhaps that is what the Office for Budget Responsibility was talking about when it said:
“The probability of a cyclical shock occurring sometime over our forecast horizon is fairly high”.
Despite the brave words from the Chief Secretary this evening, the fact is that Brexit is already hurting the economy and the Government’s incompetent, ideologically obsessed drive towards a hard Brexit is making the damage even worse. The London School of Economics estimates that the average household is already £404 a week worse off thanks to the EU referendum result. The Financial Times puts the figure at 0.9% of GDP. That sounds like an innocuously low percentage, but it translates into £18 billion a year out of the economy. That is about £350 million a week. I have heard that £350 million a week somewhere before. It seems that the big white number on the side of the big red bus, telling us how much difference Brexit would make to our ability to spend on the NHS, was almost exactly correct—they just forgot to put the minus sign in front of it.
It would be bad enough if the pain of this economic failure was fairly shared. In fact, it would be nice if those who were ultimately responsible had to take any share of the pain, let alone a fair share of it, but of course, all those who are responsible seem to be doing very nicely indeed, thank you very much, because the costs of a failed and discredited austerity programme are being piled on to the shoulders of those who are least able to bear them—the very people any civilised Government would see as a priority to protect and look after.
Last week, it was confirmed that food bank use continues to increase. Why did the Chief Secretary not mention that in her overview of the economy? This week, my local authority, Fife Council—the third biggest in Scotland—reported a big increase in rent arrears owed by council tenants. Oddly enough, I predicted that increase last year, as did every MP in Fife and MPs from a number of other constituencies, including, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). Why did he predict it? Because his constituency got hit by the roll-out of universal credit a couple of years ago. He saw what that did to his constituents’ ability to pay their council house rent. He warned that the same thing would happen in my constituency and elsewhere, and it still is happening. It is another symptom of a failed Government austerity obsession that counts cutting the welfare bill as being more important than improving the welfare of the population.
Last week, we saw a signal moment in the history of Scotland’s relationship with welfare benefits, when our Parliament voted unanimously to support the Social Security (Scotland) Bill on its final reading. It is all very well for Westminster to give powers and for Holyrood to use them to try to bring in a modern, caring social security system, but when a major part of the Government’s fiscal success is down to slashing welfare benefits for those who most need them, when Scotland’s resource block grant is being cut in real terms by £213 million this year and by £531 million over the next two years, and when UK Government will have cut nearly £4,000 million out of the availability of social security payments in Scotland over a 10-year period, it is clear that the powers that Holyrood should be using to create a fair society are instead having to be used to mitigate the brutal unfairness that this Government are imposing on citizens across the United Kingdom.
Some might argue that this short-term pain can be justified if it leads to longer-term economic stability, but the longer term seems to get longer and longer every year that we have this debate. The OBR’s briefing indicates that even by 2022-23, we will still have a budget deficit of around £20 billion a year. The debt will be growing by £20 billion a year—it will not be coming down—and despite the modest improvement in some aspects of the outlook over the last few months, the Government’s promise to
“return the public finances to balance at the earliest possible date in the next Parliament”
is not going to be delivered. It will be 10 years before the budget deficit goes away—10 years before we even start to pay off the astronomical levels of debt that we are all having to fund.
Despite the shambolic mismanagement of the business of the House over the last few weeks, the Government will get the motion through tonight, with or without a vote. No doubt the carrier pigeon is standing ready and waiting, because they have just over two and a half hours to get the results of the vote to Brussels if they do not want to miss the deadline. However, there is, of course, a much bigger and much more worrying European deadline that is approaching very quickly. That deadline was arbitrarily and completely irrationally set by the House when it voted to trigger article 50, with no idea of what that would do to the economy. I, and I suspect many MPs on both sides of the House, have a sinking feeling that when we find ourselves a few hours from that deadline, the uncertainties that characterise the OBR report that we are debating tonight and the uncertainties that, as the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) pointed out are driving investment away instead of attracting it to us—those financial uncertainties—will be even bigger on 29 March next year than they are today.
Question put and agreed to.
Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [Lords]
Monday 30th April 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Act 2018 View all Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 75-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 72KB) - (23 Feb 2018)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
I would like to express my appreciation to right hon. and hon. Members and noble Lords in the other place for their thoughtful and constructive contributions during the passage of the Bill, including the positive engagement and support of the Opposition. I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) for his work in bringing forward the Bill when he was a Minister at the Department for Transport and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) for his insightful contributions based on his experience as Aviation Minister.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, we can be proud of the safety culture across our transport sector in recent years, but we cannot be complacent. Safety and security must be our top priority. That is why we introduced the Bill: to strengthen the rules against those who shine lasers at aircraft while also making it an offence to shine a laser at cars, trains and ships for the first time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome provision for a jail sentence of five years, which will give peace of mind to bus drivers, train drivers, vehicle drivers and aviation pilots, but can the Minister confirm that the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland?
Ms Ghani
Five years is indeed the maximum sentence and the maximum fine is unlimited. The Bill extends to the entire UK and will come into force in England, Wales and Scotland at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which the Bill is passed. In Northern Ireland, aviation and shipping are reserved, and the provisions relating to those will come into force at the same time as in the rest of the UK.
The Bill is now in a better shape than when it was introduced. In particular, the creation of an offence for shining a laser at air traffic control has received widespread endorsement and is one that the Government are happy to support. The Bill has been a great example of the important role Parliament has in strengthening legislation. I also thank those outside the Chamber who have lent their expertise to this important Bill. The UK Laser Working Group, chaired by Air Commodore Dai Whittingham, the Civil Aviation Authority, NATS, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the trade union the British Airline Pilots Association, the national police air service and many others have provided invaluable advice on some very technical issues.
Our work in this area does not stop once the Bill is passed. The Bill specifically covers the risk posed by shining a laser at a person in control of a vehicle, but, as we discussed on Second Reading, the Government have also announced new measures to tackle the sale of unsafe laser pointers. More than 150 incidents of eye injuries involving laser pointers have been reported since 2013, the vast majority of them involving children. In many of these cases, neither the children nor their parents have known the danger involved. The Government will work to raise awareness of the risks associated with laser pointers, including among schoolchildren.
In addition, the Government have pledged extra support to local authority ports and border teams to stop high-powered laser pointers entering the UK. On this, I would like to correct the record of what I said on Second Reading. This additional funding will in fact come from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, not the Department for Transport. I would not want to be seen as taking credit for another Department’s work, but it is an example of Departments working closely together with a shared purpose.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) previously asked about timeframes. BEIS has already held an initial meeting with National Trading Standards to begin planning a joint project supporting local authorities. The planning will also include working with colleagues in the devolved Administrations. The Civil Aviation Authority will continue to provide advice and guidance for victims of laser attacks, and we will continue to monitor the issue, working with industry, the regulator and cross-Government colleagues to establish whether further steps need to be taken to tackle this unacceptable behaviour.
It has been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the issue with which it deals is not politically charged or partisan. Parliament is acting collectively in the interests of the travelling public and those who work in our transport sector, and this Bill is for them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Bill has been much improved by the persistence of our Labour colleagues in the other place.
I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in sending condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). He had been leading for the Opposition on the Bill, but he has just lost his father, the distinguished Hull city councillor Ken Turner. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family today.
As no amendments were tabled, I shall highlight a few points in the Bill itself. It is a short Bill, consisting of two substantive and two procedural clauses. Clause 1 makes it an offence to direct or shine a laser beam towards a vehicle or a person in charge of a vehicle in such a way as to dazzle or distract the person driving, piloting, navigating or otherwise in control of the vehicle when it is moving or is ready to move. It results from an amendment tabled by Labour colleagues in the other place. There may be mitigating circumstances if it can be proved that the use of the laser was necessary in, for example, a rescue mission to attract attention of a pilot, or that the offence was committed by accident if the laser was being used professionally and all precautions had initially been taken to prevent an incident from occurring. The penalty will be imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both. Advancing the deterrent sends a clear message that laser misuse will not be tolerated. It has also been clarified that a laser beam could be a pulsed or continuous light, and it is defined in clause 3. The definition of the modes of transport to which the Bill will apply has been extended, thanks to the work of my Labour colleagues in the other place.
The Bill is an important piece of health and safety legislation to safeguard those who operate modes of transport from the effect of laser misuse. Lasers are being used to shine lights into the eyes of drivers, causing, according to the British Airline Pilots Association, four progressive stages of seriousness—distraction, disruption, disorientation and even incapacitation—which may have a sustained impact and could result in fatal consequences for the driver, passengers, the public, or a combination of those people.
The issue of laser misuse was first drawn to the attention of authorities by the aviation industry, but the Bill also covers drivers or navigators in charge of helicopters. A number of incidents have been cited, not least by police helicopter pilots. There have also been incidents involving planes, trains, ships, hovercrafts, submarines and road vehicles. The Bill’s provisions extend to bicycles, motor scooters and horse-drawn carriages, as well as air traffic control.
Labour recognised the need for legislation that would build on the Air Navigation Order 2016, and along with the aviation industry and other transport operators, our Front Benchers have welcomed the Bill. It was our suggestion that such legislation could be introduced in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. We recognised the insufficient penalties resulting from the 2016 order and the very small number of prosecutions. The Bill will act as a far greater deterrent to laser misuse throughout the transport system. At this point I should mention the collaborative and cross-party work that has been done in both Houses—not least by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who is not present this evening.
The other place amended the Bill to ensure that it was comprehensive in addressing the misuse of lasers, and in particular I thank Lord Tunnicliffe of Bracknell for his contribution. We are also indebted to the UK Laser Working Group, whose expertise has informed this Bill at all stages.
The Bill, while recognising the legitimate use of lasers, will ensure that those in charge of a vehicle are not put at risk, thus putting other transport users at risk, too. In the last year, there have been more than 1,000 cases, a sharp rise over a very short period of time. While that has not led to any accidents to date, in safety-critical industries we will not allow such risks to propagate, which is why we are supporting the Bill on Third Reading today.
The BALPA membership survey stated that half its pilots reported having experienced a laser attack in the last 12 months—55% of pilots, I believe—and that 15% had experienced three or more laser attacks. It is therefore heartening that external stakeholders also support the Bill, and I thank BALPA for its work in this area and all those working in transport who have advocated such legislation.
I can testify to the intensity of light from lasers, as some young people in my constituency shone a laser at me when I was out on an estate last summer. Momentarily blinded, I sought to look away, but that brief experience brought home the dangers of such laser devices, and permanent eye damage can occur if there is exposure to such light.
May I take this opportunity to thank the Clerks for their assistance through the passage of the Bill, my hon. Friends in this place and colleagues in the other place for their participation in the various stages of the Bill, and external stakeholders who have worked with us to ensure that it receives a smooth passage through its final stages?
Clearly, we are disappointed that the Prime Minister called a general election before we had the opportunity to enact the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, but, a year later, I am glad that we have been able to complete the Bill’s passage in this place today. It just goes to show what can be achieved when all parties remain laser-focused on acting in the best interests of the public.
I trust that the public will recognise the importance of the Bill and that this risk across the transport sector will be deterred. There is clearly still a debate to be had about the ownership and use of laser beams, as Public Health England advises, but that will be for another Bill on another day.
I close by thanking all those who work across the transport sector for the application of their skills in keeping the public safe and ensuring that the UK has the highest of standards in transport safety.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As this is a Third Reading debate and there were no amendments on Report, and given that we will support the Bill, I will not speak for long. I do, however, want to put on record my condolences to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner).
The Minister and shadow Minister both commended the work done in the other place in getting this Bill through. It has only two substantive clauses, however, so I am not sure it merits our having 800 unelected peers in the other place—which is not to say that the Bill does not have its merits.
The Civil Aviation Authority records that more than 11,000 laser pen incidents were reported at airports over an eight-year period and a BALPA survey has confirmed that half its pilots have experienced a laser pen attack in the past 12 months and 15% have experienced at least three attacks or more, which is alarming. Legislation is clearly needed to provide a deterrent, therefore, and this Bill does that. I therefore welcome the Bill, and we should move forward and get it into legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
Magor with Undy Walkway Station
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I am delighted to have secured this debate, which gives me a great opportunity to make a positive case in the Chamber for a new walkway station to serve the communities of Magor and Undy, which lie just over the Severn bridges in my constituency of Newport East. The reason for holding this debate now is that I am mindful that the Department for Transport will start considering bids for the next new stations fund in the near future, and this is a shameless pitch to promote a unique bid. It is unique in that the community will be encouraged to walk and cycle to use the station, rather than driving to it, and it is important because the station would be located in a community in Wales with a fast-growing population.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is it true that the community to which my hon. Friend refers to is growing because, thanks to her work on the Severn bridge tolls, more people are now moving from Bristol to enjoy the delights of living in Wales, and that they are moving into Newport—expanding the community there—and commuting to work in Bristol because housing is cheaper and education is better in Wales?
Jessica Morden
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes a valid point. Many more people are moving from Bristol to live in our corner of Wales, which is great. Many of them then travel across the border to work in England, and that creates an urgent need for new infrastructure.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) in paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on the Severn bridge tolls. Many of my constituents commute through Magor. Does my hon. Friend agree that a station there would help to manage overcrowding, because people from Magor would not have to drive to Newport to join their trains there?
Jessica Morden
That is very true, and I will expand on that point later.
Rail travel in our area is growing and growing, and we need the infrastructure to cope with that. Young people in particular need to be able to access work opportunities, not only in Newport and Cardiff, but in Bristol and also further afield. Those are two of the reasons why the campaign for this new station has so much public support.
I pay tribute to the Magor Action Group on Rail, a volunteer group that has campaigned with great energy over the past six years for a new railway station. From small beginnings, it has worked tirelessly and professionally —my constituency is blessed with a number of former railway workers and enthusiasts—to develop this idea that has caught the imagination of the local community and businesses, which the group has kept involved every step of the way. The group has won support for its campaign by organising many productive meetings with the Department for Transport, the Welsh Government, Network Rail, Railfuture, Sustrans, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales and Transport for Wales. It has also secured the wholehearted support of the local authority, Monmouthshire County Council, and that of elected representatives of all political persuasions—not just myself, but Newport East Assembly Member John Griffiths, regional Assembly Members of different parties, the Magor with Undy Community Council and ward county councillors representing the area of Severnside as a whole.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady has outlined the importance of a reliable, working public transport system. Statistics show that 55% of rural households are within 8 km of a hospital, but does she agree that if they are without access to a network of reliable, timely public transport, the Government must look into funding better public transport links such as the one to which she refers to ensure that the general public can access such facilities?
Jessica Morden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is very true that we have to connect our rural communities in a better way, and I will say a bit more about that later.
Monmouthshire County Council says:
“The return of railway travel for Magor with Undy after many years will be welcomed by the community and offer many benefits. It will bring employment, retail, healthcare, education and leisure opportunities closer for residents and reduce traffic growth on congested local roads. It will significantly reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from transport and promote sustainable integrated travel.”
Indeed, one of the unique assets of the future station is that it would be one of the first community adopted walkway—rather than parkway—stations. It would be based in a central location within a 10 to 15 minute walk or cycle ride for all residents of Magor and Undy. That would tie in closely with the Welsh Government’s Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, which encourages a cultural shift that leads people to get out of their cars where possible. It is estimated that a new station in Magor would have the potential to reduce traffic on the nearby busy B4245 by as many as 60,000 vehicles a year. The walkway concept also allows room for a multi-modal, integrated approach to public transport, linking in with local bus services.
Sustrans, the charity that encourages walking and cycling, is particularly supportive of the walkway station concept. Gwyn Smith, the network development manager for south Wales, says:
“Magor has a good network of paths that can easily lead to the proposed station site giving excellent opportunities for active travel. The scheme is well supported by the local community and the evidence we have seen is that it will be well used and is technically more feasible than other options. Recent transport modelling Sustrans carried out in south east Wales area also demonstrates that journey times from this area (using Severn Tunnel Junction and Caldicot stations) to Newport and Cardiff are significantly shorter than by car, making using the train the preferred option for many.”
Sophie Howe, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, has also voiced her support for the project, which she highlights will contribute to all seven of the national wellbeing goals outlined in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. She says:
“One of the goals of the Act calls on public bodies to contribute to a Wales of cohesive communities and this campaign has already highlighted what a positive asset this can be for the 6,500 people who live in this village in promoting, for example, local businesses, tourism and tackling loneliness and isolation. Additionally, I believe this station will contribute to creating a more resilient Wales. It’s believed that 11,000 vehicles a day use the B4245 and such a station could significantly decrease the CO2 emissions from these journeys and reduce traffic growth on congested local roads.”
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Does my hon. Friend agree that such a model, which clearly involves huge environmental benefits and benefits from exercise, is something that we could consider right across Wales, especially if this project is a success?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is a good model for us to consider, and we could learn much from this unique project.
The Magor Action Group on Rail highlights the fact that the idea of a walkway station is obviously not new. It was the norm before the rise of the motorcar, when the local station was one of the main points of focus for the community. The group has recognised that in its development of plans for a community adopted station, integrating it with a much-needed community centre and ticket office. As group member Ted Hand said, the project is uniquely “back to the future”. The ultimate goal is for the walkway station, community centre and incorporated orchard and fields to become a community hub for social activity and public transport.
It is important to note that there is a clear historical precedent for a station serving the communities of Magor and Undy, which sit between the city of Newport and the town of Caldicot. The villages were served by two stations, Magor and Undy Halt, until 1964 when the first of the two now-infamous Beeching reports initiated their closure after around 110 years of service. At the time of closure, the villages of Magor and Undy had a combined population of around 1,000. Since then, the population has grown sixfold and, with further local housing developments on the way, the population is projected to rise to around 10,000 in the next few years. The two villages have become extremely popular with those who commute to Newport, Cardiff and Bristol—48% of residents travel out of the area to work—but there are also major employers on the doorstep, with large Tesco and Wilko distribution centres, and the AB InBev Magor brewery, drawing in workers from across the wider region.
Population growth becomes all the more significant when we consider the remarkable increase in demand for services on the Great Western mainline, which passes through Magor and Undy. Over the past 20 years, Newport station has seen a 108% increase in passenger numbers and Caldicot has seen a 111% increase. Severn Tunnel Junction, which is currently the nearest station to Magor, has experienced a staggering 297% increase in entries and exits, which is the highest growth at any station on the Great Western mainline. The Cardiff to Cheltenham line, which takes in all the stations in my constituency, also has the highest user growth of any line emanating from Cardiff.
As I have highlighted on other occasions, the railway network in this part of south-east Wales had been plagued by chronic overcrowding and unreliable services, which is one of the many reasons why we need investment in our rail infrastructure, including new stations like Magor, to adapt to modern demands. On that note, I pay tribute to the Severn Tunnel Action Group, another local rail group, which has done much to collect statistics and campaign positively for improvements in rail capacity over the years.
The Government’s industrial strategy talks about the need to back economic growth corridors between Wales and England and the need to maximise the benefits to the Bristol-Newport-Cardiff area that will arise from the abolition of the bridge tolls. That is one reason why I have relentlessly raised the need to improve cross-border rail services at Transport questions and with the Secretary of State for Wales.
A Welsh Government-commissioned report from 2012 calculated that scrapping the Severn bridge tolls
“would result in an estimated increase in traffic across of 12%. This is equivalent to around 11,000 vehicles per day.”
More recent Welsh Government modelling suggests that, in the area immediately adjacent to the Severn crossings, traffic levels could increase by around 20%, which clearly emphasises the need to get more people on to rail to reduce congestion. Much better rail services are needed.
The costs associated with building a new station are relatively modest. A new footbridge is already in place; the signalling arrangements would not need to be changed; an existing subway could be upgraded to become DDA compliant; and the track layout—switching or slewing—would not need to be altered. In any case, the estimated building costs, around £7 million, are more than offset by the excellent predicted return on investment, a high 2. Meanwhile, as the platforms would be on key relief lines, key inter-city services, including those between London Paddington and Swansea, would not be affected in any way.
Since 2012, the Magor Action Group and Monmouthshire County Council have made huge strides towards securing this new station for the community, getting the funding they need to progress through the eight-stage mandatory “governance for railway investment projects” process. The GRIP 1 and GRIP 2 studies were completed by April 2016, and an application was made to the UK Government’s new station fund later that year. Although the bid was unsuccessful on that occasion, the group was offered a subsequent meeting with officials from the Department for Transport later in the year. The group was encouraged to resubmit as soon as it had completed GRIP 3.
Very positive news then followed, with Welsh Government Minister Ken Skates announcing that the Welsh Government would fund Monmouthshire County Council to complete GRIP 3. Good progress is being made on GRIP 3, and I understand that the second part of the options report is nearing completion.
The economic and operational viability of the proposed station is looking increasingly sound, and with continued support from the Welsh Government and further support from the Department for Transport, and with funding, the Magor Action Group is confident that a new station could be opened by the end of 2021. That would mean Magor station, alongside a new station at Llanwern, could form an important part of the South Wales metro project being developed by the Welsh Government, which is a key step towards a truly integrated transport network for our region.
Can the Department for Transport provide further support to the proposal for a new station, building on the very positive meeting between DFT officials and the Magor Action Group in November? Will the Minister meet the group to discuss its plans in more detail? I would also be grateful if he confirmed whether the group can apply to the new stations fund as soon as the GRIP 3 study is completed, regardless of whether the third round of the new stations fund has opened. The group has heard positive noises, and it would be good to get that on the record.
I again thank the group, including long-time members Ted Hand, Paul Turner, Laurence Hando, Phil Inskip, Councillor Frances Taylor—the councillor for Magor—Julie Wilson, Peter Wilson, Steve Lucas, Murray Ross and more, for all the work they have undertaken over the years. I emphasise to the Minister that I share their enthusiasm for their project. This is a group of very positive, creative and enthusiastic people, and it is a great pleasure to work with them as their constituency MP.
As group member Paul Turner has rightly said to me, the walkway station and potential community hub can
“help reduce traffic pollution, improve road safety, provide better access to public transport and places of employment, attract visitors into the community and improve social cohesion and wellbeing in the villages for current and future generations.”
One of the most encouraging parts of the campaign is the way the group has engaged with the two local schools, Undy and Magor, to talk to pupils about the need for a new station. With that in mind, I finish with a quote from the pupils of Magor Church in Wales Primary School, who wrote a letter to the previous Prime Minister in support of a new station for the village. They said:
“Magor is such a stable, peaceful area and it needs to stay that way. Gorgeous areas like ours are quickly disappearing and ours cannot. A station at Magor would reduce car fumes which are harming the environment so please help us get a station.”
With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister gave this project his attention and had a close look, met the group and offered his support.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing this important debate about the proposed Magor with Undy walkway new station and on highlighting the good work done locally in her constituency to take this project forward. We understand how important stations are to passengers, but as well as providing access points to the network, they are often important to the wider community, especially in rural areas. We are therefore committed to providing funding to improve stations and provide new ones. For example, each franchise has funding set aside for station improvements, and we have continued the Access for All programme to improve disabled access to stations. As Members are no doubt aware, we have also run two funding competitions for our new stations fund and we have been able to make funding available to support the building or reopening of five new stations. Four of those are already complete, including Pye Corner in south Wales, and a fifth, Kenilworth, began running services this morning—this is the first time the town has had a rail service for more than 50 years.
Magor and Undy’s was one of the19 bids we received in 2016 for the latest—the second—round of new stations funding. As the hon. Lady said, the proposal was for a new, accessible, two-platform station to the east of Newport, between the Newport and Severn Tunnel Junction stations. The proposal was to run three trains every two hours in each direction. The project was promoted by the Magor Action Group On Rail—MAGOR—and Monmouthshire County Council. I understand it also had support from the Welsh Assembly Government. The bid met the initial qualifying criteria and we felt there was a good strategic case for the station, connecting a growing residential area to the rail network. The site is also in an area where the population is expanding rapidly and, clearly, a new station would bring employment, retail, healthcare, education and leisure opportunities closer for residents and would reduce traffic growth on congested local roads.
However, we felt that the bid needed some further development work before we could support it. No analysis of the financial business case could be carried out and we felt that the timetabling impact of the new station needed further modelling. Last year, as the hon. Lady said, officials from the Department met MAGOR, the county council and Network Rail to give feedback on the bid and to suggest how it could be progressed. Like her, I have been told that this was a very positive meeting, and my team were impressed with the knowledge and commitment of the promotors. I know from the MAGOR website that the development work is continuing, and I look forward to seeing a more developed proposal in the future.
As for how the project can be taken forward and funded, hon. Members will no doubt be aware that the Government recently announced that they would be taking a new approach to enhancements going forward. The rail network enhancements pipeline sets out further information on the new approach the Government are taking to enhance the railway across England and Wales. This establishes a pipeline that moves the investment in rail enhancements away from a rigid five-year cycle, creating instead a rolling programme of investment, focused on the outcomes that deliver real benefits to passengers, freight users and the economy.
Through the rail network enhancement pipeline, the Government are committed to considering the regional spread of the overall portfolio of investments when making decisions about individual enhancements, making use of the Department for Transport’s rebalancing toolkit, where appropriate. However, we recognise that in the Department we do not have a monopoly on good ideas, which is why we have recently announced a call for ideas for rail improvements. We would welcome proposals from the hon. Lady and from her constituents that are financially credible without Government support, including for stations.
The rail network enhancement pipeline makes it clear that the Government’s focus for investment will be on the outcomes that make a real difference to rail users, rather than on the specific infrastructure, rolling stock or technology interventions to achieve that. I note and welcome the fact that the Welsh Government are taking a similar passenger-benefits-focused approach to procurement for the south Wales metro and the decisions on the appropriate technologies for delivery.
The Department will continue to liaise closely with the Welsh Government on the development of enhancement options for England and Wales, to ensure that Welsh requirements for increased capacity on the network are fully reflected. I hope that the hon. Lady and other Members have been reassured that the Government remain committed to investment that will improve rail services and passenger experience in Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Royal Wedding Licensing Hours) Order 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Royal Wedding Licensing Hours) Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. The draft order was laid before Parliament on 21 March. Prince Harry will celebrate his wedding to Ms Meghan Markle on Saturday 19 May. The Government consider that a nationally significant event, and many people will wish to celebrate the occasion. The order therefore makes provision, under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, to relax licensing arrangements and allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours, on Friday 18 and Saturday 19 May, from 11 pm until 1 am the following mornings to mark the occasion of the royal wedding. This provision relates to premises licences and club premises certificates. It will mean that premises that have licences for the sale of alcohol will just be able to carry on selling alcohol, without having to fill in extra paperwork for a temporary events notice. Premises licensed to provide regulated entertainment or music may do so until 1 am on the nights covered by the order, even if the premises are not licensed to sell alcohol.
However, premises that sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets, are not covered by the order and nor are premises that provide late-night refreshment but do not sell alcohol; they will be able to provide late-night refreshment until 1 am only if their existing licence already permits that.
Licensing hours have previously been extended for Her Majesty the Queen’s 90th birthday celebrations in 2016, for the FIFA World cup in 2014, for the Queen’s diamond jubilee in 2012 and for the royal wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton in 2011. I hope that the Committee will agree with the Government that the licensing hours order is an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the 2003 Act. Some have said that the passing of this order is conditional on members of the Committee being invited to the royal wedding—I am just floating that, so that the powers that be hear it. I commend the order to the Committee.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your wonderful chairmanship, Mr Owen. The wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on Saturday 19 May promises to be a wonderful occasion and an opportunity for the country to celebrate. I welcome the announcement that, during the celebration period, licensing hours will be extended. This is in line with similar extensions for other royal events, such as the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Queen’s diamond jubilee and 90th birthday.
My only concern—apart from the lack of an invitation—is the fact that the wedding coincides with the FA cup final between Manchester United and Chelsea. Although that will allow supporters to extend their celebrations or commiserations, consideration must be given to the problems that can arise in licensed venues and city centres throughout the country following such events, even with unextended licensing hours. We must therefore ensure that additional resources from our emergency services are employed on these days. We will need extra police, paramedics and first aid services to be available around the country to ensure that the festivities associated with both events can be enjoyed by everyone everywhere.
Although it would have been fantastic for us all to have received an invitation—I am keeping a beady eye on the post just in case—I am sure that we would all like to join together from afar in wishing Harry and Meghan a perfect day and a happy life together. We can do that by using the extended licensing hours to celebrate their marriage sensibly and safely, with the support of our amazing emergency services.
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for responding in her usual stylish and thoughtful way. The Government share the hope that the football-related celebrations will not spill over into anything other than good cheer and good will. We take some comfort from the fact that Her Majesty’s 90th birthday coincided with two Euro 2016 matches involving England and Wales and there were no reports on that occasion, or during the extension of licensing hours for the 2014 World cup, of increased disorder as a result of the extensions. We have looked carefully at the responses in the surveys. No evidence was received from the police or other respondents to the consultation demonstrating that there would be any increase in football-related disorder as a result of the extension, but of course our very responsible chief constables, police and crime commissioners and, indeed, all people concerned in the emergency services will be taking that into account. I hope that they have a chance to celebrate, along with the rest of the country.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way before she concludes her remarks?
Mr Hayes
I will not comment on that. My hon. Friend is making a compelling case, which is clearly supported on both sides of the Committee. I wonder whether she might explore whether there are other occasions on which this exceptional extension of licensing might prevail. Her Majesty is now a great age, and it seems to me that her birthday might be celebrated each and every year; and there might be occasions—Trafalgar day, for example, and other great national days—for which an extension of licensing, in a modest and considered way, could be taken into account. I am sure that my hon. Friend has the information at her fingertips, but if not, she might write to the members of the Committee.
Victoria Atkins
I note that the provision in the 2003 Act refers to a nationally significant event and I can only think that my right hon. Friend has omitted one important occasion from the list that he has outlined—his own birthday! I will very happily take his thoughtful suggestion and look into whether there are other occasions on which extensions should be granted, and will of course communicate to him my thoughts on that in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Mandatory Use Of Closed Circuit Television In Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am delighted to introduce these important regulations, which meet the Government’s manifesto commitment to make CCTV recording in slaughterhouses mandatory in England. Our manifesto commitment reflected widespread public concern about animal welfare in slaughterhouses. The regulations are made under powers in section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
At the outset, I would like to emphasise that although certain provisions of the regulations—which require operators to install a CCTV system—come into force on 4 May, the regulations are drafted so that there is a transition period of six months before the offences and enforcement provisions come into force. That means that slaughterhouses have until 5 November to install a suitable CCTV system and become compliant with the regulations.
The Government have encouraged the voluntary uptake of CCTV in slaughterhouses for several years, but recently the number of slaughterhouses installing CCTV has stalled. In 2016, only 50% of red meat slaughterhouses and 70% of white meat slaughterhouses had some level of CCTV for animal welfare purposes, which is a similar level to the 2013 Food Standards Agency survey.
Slaughterhouses that had installed CCTV had not always done so in a comprehensive manner. In 2016, only 46% of slaughterhouses with CCTV had coverage in the unloading area. The level of CCTV coverage was even lower in the stun area, with less than 40% of slaughterhouses having CCTV in that area or in the bleed area. Even in slaughterhouses where CCTV is installed, key areas are not always covered by cameras.
In February 2015, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee—FAWC—produced an independent assessment of the benefits of CCTV in slaughterhouses. It identified that CCTV offers real benefits as an important and complementary aid to the official inspection of slaughterhouse practices and as an evidential method of recording animal welfare abuses.
FAWC also identified significant benefits of CCTV systems to slaughterhouse operators, from in-house review of their operations and effective staff training to providing evidence of due diligence. That can increase public confidence in the meat industry and its adherence to the UK’s high animal welfare standards.
FAWC’s report provided a useful basis for the Government’s proposals on mandatory CCTV that we published last summer. We received nearly 4,000 responses to that public consultation, with more than 99% in favour of mandatory CCTV recording in all slaughterhouses.
The regulations will require all slaughterhouse operators to install and operate a CCTV system that provides a clear and complete picture of areas where live animals are present. That will include areas where animals are unloaded, lairaged, handled, restrained, stunned and killed. We expect CCTV installations and their use to be proportionate to the size of premises and their throughput.
An official veterinarian is still required in every slaughterhouse when in operation. Slaughterhouse operators will be required to provide access to CCTV recordings for the FSA’s official veterinarian and other authorised inspectors. Access to CCTV recordings for monitoring, verification and enforcement purposes is essential, and will be especially useful where the official veterinarian undertakes other duties in the slaughterhouse and does not directly witness all incidents.
We expect OVs to carry out a timely review of CCTV to address any immediate welfare incidents, and to take advisory or enforcement action. None the less, the slaughterhouse operator will need to retain recorded images and information for 90 days. That is in line with the requirements of some farm assurance schemes, and was the duration we arrived at following our consultation.
Although CCTV will not replace, reduce or be considered a substitute for current inspection and controls of slaughterhouse practices by official veterinarians, access to CCTV recordings will provide more opportunities to assess compliance with animal welfare requirements on a proactive and reactive basis.
I turn now to why we are applying this to all slaughterhouses. We believe that the requirements for mandatory CCTV recording should be applied to all approved slaughterhouses, regardless of size, on the basis that all animals should be offered the same level of protection at the time of killing. Some 95% of our meat is killed in abattoirs that already have CCTV in some form, because the larger abattoirs tend to have CCTV. The regulations ensure that all slaughterhouses of whatever size must now have CCTV at all stages of the process. Slaughterhouses that supply the main supermarkets already have CCTV, but we want to ensure there is comprehensive coverage.
We are conscious that some of the businesses affected by this legislation are small, so we thought it appropriate in these regulations to allow six months for businesses to become compliant. In view of the considerable gains to animal welfare and the many other benefits identified, particularly for the slaughterhouse operator, the Government consider that the benefits justify the costs involved and do not deem direct financial support to the sector for CCTV to be something that should be borne by the taxpayer, although grant funding is available to slaughterhouses under a number of schemes.
The regulations will introduce mandatory CCTV recording in all 270 slaughterhouses in England, as an additional monitoring and enforcement measure to ensure that animals are spared avoidable pain, distress or suffering during the slaughter process. They form part of an important package of reforms that the Government are delivering to improve animal welfare, such as the new system of local authority licensing of activities involving animals and the publication of updated animal welfare codes of practice. The regulations are proportionate and targeted, and will help to improve animal welfare at slaughter.
In conclusion, the regulations have been widely welcomed by many organisations, such as the British Veterinary Association, and will greatly assist the Food Standards Agency, which has been most supportive of the Government’s proposals. I also appreciate that this issue has received support from many Members from all parties in the House. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I welcome the Minister to his place. He will be pleased to hear that we will not oppose these regulations; in fact, we greatly welcome them. However, as always with the official Opposition, we have a number of questions. I will give the Minister plenty of chance to answer them, although he may want to send some answers in a more detailed form subsequently.
As the Minister says, this is a manifesto commitment, and it is clear that it is overwhelmingly popular. I am glad we are making some progress; I only wish we were making as much progress on circus animals, the ivory trade ban and live exports, all of which are within the area of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We need to make progress on those as well. The Minister rightly says that these regulations have been properly consulted on, both within Government and externally. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee is a committee chosen by Government, so in a sense we would be surprised if it came up with anything that was not helpful to the Government, but most of the proposals put forward are laudable in their own way.
I start by saying that this is not a replacement for the way in which slaughterhouses are currently overseen. We feel strongly that this is an addition to the work of official veterinarians and indeed the FSA. I will make some points about that in the questions I put to the Minister at the end. We are worried about some of the cost implications, because over a long period of time there has been an argument for keeping slaughter close to where animals are reared, which will be difficult if we are to lose even more of our smaller abattoirs. The Minister talked about a grant regime. Some of the smaller slaughterhouses will potentially suffer because of the relative speed with which these regulations are being introduced and, although the objective behind the regulations is a good one, they will further threaten some of the smaller abattoirs. We lost something like 187 abattoirs in the period from 2001 to 2017, under both Labour and Conservative Governments. So, although we see the benefits of these regulations, there will be some issues.
Of course, these regulations come on the back of what is a pretty awful situation. It took some of the filming that Animal Aid did inside slaughterhouses to show the abuse that has gone on. At the top end of the trade, we may have a very good voluntary agreement, whereby those abattoirs have brought CCTV into use, but it has come on the back of a number of filmed reports showing the very poor nature of what goes on at the bottom end of the trade.
Nevertheless, we very much welcome these regulations. We look forward to seeing how they will be implemented and to seeing this work being done in a comprehensive way. I would be interested to know why the de minimis figure of 200 has now moved on to CCTV coming into every slaughterhouse; it would be interesting to know how the Government came to that conclusion.
There was not a huge response from the industry itself to the consultation, although the public had a view; indeed, many of the voluntary animal welfare organisations had a very strong view. As for the industry itself, however, I have the figure of 257, although the Minister has the figure of 270; we will not argue over 13. The reality is that the industry and slaughterhouses were not really that clued into the consultation. Maybe those slaughterhouses that responded were the ones who expected this change to happen, because they already had CCTV. Nevertheless, there was a disappointing response from those involved in the slaughter process.
I will move on quickly to my 10 questions. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Well, they are very important questions. I have used the terms “abattoir” and “slaughterhouse” as interchangeable terms. Can the Minister explain what the difference is between an “abattoir” and a “slaughterhouse”, because abattoirs have traditionally been at the public end and slaughterhouses have included private slaughterhouses? It would be helpful to know the legal definitions of “abattoir” and “slaughterhouse”.
Secondly, it would be interesting to know who has the final say-so on where CCTV will be placed. Will it be the industry, through self-regulation, or will it be the FSA or local authorities? In fact, that is my third question: where is the border between what local authorities have traditionally done, by going in and looking at some of the issues related to how these particular businesses have been run, and the work of the Meat Hygiene Service, which of course is now under the FSA? Where is the line between those two?
That question is particularly appropriate, because today’s report of a 40% cut in the number of meat hygiene inspectors was quite dramatic. I do not know where people will come from to do this work, because that body already has a shortage of people overseeing what is happening at the moment. Also, with the addition of CCTV, somebody has to look at all the tapes, otherwise installing CCTV will be a meaningless exercise.
That leads into the issue of the worry that some of us have about primary agency, with local authorities now less likely to inspect their own abattoirs and slaughterhouses; instead, that work will be passed on to some specialist local authority. In the past, that has caused some difficulties. So, could the Minister say how we will boost local authorities, because if they are going to do this job properly they will need to build it into their cost structure?
My fifth question relates to cost, which I have already touched on, and the help that may be available to smaller bodies. The 2006 Act is interesting with regard to who has access to the videos. Will the Minister explain categorically what access the public will get, given that it is they who have driven this change? It would be good to know what access the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and other animal welfare agencies that may suspect malpractice, will get alongside the statutory authorities.
Religious slaughter is a difficult area and it has not been touched on. How will those slaughterhouses that specialise in halal and shechita slaughter, or that sometimes turn their lines over to it, handle public interest in the manner of the slaughter? The proposed secondary legislation does not mention religious slaughter. Will it apply or will religious slaughter be exempt? Will such slaughterhouses be treated the same as or differently from others?
I have almost reached the end of my comments, so Members can relax. I have touched on the industry’s relative, and surprising, lack of interest. I will touch on it quickly. It is expected to keep a record for 90 days. Who will oversee that to make sure that the information is appropriately stored? That is a long time to keep a video record and it must be done properly. If there is any abuse, it will clearly lead to people believing that the situation is less easy to control than some of us wanted.
Finally, sadly some of the problems with the meat trade as a whole come after slaughter has occurred. We are discussing installing CCTV only in live animal areas. Given problems with and allegations of contaminated meat sometimes being dealt with inappropriately, what evidence would the Government seek in order to put CCTV at the other end so that we could look not just at the live animal trade but at the way in which meat is handled in general? That matters because it is where some of the problems come from.
I have asked 10 questions, including some that ran into each other. I hope that the Minister will allay our fears that this measure is not as great a change as some of us want it to be. It is, nevertheless, a welcome development, and the Government should be congratulated on introducing it at this early stage.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. Obviously, I welcome the measure. I have pushed for it for a long time. The fact that the Government have legislated demonstrates their recognition that, as in so many instances, the voluntary approach does not always work to the extent that we would like. As I understand it, all the major supermarkets source meat from slaughterhouses with CCTV, but that is only one end of the market. Supermarkets are concerned about their public reputation and are susceptible to public opinion. There are others, however, that are not so bothered, that go to the smaller slaughterhouses and whose selling practices are far less scrutinised. They do not care about CCTV installation and we are not likely to be able to persuade them to take the voluntary approach. It is only those that are at the top end of the chain that will choose to do that, so it is important that we are resorting to making it mandatory.
Some 900 million farm animals are killed for food each year in this country. People who are aware of my beliefs will know that I do not accept that there is such a thing as humane slaughter, but that does not mean that I do not think that we should not argue for conditions to be as humane as possible, if that is not a contradiction in terms. Animal welfare standards need to be improved, and the food safety element of that is incredibly important. CCTV will go some way towards ensuring that standards are much higher, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, unless there is enforcement and scrutiny, with someone watching the CCTV and coming in to check it, it will be meaningless.
There have been several undercover investigations and exposés. Animal Aid and Animal Equality have been mentioned, and I have seen some horrible virtual reality footage of what has happened to pigs in slaughterhouses. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has also done some very good work. In August 2016, through freedom of information requests, it found that there had been more than 4,000 severe breaches of animal welfare regulations in the previous two years in British slaughterhouses. In fact, there had been 9,500 animal welfare breaches, of which nearly half were category 4, which is the most serious. A single breach can include hundreds of animals, so we are not just talking about 4,500 animals that were treated appallingly; we could be talking about many more. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism highlighted instances of cruelty and neglect, and equipment failure, which can all lead to animals being slaughtered in a horrendous way.
I recently asked a series of parliamentary questions about enforcing current standards and following-up where breaches have been identified. The information I got back was shocking. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs stated in its answers that out of the 467 slaughterhouses that the FSA has audited since 2010, 65 received one unsatisfactory audit result and another 70 received multiple, successive unsatisfactory audit results. That means that nearly a third of slaughterhouses have failed their audit in some way in the past seven years, but in that time, only four slaughterhouses have had their approval withdrawn: S Bagshaw and Sons and Simply Halal for “welfare abuses”, and the Cleveland Meat Company and Summers Poultry Products for “serious deficiencies in operational hygiene procedure”. That is two approvals withdrawn for animal welfare and two for food safety.
It seems as though no action is being taken against the dozens of slaughterhouses that have received unsatisfactory audit results. They have not had their approval withdrawn, but have been allowed to carry on with business as usual. They need to be forced to make improvements, but the fact that they seem to be able to fail the audit process multiple times without action being taken suggests that failing once would not be a deterrent to them. There seems to be no suggestion that their approval would be suspended until improvements are made.
The FSA says that it will prevent a slaughterhouse from continuing to operate only if there is an imminent risk to public health or if there are serious breaches in animal welfare. Those are obviously low bars to have set, which means that an awful lot of breaches will be allowed to pass without any action being taken. Numerous potential violations would be of concern to the public if they knew about them, whether or not they cared about animal welfare. Most people would also be concerned if food hygiene was not up to scratch, and we have seen many reports about such failings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said. The 2 Sisters investigation is not just about conditions in slaughterhouses or animal welfare; it is about the way the carcases are treated as they are processed for sale.
DEFRA admitted to me that the receipt of an unsatisfactory audit result determines only the frequency of future audits and unannounced inspections. In other words, if a slaughterhouse fails an audit once, they are more likely to get checked again. As I have said, however, that does not lead to any action being taken. Certainly for weeks, but potentially for months, the slaughterhouse would be allowed to continue operating and putting out meat that has been produced in deficient circumstances.
Installing CCTV in all slaughterhouses will go some way to preventing lapses in hygiene standards and animal welfare abuses, but it partly depends on where the cameras are positioned and, above all, whether there is important action at the end of it. There is still a hands-off, light-touch approach to audits and inspections at the moment, which the Government have constructed. We need to rethink how we monitor food safety and animal welfare standards before another scandal occurs.
I just want to mention one more thing in passing—as we always expect, Brexit rears its ugly head. I am concerned by reports that I have read—last month in The Guardian, for example—about the growth in the number of high-speed slaughterhouses in the US, where 21 pigs a minute are slaughtered. Sixty Members of Congress wrote a letter saying that
“rapid line speeds present some of the greatest risks of inhumane treatment as workers are often pressured to take violent shortcuts to keep up.”
The undercover investigation of the slaughterhouse where so many pigs were being killed said not only that pigs were covered in abscesses and faeces and other fairly disgusting things, but also that there were workers beating, dragging and prodding the pigs towards slaughter, because they had to keep up with that incredibly fast pace. As I have said, I do not particularly subscribe to the idea of humane slaughter, but certainly that is inhumane slaughter, taken to the nth degree. I should hope that with Brexit, as we open our doors to US trade deals, we will stand firm against that.
Finally—the Minister will know that this is something we have discussed in the past—I think 95% of vets in our abattoirs are EU nationals. There is an issue about what happens if we cannot get the vets to operate in abattoirs and inspect them because they are not allowed into the country. I think at the moment most of them will be allowed to stay and get their five years and residency, but what if we do not attract those vets post-Brexit? I think there is a vet training school in Spain that specifically trains vets to work in abattoirs. Vets in this country do not particularly want to work in them, and we can understand why, as their job is about saving animals’ lives. This is an important issue, which goes to the heart of our debate. There is no point in having cameras recording what goes on if we cannot get our house in order in the first place, and then follow up and make sure that the rules are followed.
George Eustice
I shall try to cover as many points as possible. I am grateful for the support of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud, on the regulations. There has truly been cross-party support on this issue for a number of years. I want to address some of the legitimate concerns that he raised, on which I think I shall be able to give him the reassurance he wants.
First, we are absolutely clear that the introduction of CCTV in slaughterhouses is not a replacement for the current inspection regime. It does not mean we are going to change the requirement for full-time official veterinarians on hand in the abattoirs. We are not planning to change any of the existing requirements. The CCTV is in addition to, rather than a replacement for, OVs and other inspections.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of cost. Like him, I would not want to damage some of the smaller abattoirs, whose existence means animals do not have to travel so far. If we close down more abattoirs, more animals will have to travel further. However, the cost is quite modest: the cost of CCTV systems has been coming down a lot in recent years. We estimate that the average cost for most smaller abattoirs will be in the region of £2,500. As I said in my opening remarks, we do not envisage paying the cost directly, because it is fairly modest even for small abattoirs.
The other thing to notice is that, as the report by FAWC identified, there are commercial benefits for food business operators in having CCTV in place, because it can help them to manage their lairage facilities. For instance, in its report FAWC highlighted the fact that it is easier to spot lameness or other problems in sheep with CCTV than when someone comes and perhaps spooks the animals. We believe there are advantages and cost savings to small businesses from putting in CCTV.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the work that organisations such as Animal Aid have done. I agree with him. In fact, one thing that a couple of years ago made me determined to make changes was that I frankly did not think it was good enough that we seemed all too often to have to rely on activists making surreptitious recordings. After the event we would inspect and carry out enforcement on the basis of the footage that had been surreptitiously collected. That is not the right way to run things. If it is the case that some of our official veterinarians were unable to spot bad practice and malpractice in those abattoirs, it is right that we make it a legal requirement to have CCTV in slaughterhouses.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we believe it is necessary to require this of all abattoirs, given that, as I said in my opening remarks, some 95% of animals are currently slaughtered in abattoirs that have CCTV. For me, there are a couple of reasons why we need to do that. First, some of the problems we have experienced are in those smaller or medium-sized abattoirs that do not always have CCTV in place. Secondly, the larger abattoirs tend to have it, but even in the larger abattoirs we have seen problems. The hon. Member for Bristol East raised a couple of cases where enforcements were brought; in those cases, sometimes there was CCTV in place but they were not adequately monitoring it or recording all areas, so even with CCTV they were not picking up those problems. Therefore, having legal clarity about CCTV covering all areas where there are live animals is the right approach to take.
The hon. Member for Stroud highlighted the fact that, of all the responses, only a small number were from the industry. To be fair to the industry, as he pointed out, we have lost a lot of abattoirs, so they are small in number, and we had thousands of responses to the consultation because it is an issue the public care about deeply. My conversations with the industry and representative bodies on this issue have shown that their view has broadly come round to the idea. Rather than have voluntary codes and chivvy people to join such schemes and voluntarily adopt CCTV, the industry has increasingly got to the point where it would rather have a level playing field and, if we want to bring in regulations, have them applied across the board so that everybody is treated the same. It is fair to say that the industry recognises that there could be some value in this and that there is an advantage in having a level playing field.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the difference between abattoirs and slaughterhouses. I was not aware of that distinction, but I will check. However, I am reliably informed by my officials that in law, commercial slaughterhouses and abattoirs are interchangeable terms. In most of the EU regulations that I see, the term slaughterhouse tends to be used, and in some of the older domestic legislation the term abattoir is sometimes used, but these regulations apply to all commercial slaughterhouses or abattoirs.
The hon. Gentleman asked where cameras will be placed. We have deliberately kept that open, for the important reason that a small abattoir, killing a small number of animals, might be able to cover all areas where there are live animals with just a couple of cameras. A larger abattoir, slaughtering thousands and thousands of animals per day, may need multiple cameras to ensure it is covering all areas. We are clear that it will need to cover all areas, including unloading areas, areas where there is lairage, areas where stunning takes place and the bleed areas. Right up until the point that the animal is dead, there must be a clear CCTV recording.
The hon. Gentleman asked who will decide where the cameras should be placed. The FSA is currently working with the Department to put together guidance on that. Ultimately, the Food Standards Agency and the official veterinarians employed by the FSA in each abattoir will be the final adjudicators on where cameras should go. We envisage it being a discussion with the food business operator, which will need to satisfy the local FSA inspector that the areas where it plans to locate cameras are adequate to satisfy the legislation.
George Eustice
We have designed it in such a way that we will trust the FSA official veterinarian to make that final judgment call and to ensure that the abattoirs that they are responsible for inspecting comply with the legislation. Will I potentially end up with letters from people complaining? Quite possibly. Will I have to get involved? Quite likely. But the intention is that the FSA OVs will lead on that.
The hon. Gentleman asked who would be responsible for inspecting the recordings. Again, that will be the official veterinarians. He referred to local authorities, but it is important to recognise that the FSA is responsible for food safety policy and, in abattoirs, also responsible for enforcing animal welfare policy, although it is not responsible for animal welfare policy. So DEFRA is responsible for animal welfare policy, but the FSA is responsible for implementing in the abattoirs the policy that we set for it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about public access. We do not intend there to be public access to the recordings. I shall explain why. The Farm Animal Welfare Committee looked at the issue in depth and made a very sensible point: used properly, CCTV in slaughterhouses can be an important aid to food business operators. He made the point that a job in an abattoir is not an easy one, and sometimes things go wrong. Most of the time when things go wrong, it is not deliberate—sometimes errors are made. The argument made by FAWC therefore is that we need to create a space where those recordings can be used to help educate and train staff and to pull people up where mistakes might have been made. It might not always be appropriate for that to be publicly available or for there to be a prosecution in every instance.
The hon. Gentleman asked about religious slaughter and slaughterhouses engaged in that. I confirm that yes, the requirements in the draft regulations will apply to religious slaughter, just as they will to any slaughterhouse. There is no exemption for religious slaughter when it comes to the requirement to have CCTV. That is important to enforce existing provisions in national legislation on things such as standstill times and the additional requirements for animals slaughtered in accordance with religious requirements.
The hon. Member for Stroud also asked who will enforce the provision that recordings be kept for 90 days. Again, we will expect that of the official veterinarians. They are full time in the slaughterhouses, and we believe that they can enforce that provision because if they are there every day, they would have a pretty good idea if recordings started to go missing or there were any type of fraud.
The hon. Gentleman asked finally about CCTV after slaughter, but the purpose of the draft regulations is narrow: to protect animal welfare. He is right that there have been some instances in the news recently of wider problems and other types of food fraud being committed, but we have introduced these regulations to protect animal welfare.
I now turn briefly to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bristol East. She talked about her concern that things were not always followed up and that there is not always enforcement. I would say, however, that just because decisions are made not to withdraw an operator’s licence, that does not mean that action has not been taken. Indeed, the WATOK regulations, which govern the welfare of animals at the time of killing, create the powers—though we had similar provisions under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995—to issue stop notices, for example, so an OV can stop a line or any production until something is sorted out. We also take regular action to reduce or remove the licences of individual slaughtermen, where there has been abuse, although we might stop short of reducing or removing the operator’s licence. Other facilities such as improvement notices and so on are also included under the WATOK regulations. Lots can be done short of closing a facility down, which is obviously a severe sanction that we rightly reserve for those activities with which we have the greatest problem.
The hon. Lady mentioned the development in the United States of—as she put it—high-speed slaughter. We have a very different animal welfare culture in the UK from the US, and we have been absolutely clear that we will not reduce our animal welfare standards—far from it; indeed, we would like to enhance them. We are working with a number of organisations on issues such as improving the slaughter of pigs, in particular the gas mixture used, and we have no intention of taking the US route.
On EU nationals, finally, the hon. Lady is right: we have a lot of EU nationals in our slaughterhouses. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we will protect the rights of those who are here and, as a number of hon. Members will know, the Migration Advisory Committee is looking closely at our labour needs after we leave the EU.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018.
Landfill Tax (Disposals Of Material) Order 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Landfill Tax (Disposals of Material) Order 2018 (S.I. 2018, No. 442).
This statutory instrument builds on changes made to landfill tax for England and Northern Ireland in the Finance Act 2018, which clarified what a taxable disposal is for the purpose of the tax, and extended landfill tax to sites that do not have an environmental permit but should have—in layman’s terms, illegal waste sites. In 2008, the Court of Appeal ruled that some materials received on a landfill site are not waste, and therefore not taxable. Clearly, that has created uncertainty about what constitutes a taxable disposal, and has led to increased complexity for landfill site operators, as well as litigation. The order addresses that uncertainty; it will support the legitimate waste management industry by simplifying the tax system and by providing clarity for legitimate landfill site operators.
The order ensures that, for permitted sites, the scope of the tax will remain unchanged. The changes do not alter the burden of the tax or create any additional administrative requirements. The Finance Act cracks down on illegal waste sites by making it harder for rogue operators to profit from evading landfill tax. That is in direct response to calls from industry to remove the financial advantage that rogue operators have over legitimate businesses. As part of that, HMRC has been given the power to pursue complicit individuals across the supply chain. Not only will those individuals be liable for the tax that will be due on the waste, they could additionally face a penalty of up to 100% of the tax liability. In the most serious cases, individuals could be sent to prison, bringing this criminal behaviour in line with other such activity, such as VAT fraud.
The order goes further; it allows certain materials that are prohibited from permitted landfill sites, such as tyres, to be taxable when they are disposed of at sites that do not have environmental permits or licences in place. That ensures that we do not create an obvious loophole and that we further strengthen HMRC’s position on illegal waste sites.
Landfill tax was introduced with the specific aim of discouraging the disposal of waste to landfill, and to encourage more sustainable ways of managing waste. In that, it has been successful in the years since it was introduced, in 2000. The amount of waste sent to landfill has fallen by over 65% in the UK. Over the same period, recycling rates have jumped from 18% to 44%. But changing the economics of sending waste to landfill has in part resulted in fly-tipping and, on a large scale, illegal waste sites, because rogue individuals and criminals have seized the opportunity to undercut legitimate businesses. We are all aware of the prevalence of those sites in many of our constituencies—mine included—and the impact that they have on local communities and the environment. They are a blight and, at times, a risk to health.
It is becoming increasingly clear that a minority of those sites are a direct consequence of organised crime, which appears to have infiltrated the waste industry. At its most serious, those criminals are linked to other concerning areas of criminality, including the drug trade. We take that extremely seriously, but addressing it will take action from across government. Clearly, there is a role for the tax system to play, and that is why we have made these changes to landfill tax in the Finance Act. They are intended to act as a deterrent to individuals looking to profit from this behaviour at the expense of our local communities.
Building on that, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken steps to strengthen the powers of the Environment Agency. In 2017-18, the Environment Agency took 93 successful waste crime prosecutions, resulting in fines totalling in excess of £380,000 and 17 prison sentences. But we must go further. As of this year the Environment Agency has the power to lock the gates of illegal waste sites and block entry, ensuring the prevention of further waste piling up on the sites and increasing all the associated risks to health and the environment.
In the Budget last year, the Chancellor provided the Environment Agency with an additional £30 million specifically to support its work in tackling waste crime, doubling the total provided since 2014. The Environment Agency works with the police and law enforcement agencies to tackle the organised crime element behind much of the problem. We want to see much more aggressive enforcement by the Environment Agency and rogue individuals and criminals brought to book.
The changes implemented by the statutory instrument will help to simplify the tax system and will provide greater clarity and certainty to legitimate landfill operators, but the instrument is only one part of our response to the issue of illegal waste sites, which undercut legitimate businesses, threaten the environment and blight local communities. By making these changes to landfill tax we are taking further steps to tackle the issue. I commend the order to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me to speak on these measures today, Sir David.
According to the Environmental Services Association, landfill tax avoidance is estimated to cost the Exchequer between £150 million and as much as £1 billion a year: a considerable amount of money that could be put into vital public services. In addition to that, as someone who represents the edge of the Greater Manchester conurbation with Derbyshire, we are blighted by the problems of organised fly-tipping in my constituency, so I welcome the chance to speak from the Front Bench today about the measures to ensure that tax is paid at sites that do not have an environmental permit, and I welcome the clarification in the Government’s note that the individuals involved may also be liable to penalties for non-compliance or face prosecution.
Bringing non-permitted sites into the scope of the landfill tax will hopefully make it a less attractive and lucrative option for those seeking to break the law, so we are supportive, although I have some questions for the Minister regarding the changes. Since the introduction of the landfill tax, the Government have stated—the Minister has just repeated it—that the amount of waste going to landfill has reduced by 65%. Can the Minister comment on whether that figure includes the calculation on waste diverted to non-permitted sites? If so, how much further does he expect the amount of waste going to landfill to reduce because of the new measures?
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has previously spoken at great length in the Chamber on issues related to landfill tax. One issue that he raised was money laundering, a timely issue given the debate that we will have tomorrow. Running a landfill site is a high volume business that can involve large amounts of money, so has the Minister done any research into the prevalence of money laundering in the sector? I understand that, according to the Government’s calculations, there were 622 known illegal waste sites in the UK in 2015-16. Will the Minister update us on how many there are now?
Also, are there currently any plans to increase the monitoring of high volume landfill operators through the use of technology? Could we not have a system similar to those used in slaughterhouses and weighbridges where cameras record how many vehicles enter the sites? Given the amount of money estimated to be lost each year through tax avoidance, a small investment in such technology could potentially pay for itself in a short space of time.
There is no doubt that extending the scope of the landfill tax to include non-permitted sites is a positive step that has been welcomed by the industry and those willing to abide by the rules. However, we are also eager to see whether there is more that the Government can do to stamp out illicit activity in the sector, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister plans to address those issues. It seems strange that the measure appears to treat unauthorised sites the same as authorised landfill sites by applying the tax, as the Minister has explained. That seems to show that the current regulatory system for illegal landfill sites is not sufficient. Is it not possible for any resulting funds from the measure to be redirected into the Environment Agency so that it can actually stop the illegal sites in the first place?
Finally, as Members are aware, landfill is devolved in Wales and Scotland. Will the Minister comment briefly on how the Government co-operate with the Welsh and Scottish Governments to deal with the issue if the material illegally deposited is a cross-border problem?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for the constructive comments by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, and I appreciate his concerns. In fact, I met the Mayor of Greater Manchester recently, who mentioned a site near the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in Gartside Farm. I have a site in my constituency, and several members of the Committee have them in theirs, so that is something shared by hon. Members in all parts of the country. We take the issue seriously, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that and is supportive of the measures that we are taking today.
The hon. Gentleman made several points. I do not have the figures for the number of sites to hand, but I am happy to write to him with those. I am advised, however, that the number of illegal waste sites has not increased substantially in recent years. That is not to diminish the fact that there are a large number of them across the country, some of which are deemed by the Environment Agency to be in a state that poses significant risk to the public.
As for monitoring the sites, as I outlined in my opening remarks, we have given the Environment Agency new powers to lock the gates of illegal waste sites and so block entry to ensure that further waste is not piled up, because in most of the more egregious situations the waste takes a number of days, or even weeks, to enter the site. The agency now has more powers.
On funding, so that the Environment Agency can take the action required, as I said the Chancellor has provided the agency with an additional £30 million specifically to support its work in tackling waste crime. That amounts to doubling the total provided since 2014. I work very closely with the Minister responsible at DEFRA, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). I intend to continue doing so, looking at specific sites, at how we might be able to help and at ensuring that the Environment Agency has the powers and resources it requires. That is a dialogue we intend to continue.
On money laundering, there is increasing evidence that the more severe instances of illegal waste sites are linked to organised crime and at times to serious organised crime. That includes money laundering, which is exactly why we are taking the action in the order—to make it less lucrative, and easier for HMRC to take action against criminals and rogue individuals.
More action can be taken in the area, and we at the Treasury are elevating its importance with our colleagues at the Home Office and with those involved in tackling serious organised crime, to ensure that all parties appreciate that illegal waste sites are an extremely concerning area of activity that has progressed from simply fly-tipping to something that poses significant risk to the public.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Minister refers to links to the drugs trade. What did he have in mind when he made that remark?
Robert Jenrick
I have met a number of colleagues from across the House who have such sites in their constituencies, and the evidence we have is only anecdotal, but it is that the individuals behind some of the sites appear to be linked to a range of different criminal activities. That is something that the police and the Environment Agency are aware of and following up on, but I have no specific evidence to bring before the Committee. However, that is certainly the view that has been expressed to me by law-enforcement officers across the country when we have looked into such matters.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
While we have the Minister here and on the landfill tax, I wish to make a brief plea for the landfill tax credit scheme. A number of companies have operated the scheme to provide charitable donations for a whole range of causes, which I will not list now: suffice to say that the scheme is extremely important. Each year, in the run-up to the Budget, the Treasury runs the rule over the scheme and has tightened up some of the scheme criteria, which is fair enough. May I make a plea, however, that when the Treasury does so again next year the scheme is maintained, because it does such good work?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will not comment on what may or may not be in a future Budget, but the point he has made is one that has been heard at the Treasury, certainly in the build-up to and after the most recent Budget and previous ones. From my own constituency, I know the good works that the landfill credits do for local community projects. We are certainly very aware of the point he makes, and we will bear it in mind as we approach the Budget.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Accessibilty in Chinley station
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Minors Entering the UK: 1948 to 1971
(6 years, 7 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 216539 relating to people who entered the UK as minors between 1948 and 1971.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. It is also a great honour to open the debate on this important and pressing issue. To make it clear, I do so as a member of the Petitions Committee, which agreed to schedule the debate today.
I thank the petitioner, Mr Patrick Vernon, whom I had the pleasure of meeting just before the debate, and the more than 178,000 people who have signed the e-petition in just a few days. It calls for an amnesty for any minor who arrived in Britain between 1948 and 1971. Its goes into further detail and includes a link to a story published by The Guardian on 30 March about Elwaldo Romeo, a man who moved from Antigua to the UK nearly 60 years ago as a child and who has lived and worked in this country ever since. Mr Romeo received a letter from the Home Office stating that he was liable to detention as he was classified as a “person without leave.”
After Mr Romeo experienced difficulty in producing documentation to prove his identity and right to remain in the UK, he was asked to report to the Home Office every fortnight and offered help and support to return home voluntarily, according to The Guardian. He is understandably anxious that the Home Office will pay a visit to his doorstep and forcibly detain him.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
During the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the BBC interviewed a Caribbean Prime Minister who stated that this was “more cock-up than conspiracy”. Does that not influence our decision? It was an administrative mistake that must be put right as quickly as possible.
Steve Double
My hon. Friend is right. This is a mistake, not a conspiracy, with a well-meaning policy having been wrongly applied to people to whom it should never have been applied. I will go on to develop that point, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members will do.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am staggered by what the hon. Gentleman said about a “well-meaning policy”. How can the creation of a hostile environment, and putting a hostile environment into a policy, be well meaning? It is time for an apology, not thin, sanctimonious explanation.
Steve Double
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. [Interruption.] If she can wait to hear what I will go on to say, all will become clear. I hope that we can keep the tone of the debate constructive and positive and put right what has gone wrong for the benefit of those who have been affected. Those who want to score political points may feel free to do so, but I will not seek to do that. I will seek to address the concerns of the people who have signed the petition.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the calm tone he has struck in initiating the debate. Given the previous intervention, does he agree that it is important to remember that a Labour Government first coined the term “hostile environment”? [Interruption.]
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said from a sedentary position that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) was wrong in how he had intervened.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady keeps saying an awful lot of stuff from a sedentary position. Does my hon. Friend accept that the rewriting of history on such a sensitive issue is unhelpful to both sides of the debate and to moving this thing forward? For perfectly legitimate reasons at the time, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) referred not only to having a hostile environment but to seeking to flush out illegal migration. “Illegal” is the key word.
Steve Double
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We must be clear in differentiating between illegal immigration and people who clearly have a right to remain in this country but, for all sorts of reasons, are having trouble proving that right. That is the difference. Governments of different parties over many years have taken various steps in robust action against illegal immigration, and rightly so, but when we conflate those two issues in the current situation we do a disservice to those of the Windrush generation who have a legal right to stay.
Steve Double
I will take interventions again in a while, but I need to make some progress.
Mr Romeo’s story was one of many that drew widespread public concern about the status of the Windrush generation and their children, who have spent most if not the entirety of their lives in this country. Other awful examples of treatment faced by members of the Windrush generation have come to light in recent weeks, which has rightly led to many people being concerned, as evidenced by the number of people who have signed the petition in just a few days. While the situation is devastating for all those affected and should never have happened, it provides all of us with a timely reminder to learn from a significant period in time for our nation.
Steve Double
I will make a bit more progress.
It is almost 50 years since the Empire Windrush docked at the port of Tilbury on 22 June 1948. It brought with it the hopes and dreams of more than 500 passengers from the British West Indies who had just been given citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies under the British Nationality Act 1948. Advertisements appeared in local newspapers in Jamaica offering cheap transport for anyone who wanted to make a living in the UK. Among that group of British subjects, nearly half were former servicemen who wanted to return to the nation they were enlisted to fight for during the war, while others were simply attracted to the better opportunities offered by what they affectionately and proudly called the mother country.
The arrival of the Windrush passengers marked the beginning of a multicultural, modern Britain. In the following decades, thousands from the Caribbean and other Commonwealth countries followed in their footsteps. Together, they became known as the Windrush generation. Most intended to stay for a few years, save some money and return to the West Indies. However, as time passed, the majority decided to remain and make this country their home. They married, raised families and built their lives here.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Simply put, if we have a proper inquiry, we can establish who did what, who introduced what, who gave certain instructions and what happened in the Home Office. Targets were part of it and a hostile environment was a part of it. Let us have a proper inquiry to clear it up and find out what actually happened so we do not have this Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Furthermore, it does not stop with the West Indies; I suspect other groups were affected by the same Home Office methods. We should have an inquiry and sort it out.
Steve Double
An inquiry may or may not be appropriate, but my focus is on getting things right for the people who have been affected by the current situation. There are lessons for the Home Office and the Government to learn for the future, and those lessons will be learned, but our focus now needs to be on righting a wrong that has happened and ensuring that the people affected get all the help and support they need at this time.
Steve Double
I will make a bit more progress, then take another intervention.
Life for the Windrush generation was often tough, but this was the generation that worked hard to overcome the many social, economic and cultural challenges of post-war Britain. I want to be clear: the Windrush generation are people who responded to our invitation to come to this country as British subjects, to help us rebuild our country in the years after the war. They are not economic migrants or asylum seekers. Theirs was the generation that helped us build the NHS. They were the people who contributed to Britain’s re-emergence as one of the most prosperous nations in post-war Europe. Indeed, they also played a role in shaping modern Britain, by making us one of the most vibrant and multicultural nations in the world.
It is therefore totally shocking to hear about the treatment of some of the Windrush generation. It is appalling that some of them have been refused access to NHS services, have lost their job, or have even been threatened with deportation. I want to draw attention to the language of the petition that we are debating today. It asks for amnesty for the Windrush generation children. Amnesty is granted to someone who has been found guilty of breaking the law. In the context of the issue before us today, that would imply that the people in question are illegal immigrants. I recognise the intention of the petition but I want to make the important point that those people do not require amnesty: they already have the right to remain here.
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman is right that we must learn the lessons of what happened. However, my constituent, Paulette Wilson, was detained in October. She has been here for 50 years; she worked in the UK. She worked in Parliament, serving MPs. What she, her family and I want to know is why it took her detention, and the appalling treatment of others, for the scandal to come to light.
Steve Double
The hon. Lady makes a very good point and I shall go on to address it. I will just say that on this occasion the Home Office has been too slow to respond. There were warning signs about it and more should have been done sooner. I do not think anyone is arguing anything other than that mistakes have been made that have been deeply damaging to some people’s lives, that it should not have happened, and that we must put it right and make sure it never happens again.
John Spellar
This relates to the core not just of the policy but of the practice. What is wrong with the Home Office? When it is quite clear that things are going wrong, why is there no overriding corrective mechanism? When senior officials are approached by Members of Parliament why do they not look at the matter again in the light of what has been raised with them? Why do Ministers not intervene to resolve it? Why has it taken so long, when it was crystal clear, in the press and in correspondence, that something was going seriously wrong? There is a deep structural problem in the Home Office immigration department that needs to be addressed.
Steve Double
I would respectfully say to the right hon. Gentleman that I suspect that question is more for the Minister than for me. I think it is above my pay grade to answer for the Government on those issues. I recognise that there are such issues, but perhaps the Minister will respond or the right hon. Gentleman will raise the issue later.
We have a duty to ensure that the Windrush generation and their children know that they are welcome here and belong here. We do not want any Commonwealth citizens who came to this country between 1948 and 1971, and who made their life in the UK as law-abiding citizens, to feel unwelcome or to be in any doubt about their future in this country. It should be stated that the response from the Home Office to the situation has been too slow. Not only should the situation never have occurred, but once it was known about the Government should have spotted what was happening and reacted much more quickly. However, although they are late, I commend the actions that the Government are now taking to help the Windrush generation and their children to obtain their right to remain here. The clear apologies from the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have been welcome, but we need more than words. We need action to correct what has gone wrong.
The then Home Secretary first announced on Monday 16 April that she was establishing a new dedicated team to help the Windrush generation to evidence their right to be here and to access the public services that they need. The team aims to resolve cases within two weeks of evidence being produced. She also stated that the Home Office does not intend to ask the group to pay for their documentation. Last Monday she expanded on her initial statement by committing to waive citizenship fees for Windrush generation members who are applying for citizenship, to waive the language and life in the UK tests for them, and to waive the administrative costs for the return to the UK of Windrush retirees currently residing in their country of origin.
The former Home Secretary also announced other measures, which are of particular interest to the petition’s signatories. First, the petition called for Windrush minors to be given the right to remain in the UK; indeed, most Windrush generation children in the UK are already British citizens. However, should they have to apply for naturalisation, the Government will waive the associated fees. Secondly, the petition states that
“the government should also provide compensation for loss and hurt”.
The Government have said that a new compensation scheme will be set up for those who have suffered loss as a result of this issue. That is clearly the right thing to do, but I want to ask the Minister whether the Government have considered providing, as part of the compensation package, support and counselling for those who have suffered distress, stress and upheaval that has affected their day-to-day lives. It should not just be about recompensing them for costs they have incurred; it should also be about the support they need to get over, and move on from, their traumatic experience.
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend is laying out in useful terms the series of actions that the Government are taking. Does he feel, as I do, that the leadership provided by the new Home Secretary this morning will prove decisive? I have just come from the Chamber, where he said he will do whatever it takes to deal with the matter in a timely and decisive fashion. Does my hon. Friend share the confidence I have in the new Home Secretary?
Steve Double
Indeed I do. I would add that I think the previous Home Secretary was completely committed and was taking action to address the issue. However, I also have tremendous faith in the newly appointed Home Secretary and that he will get to the heart of the issue and make sure that things are put right and that the lessons that need to be learned are learned, and I shall come on to that point now.
Going forward, officials working at all levels of the Home Office must learn important lessons from the failures that have beleaguered the Windrush generation and their children. Those mistakes should never have happened, and there were warning signs, with Members coming forward in recent weeks to say that they were receiving casework relating to the issue.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Steve Double
I shall make a bit more progress and then allow an intervention.
Ministers and Home Office officials must now focus on establishing the status of the Windrush generation and their descendents with all possible speed, and ensure that the administrative issue of missing documentation for our citizens is not a barrier. Windrush cases must be prioritised. The Home Office must also take a far more proactive approach; it cannot wait until a particular case has gone into the public domain before deciding to take action to resolve it. The Windrush generation are British—they belong here—and the task now is to provide them with a legal status that reflects that. I applaud the new team’s intent to resolve cases within two weeks after evidence has been produced. It is vital to keep to such commitments to restore public trust in the Home Office.
In the past week, since I agreed to lead the debate, I have been engaging with lawyers and volunteers assisting members of the Windrush generation to secure their legal status, as well as with church and community leaders who represent the group. Many of those people are descendents of the Windrush generation or have a personal connection to them. They have expressed concerns about the capacity and effectiveness of the dedicated helpline that was set up to deal with inquiries. They have also asked whether there will be a deadline beyond which the Home Office might not be able to give further help to those seeking it. Will the Minister clarify what her Department will do to ensure that the helpline can give help effectively to everyone who seeks advice and whether there will be a deadline or cut-off point after which people might not get the help they seek from the new helpline?
I am glad the former Home Secretary acknowledged that the burden of proof to produce evidence of their legal right has been too much for some and suggested that the Department will deal with those individuals in a more personal manner. They came as British subjects and were not subject to any condition or restriction when they entered the UK. As we now know, many have found the task of producing evidence of their continuous residency here difficult. We need to prevent the Windrush generation and their children from facing further uncertainty over their status in the future and to allow them to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
On 22 June this year, we will mark the 70th anniversary of the arrival of HMS Windrush. That is a great opportunity to inform the British public about the positive legacy of that generation of pioneers and to help younger generations to appreciate the sacrifices that they have made for this country. I ask the Minister whether there are any plans for the Government to commemorate that monumental occasion and to celebrate the contributions that the Windrush generation has made to British society.
With Brexit fast approaching, the Government must get things right for EU citizens. The Home Office must work now to ensure that the EU citizens who decide to stay here legally after Brexit know that they are welcome and that they will not face similar treatment.
John Spellar
A couple of times the hon. Gentleman has referred to these issues as though they have blown up only in the last few weeks. There may have been massive press coverage in the last few weeks, but the issues have been going on for months and indeed years. There has been an almost complete failure to recognise that and to put the corrective mechanisms in, which is precisely why a full restructuring of the immigration directorate in the Home Office is required.
Steve Double
I think I did say that there had been warning signs and cases for some time now that should have highlighted the problem. I do not know whether it is years or months; I have certainly been aware of it for months, but if the right hon. Gentleman says it is years, I am not going to argue with him. Whatever the period of time is, I think we all agree that action should have been taken sooner to address the issue, before it reached the state that it did in recent weeks. On that, we can absolutely agree.
To go back to the question of EU citizens, I commend the Home Office for preparing for a new form of identification that will be simple and straightforward, so that the 3.7 million EU citizens will have clear and secure documentation of their legal status. That is vital to avoiding similar mistakes. I hope the Home Office will be able to publish further details about the identification scheme in the near future.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a chance that people will not be able to use iPhones to register their EU registration? That seems to be of concern to EU citizens. Could he confirm that one way or the other?
Steve Double
The hon. Lady raises a point I am not aware of, and it is not really for me to answer it. She might like to address it to the Minister, who might respond to it later. I was not aware of that point, but I am sure it is a valid and important one.
We need an immigration system that is effective and fair. Many of my parliamentary colleagues and I are of the belief that we need a robust and competent immigration system that is also fair and humane to people seeking to legally enter and settle in this country. We have to send clear messages to discourage illegal immigration, and this and previous Governments have taken steps to be tough in tackling it. I believe the British public want the Government to be tough on illegal immigration. However, we also need to be clear that this issue is not about illegal immigration, and to make it about the way the Government handle illegal migrants is missing the heart of the point. The Windrush generation are not here illegally and never have been. In this case, well-meaning policies have been applied to the wrong people, with devastating consequences for the lives of our citizens. There are clearly lessons to be learned from that, but if our reaction is to weaken our stance on illegal immigration, we will be doing the British people a disservice.
A change of culture is needed at the heart of the Home Office, because the focus has been on policy and process and not on people. We must never lose sight of the fact that at the heart of these polices are people—individuals and families who deserve to be treated fairly and with dignity and respect. It is right that immigration needs to be managed—it cannot be uncontrolled—but managing immigration can be just and compassionate. That can be challenging, but it is essential. We must have a just and fair immigration system that works for the British people, that is open to people with the skills and talents to fill much-needed roles in our economy, and that is compassionate to the most vulnerable, the persecuted and the displaced.
We owe the Windrush generation a huge debt of gratitude for a number of things: for coming to help our nation at a time of need, for the contribution they have made to our nation for the past 70 years, for the lessons they have taught us and for the important part they have played in shaping modern Britain as a tolerant, multicultural nation. I suspect that we will soon owe them another thank you. Through this terrible experience, which I know has been painful and caused distress to many, they are again teaching us an important lesson: they are forcing us to look at the type of country we want to be in the future, they are making us look at the consequences, no matter how unintentional, of the way we handle immigration, and they are reminding us of the values that made us into the great nation of the modern post-war world. Those are important lessons, and this is an important time for us to be reminded of them.
In closing, I reiterate the crucial message that we want to send to all Commonwealth citizens who have legally chosen to make Britain their home: you are a vital part of this country, and we are immensely grateful for the contributions you have made to our culture, our economy and our society over many years. You have helped to make us the country we are. You and your children are welcome to stay here. We want you to stay, and we want to do everything we can to make you feel welcome.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Mr Austin, I am very proud to stand here on behalf of the 178,000 people who have signed the petition. I am proud to stand here on behalf of the 492 British citizens who arrived on Empire Windrush from Jamaica 70 years ago. I am proud to stand here on behalf of the 72,000 British citizens who arrived on these shores between the passage of the British Nationality Act 1948 and the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, including my own father, who arrived from Guyana in 1956.
It is a dark episode in our nation’s history that this petition was even required. It is a dark day indeed that we are here in Parliament having to stand up for the right of people who have always given so much to this country and expected so little in return. We need to remember our history at this moment. In Britain, when we talk about slavery we tend to talk about its abolition, and in particular William Wilberforce. The Windrush story does not begin in 1948; the Windrush story begins in the 17th century, when British slave traders stole 12 million Africans from their homes, took them to the Caribbean and sold them into slavery to work on plantations. The wealth of this country was built on the backs of the ancestors of the Windrush generation. We are here today because you were there.
My ancestors were British subjects, but they were not British subjects because they came to Britain. They were British subjects because Britain came to them, took them across the Atlantic, colonised them, sold them into slavery, profited from their labour and made them British subjects. That is why I am here, and it is why the Windrush generation are here.
There is no British history without the history of the empire. As the late, great Stuart Hall put it:
“I am the sugar at the bottom of the English cup of tea.”
Seventy years ago, as Britain lay in ruins after the second world war, the call went out to the colonies from the mother country. Britain asked the Windrush generation to come and rebuild the country, to work in our national health service, on the buses and on the trains, as cleaners, as security guards. Once again, Caribbean labour was used. They faced down the “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish” signs. They did the jobs nobody else wanted to do. They were spat at in the street. They were assaulted by teddy boys, skinheads and the National Front. They lived five to a room in Rachmanite squalor. They were called, and they served, but my God did they suffer for the privilege of coming to this country.
But by God, they also triumphed. Sir Trevor McDonald, Frank Bruno, Sir Lenny Henry, Jessica Ennis-Hill—they are national treasures, knights of the realm, heavyweight champions of the world and Olympic champions, wrapped in the British flag. They are sons and daughters of the Windrush generation and as British as they come. After all this, the Government want to send that generation back across the ocean. They want to make life hostile for the Windrush children—to strip them of their rights, deny them healthcare, kick them out of their jobs, make them homeless and stop their benefits.
The Windrush children are imprisoned in this country—as we have seen of those who have been detained—centuries after their ancestors were shackled and taken across the ocean in slave ships. They are pensioners imprisoned in their own country. That is a disgrace, and it happened here because of a refusal to remember our history. Last week, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that
“we…owe it to them and to the British people”.—[Official Report, 25 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 881.]
The former Home Secretary said that the Windrush generation should be considered British and should be able to get their British citizenship if they so choose. This is the point the Government simply do not understand: the Windrush generation are the British people. They are British citizens. They came here as citizens. That is the precise reason why this is such an injustice. Their British citizenship is, and has always been, theirs by right. It is not something that the Government can now choose to grant them.
I remind the Government of chapter 56 of the British Nationality Act 1948, which says:
“Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies…shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.”
The Bill uses “British nationality” by virtue of citizenship. I read that Bill again last week when looking over the case notes of my constituents caught up in the Windrush crisis. Patrick Henry is a British citizen who arrived in Britain in 1959. He is a teaching assistant. He told me, “I feel like a prisoner who has committed no crime,” because he is being denied citizenship. Clive Smith, a British citizen who arrived here in 1964, showed the Home Office his school reports and was still threatened with deportation.
Rosario Wilson is a British citizen with no right to be here because Saint Lucia became independent in 1979. Wilberforce Sullivan is a British citizen who paid taxes for 40 years. He was told in 2011 that he was no longer able to work. Dennis Laidley is a British citizen with tax records going back to the 1960s. He was denied a passport and was unable to visit his sick mother. Jeffrey Greaves, a British citizen who arrived here in 1964, was threatened with deportation by the Home Office. Cecile Laurencin, a British citizen with 44 years of national insurance contribution to this country, payslips and bank account details, had her application for naturalisation rejected. Huthley Sealey, a British citizen, is unable to claim benefits or access healthcare in this country. Mark Balfourth, a British citizen who arrived here in 1962 aged 7, was refused access to benefits.
The Windrush generation have waited for too long for rights that are theirs. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over. There comes a time when the burden of living like a criminal in one’s own country becomes too heavy to bear any longer. That is why in the last few weeks we have seen an outpouring of pain and grief that had built up over many years. Yet Ministers have tried to conflate the issue with illegal immigration. On Thursday, the former Home Secretary said she was personally committed to tackling illegal migration, to making it difficult for illegal migrants to live here and to removing people who are here illegally.
Mr Lammy
I will not; I am just going to finish. Indeed, during her statement last Thursday, the former Home Secretary said “illegal” 23 times but did not even once say “citizen”.
This is not about illegal immigration. This is about British citizens, and frankly it is deeply offensive to conflate the Windrush generation with illegal immigrants to try to distract from the Windrush crisis. This is about a hostile environment policy that blurs the line between illegal immigrants and people who are here legally, and are even British citizens. This is about a hostile environment not just for illegal immigrants but for anybody who looks like they could be an immigrant. This is about a hostile environment that has turned employers, doctors, landlords and social workers into border guards.
The hostile environment is not about illegal immigration. Increasing leave to remain fees by 238% in four years is not about illegal immigration. The Home Office making profits of 800% on standard applications is not about illegal immigration. The Home Office sending back documents unrecorded by second-class post, so that passports, birth certificates and education certificates get lost, is not about illegal immigration. Charging teenagers £2,033 every 30 months for limited leave to remain is not about illegal immigration. Charging someone £10,521 in limited leave to remain fees before they can even apply for indefinite leave to remain is not about illegal immigration.
Banning refugees and asylum seekers from working and preventing them from accessing public funds is not about illegal immigration. Sending nine immigration enforcement staff to arrest my constituent because the Home Office lost his documents is not about illegal immigration. Locking my constituent up in Yarl’s Wood, meaning she missed her midwifery exams, is not about illegal immigration. Denying legal aid to migrants who are here legally is not about illegal immigration. Changing the terms of young asylum seekers’ immigration bail so that they cannot study is not about illegal immigration. Sending immigration enforcement staff to a church in my constituency that was serving soup to refugees is not about illegal immigration.
The former Home Secretary and the Prime Minister promised compensation. They have promised that no enforcement action will be taken. They have promised that the burden of proof will be lowered when the taskforce assesses Windrush cases. The Windrush citizens do not trust the Home Office, and I do not blame them after so much injustice has been dealt out.
I quote Martin Luther King, who himself quoted St Augustine, when he said that
“an unjust law is no law at all.”
I say to the Minister, warm words mean nothing. Guarantee these rights and enshrine them in law as soon as possible, and review the hostile environment that turns everybody in this country who is different into someone who is potentially illegal. Some 230 years after those in the abolitionist movement wore their medallions around their necks, I stand here as a Caribbean, black, British citizen and I ask the Minister, on behalf of those Windrush citizens, am I not a man and a brother? [Applause.]
Ian Austin (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but we are not supposed to have applause. I understand how strongly people feel about this issue, but that is the rule.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I, too, begin by paying tribute to Mr Vernon, the petitioner.
There is a great deal in what the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said that everyone of conscience, sensitivity and feeling can agree with wholeheartedly. On any view, this has been a shocking episode, and it has inspired feelings of some shame—shame because this is not the country we are, these are not our values and this is not the kind of country we aspire to be. Forgive me for repeating a point that does bear emphasis and on which I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman: the Windrush generation are British. They are part of the warp and weft of this nation. They have made a profound contribution—in business, science, commerce, sport and industry. We all feel profound distress at the way some individuals—far too many individuals—have been impacted.
It is right that we pause to think: how did it come to this? It is important to step back and look, with a little granularity, in a little detail, at what happened. It seems that the Immigration Act 1971 provided that those who arrived before it came into force should be treated as having indefinite leave to remain, despite not having the specific documentation. Afterwards, of course, people required the document in the passport or whatever it was. It is now tolerably plain that attempts to clamp down on illegal immigration have had unintended and wholly unacceptable consequences. The system has failed. It has acted indiscriminately and in a way that causes us the shame that I mentioned.
We may be able to derive a small sense of solace. I have been encouraged, to some extent, in hearing the response of the Government. There has been no attempt to deny that what happened was wrong; no attempt to pretend that the system has worked as it should have; no attempt to deny the impact, which is profound; and a fairly, if I may put it like this, grovelling acknowledgement that the system has gone wrong.
We can take some small comfort, too, in seeing the speed and robustness of the response. That is quite right. The taskforce has been set up not to hinder applicants, but to help them to demonstrate that they are entitled to live in the UK. That is quite right. It has been tasked with resolving cases inside two weeks, because for individuals such as Elwaldo Romeo, who was referred to with great articulacy by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), it must be a peculiar form of torture, almost, to feel that the Home Office could come knocking. These cases must be resolved quickly, because justice delayed is justice denied. No language tests—quite right. No cost—quite right. A helpline—quite right. Also and importantly, those who made their lives here but have retired to their country of origin must be able to come back to the UK. Fees must be waived. It is right that the Government are working with embassies and high commissions to make that the case.
What is the net effect of all this? It means that anyone from the Windrush generation who now wants to become a British citizen can. The net effect is that the burden of proof has, in effect, been shifted. Something adverted to by the right hon. Member for Tottenham was compensation. That scheme should be run by an independent person, and I understand that that is the Government’s intention. Yes, things have gone wrong, but it is absolutely right that the Government have acted decisively, without seeking to cavil, deny or shift the blame to anyone else.
Where I respectfully—with great and genuine respect—apply a slightly different context to the points that the right hon. Gentleman made is that I think we must, when speaking about the issue of illegal immigration, emphasise that there is a distinction and explain why there is that distinction. The reason we draw the distinction is that illegal immigration, as distinct from the immigration of those who came here in the Windrush generation and subsequently, encourages exploitation of the most vulnerable. It is a cruel and pernicious way to behave.
Illegal immigration is also unfair on those who play by the rules and do the right thing. They include, by the way, people from the Windrush generation, who, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman described with great articulacy, answered Britain’s call to come to our country to help, work, support and build. They did the right thing. The truth is that some of the most vociferous critics of those who try to game the system—those who get round it and try to bend the rules—are often those people who have played by the rules, come to this country and done the right thing. We must draw that distinction not just because it is right, but because it is fair to those who have played by the rules.
The other point is that we should not seek to infantilise people by suggesting that the rhetoric about being tough on illegal immigration is new. It is not. It is entirely appropriate that, in the past, Governments of all stripes have talked and acted tough. Let us take a moment to consider what has applied. In 1982, under a Conservative Government, the NHS began treatment charges for illegal immigrants. That has the advantage of common sense, one might think. Those people who have come here legally need to feel that they are getting a proper share of public services and that they are not being wrongly diverted.
In 1997, the Government instituted checks by employers on people’s right to work here. In 1999, measures were imposed on access to benefits. We were then under a Labour Government, of course. In 2008, civil penalties of up to £10,000 were imposed for those who employed illegal migrants. I do not criticise any of that, and to suggest that what has happened now has emerged from a clear blue sky is misleading and unfair to those who are in the eye of this storm.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I shall make this point now, because it is one that those listening to the debate will not necessarily know. When it comes to healthcare, emergency treatment is available to all, regardless of who they are; it is more routine and elective care for which there are, rightly, checks. I am not criticising my hon. Friend; I am just making sure that people understand that no one is denied emergency care in this country.
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that point; he is absolutely right to do so. The point I was making about the context is that measures have accrued over time. I am grateful to him for that point of detail.
I do not quote what I am about to in the interest of inflaming matters, because I do not think we should be in the business of inflaming matters; we should be in the business of cold, cool assessment. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) was right when he quoted an Immigration Minister from 2007, who described his policy as flushing illegal migrants out and
“trying to create a much more hostile environment in this country if you are here illegally.”
I do not think that, at the time, that was a particularly unreasonable thing to say. And it was John Reid, as Home Secretary, who said:
“We need to make living and working here illegally ever more uncomfortable and constrained.”
The reality is that Governments of all stripes have talked and acted tough.
All I really want to say is that this is a shameful episode. As has been indicated, it is a case of error, not conspiracy. It is incumbent on this Government, because they happen to be in office, to make things right, but we owe it to the people of this country, whether they are here from the Windrush generation or from elsewhere, to look at this coolly, frankly and, above all, fairly.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I would like to say to the people who came here, who are our teachers, our nurses, our cleaners, our carers, our bus drivers and our train drivers: thank you. London would not be the city it is today, and my part of London—the best part of London, which is south London—would not be what it is today, but for the Windrush generation.
My mum was of an earlier generation than the Windrush generation. She came here in 1947 to train as a nurse, and worked in mental health for the rest of her working life. Until I was four years old, I did not understand that there were any countries other than Ireland, England and those in the Caribbean, because all her friends in nursing were from Ireland or the Caribbean. They were the only people who wanted to work in the large psychiatric hospitals of the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s.
I am not here today to compete in any way with the amazing oratory of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), but to try to get justice for three of my constituents. I have been racking my brain since this issue came to the fore, thinking about how those people, who came to see me, could have been treated unjustly and about how they can now seek support.
I want to bring the case of Kenneth Ellis to the Minister’s attention. Ken came to the UK in 1962, aged 8, to join his parents, Herman and Ivy Ellis, both of whom were UK citizens. He still has his dad’s UK passport and birth certificate. He attended schools in Wandsworth. For a short period, sadly, he was in care under Wandsworth Council.
He first came to see me in 2013, and I tried to find out how I could help him to provide proof of his residency in the UK, backdated to 1962. That sounds an awful lot easier than it actually is. I contacted the Inland Revenue. It said that it had records, but it could not release them back to 1962 unless the Home Office asked for them. I contacted Wandsworth Council, but it informed me that it did not keep records of that age. I was told that if I could get the landing card from when he arrived, that could help. However, we now know that those landing cards were destroyed. As a result of the last five years of attempting to define his status in a country where he has lived for over 50 years, he has been unable to work, his relationship has broken down and he has lost his home.
I have known about Trevor only since 13 April. His mum and dad, Eastlyn and Grafton, came to London from Barbados in 1961. Eastlyn qualified as a nurse at St. Peter’s Hospital, Chertsey, in 1965. Trevor joined them in 1967, aged 8, arriving with his grandmother, Myrtle. In the last 50 years, Trevor has never left England—he may have never left Mitcham, for all I know.
Trevor worked for the Blue Arrow agency for years, taking time off only when Eastlyn became unwell and he wanted to care for her. As a result of an administrative error with the agency, he was sent his P45. On receipt of it, he could no longer work. Every employer he went to—even Blue Arrow, which he returned to—said that he did not have the paperwork to ensure that he could work, so nobody would take him on. As a result, he has been out of work for the last 18 months and reliant on his 83-year-old mother.
Neville’s case is slightly different. He came to Britain in 1973, aged 17, to join his parents, Thomas and Deslin, both of whom were UK citizens—to prove this, I have their expired UK passports. Deslin’s passport says, “I Kenneth Blackburne, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George, Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief in and over the island of Jamaica and its dependencies, request and require in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford every assistance and protection of which she may stand in need. Given at King’s House in the island of Jamaica on the 19th day of April 1961.” Neville’s father’s passport reads, “Given by Geoffrey Campbell Gunter, Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Issued at King’s House in the island of Jamaica, the 6th of July 1960.”
Despite that, Neville cannot define his immigration status. He has spent money. He has had pro bono support. He has been evicted from his home. He has not been allowed to work. He has not been allowed to claim benefits. I have chased the Home Office for the last six years to try to sort out his immigration status, and I am ashamed to say that, to date, I have failed. Neville now cares full time for his mother to enable his siblings to work, knowing that their mum is cared for. It is simply not right that Neville or his parents should have been treated in this way.
All we are asking for is justice, and the right for these three men to go out and work to support themselves in the way that their parents taught them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, and to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who made an incredibly powerful and moving speech.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was absolutely right when he pointed out that we cannot forget history. We should not try to forget history, warts and all, the good and the bad. Any nation that tries to pretend that all its history is one or the other is a nation that is not at ease with itself and that is trying to fool its residents.
It is important for both the Labour party and the Conservative party to remember where quite a lot of this stuff came from. Looking back to the middle and the end of the Blair-Brown premiership and the early days of the coalition, both the main parties in this country had become terrified of either the British National party or the UK Independence party. We saw them nibbling away at our bases; we saw them pandering to prejudices, very often long held, but very rarely spoken of. We saw it in industrial areas; we saw it in all sorts of areas in this country.
I do not like using the phrase “dog-whistle politics”, because I always think it is a blunt instrument. To an extent, however, Governments of both persuasions—of both colours—were under the most enormous pressure to be tough, and sometimes we slightly lost our nerve. Principled mainstream politicians lost the resolve to kick back against that, to face it down and to say why that narrative was wrong. I am absolutely concerned that, as our concern grew, so did some of these policies, which were put in place by both Governments, and which, with hindsight, might have been phrased a little better and should have been thought of a little more deeply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) made an incredibly powerful speech, which was thoughtful and sensible—his hallmarks. He was right to draw our attention to some of those quotes from Labour Ministers involved with the Home Office or with immigration specifically. John Reid, now the noble Lord Reid, said as Home Secretary:
“We need to make living and working here illegally evermore uncomfortable and constrained.”
We also heard how the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), when immigration Minister, said:
“What we are proposing here will, I think, flush illegal migrants out. We are trying to create a much more hostile environment in this country if you are here illegally.”
I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) to draw our attention back to the different definitions. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister, the former Home Secretary, the current Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee—who has joined us, and all of us should and must be at the most enormous pains to point out that division of public policy. All of us will have been annoyed and irritated over the years, when we have entered into debates with members of the public, who could be constituents of ours or not, in which asylum seekers, refugees, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants have all been put into one pot. Instead, we should look at the silos and the policies that flow from that.
My right hon. Friends who are involved in the Home Office, and who are at the head of Government, have made clear the Government’s shame at what has happened and have made clear their apology. I cannot think of a single colleague on the Conservative Benches who would demur from that position.
I happen to be one of those Conservatives who has been perfectly relaxed about immigration and the freedom of movement. As somebody who is a quarter Irish, a quarter Greek and half Welsh, and as somebody who was born and brought up in Cardiff, how could I not be relaxed about immigration? Cardiff’s marvellous docks were a huge melting pot for the world’s nations as they came to work in and grow our south Wales economy. They enriched south Wales not just financially, but culturally, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
We have to be clear. We must not throw the baby out with the bath water by conflating, yet again, the clear legal definitions of legal and illegal migration. The Windrush generation are not becoming British citizens. As the right hon. Member for Tottenham has said, they are British citizens, and the law seeks to confirm those rights and privileges.
In central and local government, not just in the arena of public policy, but across the piece, we have moved too much towards the “computer says no” approach—to use the “Little Britain” phrase—where boxes are ticked or they are not. In any future arrangement, we must ensure that officials and Ministers who are dealing with these often complex matters have the opportunity—the space, as it were—for more discretion and discernment in taking important decisions.
As the Member for North Dorset, and as someone who has never had their right to be in this country questioned, I am not sure that I can envisage how people’s lives must have been turned not just upside down, but inside out. Like one of those snow domes, their lives have been shaken, and the whole picture of their everyday lives has become so distorted that they cannot recognise it and they feel like aliens in their own country.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) when he intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay: people fall into saying it is either a cock-up or a conspiracy. I would be the first to stand up and say so if I believed something was a conspiracy, but I do not. I think it was genuinely an oversight. “Oversight” may be a trivial word to use, as it in no way encompasses the emotional gamut of how people have had to respond to these issues, but I take enormous comfort from the fact that we as a Government are seeking to put these things right.
As the right hon. Member for Tottenham reminded us, and as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we should not forget history, and nor should we seek to rewrite the welcome, or sometimes the lack of it, that the first Windrush generation received. On the posters in the bed and breakfasts in Kensington, Notting Hill and Portobello Road that said, “No Irish, no dogs, no blacks”, the blacks were always at the bottom of the list—dogs were preferred to black people. Other issues included the colour bar and access to housing—the Rachmanisation of the London housing stock.
We should not delude ourselves. These people answered the clarion call of the—I use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Tottenham— mother country. Just as they had answered in time of war, so they answered in time of peace. The battlefields of the first and second world wars were indelibly stained not only with the blood of white Anglo-Saxons, but with the blood of empire—of people who realised that the values that we were trying to defend and the attempt to deter and defeat the foe were right. It was right for them to come to fight alongside us. I am never quite certain that that debt has ever been truly recognised.
As we all know, the 1968 speech cast a long shadow over the immigration debate. People would often veer away from discussing immigration for fear of being accused of having racial or racist tendencies. We have moved on from that, but, by golly, when such events come about, we have to pause to remind ourselves, and to reinforce the fact, that the debate is not anchored by racial prejudice or a racial agenda in any way.
I do not like the phrase “Illegals will be flushed out”, but I fully support, as I believe do the vast majority of people who are here legally, irrespective of colour, the need to be firm and resolute in our approach to migration to this country, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham alluded to. We need to ensure that those who are here legally are given the warm embrace of a friend and neighbour, through which we entirely recognise the unquantifiable contribution that they make to our society, not just economically, but socially, culturally and from a community base.
My right hon. Friend the Minister is all too aware of the scale of the task and the speed with which it needs to be completed, as is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whom I welcome to his new position. Nobody should be under any illusion as to the seriousness and determination of Her Majesty’s Government, not just to resolve the problem properly, promptly and speedily, but to ensure that the “computer says no” response, and this sort of problem, do not arise again.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I thank Patrick Vernon OBE for launching the petition and creating the space we urgently needed to discuss these awful and totally avoidable events. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his exceptional speech and his tireless advocacy on the issue; my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for her forensic interrogation and analysis of the former Home Secretary’s actions; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has so effectively led on the issue from the Front Bench.
Let me make it clear: this issue is personal to me, because, like many Londoners, I have family who are part of the Windrush generation. Lucy and her husband Cecil came here to help to rebuild Britain. Lucy is a fabulous, dedicated and caring nurse who worked in the NHS for her whole life, and Cecil is a skilled artisan. So, before I start, I will say, “Thank you”, to Lucy and Cecil for all they have done, and to all the Lucys and Cecils who came, worked and served our country—often, sadly, in brutal, racist circumstances.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the importance of the Windrush generation to the whole country, our public services and our economy. Will she join me in thanking not only all those who have helped to build our country, but all those who have been so badly and shamefully hit by what has gone wrong in the Home Office, who have nevertheless had the bravery and strength to speak out, including telling their stories to the newspapers and to Amelia Gentleman, who has obviously played such an important role in telling their stories?
Lyn Brown
I certainly will, and I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
Cecil and Lucy really believed that they could make this country a home, and that it would be fit for their children and their grandchildren, and they did make it a home for them. They thought that they had secured for themselves and their children a place that was warm and welcoming. However, I assure Members that their family are angry now, because the contract they had with this country has been broken by this careless, callous Government. Their faith in this country has been crushed. They, their children and their grandchildren feel betrayed.
It is not just my family who are angered by that betrayal; many of my constituents, whether they have family among the Windrush generation or not, believe that this Prime Minister’s policies have betrayed a generation of their friends, neighbours and families.
I do not know how many of my constituents have been caught up in the Home Office’s “hostile” immigration strategy, because many people have not made their way to my door yet. However, I urge them to do so, so that I can help them sort this situation out.
One man, who I will call Gem, contacted me early last year. Gem travelled from Jamaica in 1969 and has lived here legally ever since. However, in August last year his housing benefit suddenly stopped, on the basis that he
“had no recourse to public funds.”
That was certainly news to him.
Gem has not kept hold of every official document that has come through his door for the last several decades, so when the Home Office demanded evidence for every single year that he had lived here he was understandably devastated and overwhelmed. I do not think many of us could produce that much evidence on demand; I certainly could not.
Gem was told that he would have to secure a new passport from Jamaica, at great expense and at a time when he was unable to work. The £2,500 fee for naturalisation was well out of the question. He now faces eviction, due to rent arrears, and he tells me that he has to report regularly to the immigration centre, as if he was a criminal. A few days ago, Gem’s daughter called the new hotline, but she is still waiting to be called back. I have contacted the Immigration Minister on Gem’s behalf and I will be happy to give her his details after this debate.
Gem is not the only constituent of mine who has been harmed by this “hostile” environment. Jessica travelled to Britain in 1970 from Dominica. She is 58 now but still remembers an immigration officer stamping her passport with the words, “Indefinite right to remain”. She grew up in this country, and she has worked and paid taxes here for the last 39 years. Last month, however, she was fired from her job with a local charity that supports migrants and refugees, on the basis that she could not prove her right to work in the UK. It is a bitter irony that someone who has worked to help those at risk because of immigration policies has now fallen victim to those policies herself. Jessica said:
“I have always been a positive person, but this is a terrible situation.”
I do not think that anybody could have failed to notice the oft-repeated use by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), of the phrase “compliant environment” last week. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said:
“Whether it’s compliance or hostility, it’s still a policy which has led to this debacle”.—[Official Report, 23 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 633.]
Gem and Jessica will receive absolutely no comfort if I tell them that, although they have lost nearly everything, the Government did not mean to be “hostile”. That is cold comfort, because let us be in no doubt that this scandal is leaving a legacy of fear and anxiety among the communities and individuals that it has betrayed.
Nevertheless, I welcome the Government’s pledges to waive fees for members of the Windrush generation as they apply for documents and rightful naturalisation, and to scrap the requirement for a citizenship test, as well as the free services that they have created for the victims. Those were absolutely the right things to do, but the problem stems from the policy itself. The “hostile environment” has been hardened over time, in the service of an arbitrary target. That is hardly the way to encourage careful evaluation of an individual’s rights.
The canned response that we keep hearing from the Government is that the Windrush generation are different, or an exception. We know the phrase, “the exception proves the rule”, and there are already new cases coming to light of British citizens from other backgrounds who have been caught up by this Government’s approach. So how many exceptions will it take before the rule is changed? Will cases that do not appear to be Windrush related need to make their own headlines before they are recognised? If so, that is not only nonsensical, but cruel.
The right to appeal through an immigration tribunal was scrapped, for most cases, by 2014. When, on top of that, there is no longer recourse to legal aid, the inevitable wrong decisions are so much harder to challenge. I hope that the new Home Secretary will fix this matter urgently, although I do not hold my breath.
“Regret”, no matter how bitter or heartfelt, cannot take the place of a substantial policy change. It is simply not good enough to redress the consequences each time after the fact. Policy change is the only way to prevent this situation from happening again, but even that will not undo the damage that has already been done; that pain will never go away. The petition that we are considering rightly calls on the Government to take into account “loss & hurt”. The “loss” of a job, of benefits, of medical treatment, of pensions, or of citizenship can be measured.
Emma Reynolds
Does my hon. Friend hope, as I do, that the compensation scheme will be put in place sooner rather than later, because some people have been detained, some have been deprived of healthcare and some have been deprived of benefits, and they have also all gone through terrible anguish during the time that this scandal has been going on?
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend is, of course, obviously right, because we can—possibly—put a financial value on the financial “loss” incurred by loss of jobs, benefits and so on, but the “hurt”—that is, the loss of faith and the impact of the deep betrayal—is much more complex and much more difficult to assess in monetary terms, so I ask the Minister to ensure that whoever is appointed to run the compensation scheme is encouraged to think long and hard about the lifetime impact of these losses.
The Windrush generation undoubtedly made a huge contribution to rebuilding our country; many of them also fought in the war. They came at the Government’s invitation, stayed at the Government’s invitation and worked year after year after year, because they were needed, so there is a real stench of betrayal about these recent events.
I am lucky—so lucky—that I have an amazing family. I have not only Cecil and Lucy, who have done so much for this country, but their children, including my brother-in-law, Colin, who I love to bits, and his daughter, my niece Aimee, who I love more than life itself.
My family have been lucky not to fall victim to the changed immigration laws, but, make no mistake, we are very angry. We are furious. We need more from the Government. We need mistakes to be rectified quickly, with generous compensation, and we need less dangerous policies coming from the Government. It is now time for the Prime Minister, as the architect of the hostile environment policy, to take responsibility, because it is her policy and her watch, and it is for her to be held to account.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I am pleased to be able to speak in this important debate.
I will speak relatively briefly, but first I want to declare that I entirely support the sentiment of the petition. My constituency has a significant population with a Commonwealth background across Aldershot and Farnborough, which are in the borough of Rushmoor: people who have built their lives in the borough and who contribute a great deal at every professional level. I am very pleased to put on record my appreciation of the contribution that that population makes. Aldershot, as a borough, shares an even longer history with our Commonwealth, going back to the late 19th century, when a great number of imperial troops were stationed in its garrisons. The contribution of our Commonwealth population has, as has been said, a long historical precedent. Today, members of our community with mainly Indian and Pakistani heritage live with a significant Nepalese community, and that is something of which I am extremely proud.
We have heard some eloquent and moving speeches, but rather than talking about the rhetoric surrounding the issue, I will touch briefly on the action that the Government have taken in the past few days and weeks. I am grateful that the Minister is here; I am sure she will offer further reassurance about the series of actions the Government have taken so far. It is important that the Government have waived the fee for anyone who wishes to apply for citizenship—for those who do not have any documentation and those who do. The waiving of the requirement to do the knowledge of language test is important, as is the fact that the children of the Windrush generation will be able to apply to naturalise at no cost. It is also important that those who have lived here for a long time and have then returned to their country of origin are able to come back, and that the associated fees will be waived.
I am encouraged that we have a dedicated team helping to identify and gather evidence to confirm the existence of individuals’ rights to be in the UK, and I would be grateful for any updates that the Minister might provide on that taskforce’s latest actions. I understand that, as of last week, 23 people had already obtained the documentation they needed, with nearly 100 appointments booked to help more people. I am encouraged by that, but any further update from the Minister would be much appreciated.
I am pleased, too, that no one affected will be charged for any documentation that proves their right to be here, and that anyone who wishes to obtain a formal residence card can do so free of cost. Given the emotions around the subject, which we have been described eloquently today, I am reassured that there will be no removal or detention as part of any assistance to help those citizens get their proper documentation. It is important that we put that on record and that it is clearly understood. I am also reassured by the fact that a new website will provide information and guidance for people who need support, and will give examples of the type of evidence required for the formal process.
In addition to that series of actions, it is important that the Government now get the tone right. That is why, earlier today in the Chamber, I was encouraged by hearing the new Home Secretary clearly outline that the matter is of the highest importance. He did so in personal terms, saying that “it could have been my mother, my brother or me.” The new Home Secretary gets this. He gets the emotional importance of the matter and the sense of justice that people associated with the Windrush generation want to see fulfilled. He also said, “I will do whatever it takes to get this right…we will do right by the Windrush generation.” He then went on to say, “Like her, I am a second-generation migrant”. He was referring to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and to the fact that she “does not have a monopoly” on anger. That is very true, and the only response from the Government now, while there is justifiable anger, needs to be one of calm, compassionate efficiency. I am reassured that the Government will resolve the episode in a serious and determined manner, but also in an empathetic and gracious one.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Austin.
In many ways, our debates over the Windrushers have been too small, too fixated on destroyed immigration documents or on who knew what when. Like those of EU citizens, the interests of the Windrush citizens have not been given the attention they should have been afforded; they have been afterthoughts as far as too many UK politicians are concerned. The political game has seemed more important than the people whose lives are affected, and the point scoring more important than sorting the matter out.
[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]
The debates are too small in another way, too. They are about a group of cases regarding the symptoms of a policy malfunction, not about the policy malfunction itself. It is not, as was suggested earlier, simply a structural problem in the Home Office. The anti-immigration rhetoric of successive UK Governments has created an environment of xenophobic mistrust, hate and fear. The “go home” vans that the Prime Minister created in her previous post of Home Secretary were a development from Gordon Brown’s “British jobs for British workers”. We know, too, that the Government of Clement Attlee was not the benign, welcoming and inclusive regime it has recently been painted as. We know that the Ministers in that Government wanted immigration to be a temporary phenomenon. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on that, although I welcome many of his very measured remarks on the topic.
Racism runs deep in the political psyche here. A bias is embedded in the minds of many politicians that will not easily be dislodged. Windrush is not some isolated case, and it is not an aberration or a deviation from the norm. It fits right into the institutional racism of this place. From the attempts of Attlee’s Ministers to turn the ship away to the Immigration Act 1971, and on to the vicious, hostile environment of the current Government, there is a thread of hate linking the attitudes of the generations. Those attitudes have driven public perceptions too, in the casual racism we all too often see. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) can testify to that, I believe, with the appalling flood of bile that is directed at her.
Even with that evidence so easily available to us, all the attitudes persist here, and that has driven the debate on a number of issues, not least of which has been the debate on our relationship with the EU. For all that nonsense about that bus with the promise to pay the NHS millions every week, the main driver of the leave debate was racist. It was an argument of exceptionalism—an opinion that we are somehow better than everyone else. It has continued into the aftermath too, with the Government’s disregard for the worries of EU citizens concerned for their future here. Treated as pawns, they have been left with no certainty about their position post-Brexit. People who have contributed to our communities, paid their taxes, made society better, and built lives and futures here have been dispossessed by a Government who seem determined to fight Agincourt again.
Three million people who—like the Windrush generation —live, work, study, pay taxes and contribute to society here have had their lives thrown into question. EU citizens have been packing up and leaving ahead of Brexit: shutting down businesses, resigning from the NHS and leaving their research labs and universities. That damages Scotland. We need the people who will help run our services, build businesses, support our academic sector and build our future. People who come to share Scotland are as welcome as they are necessary, and we need them.
The Government’s attitude is disgraceful. They have targets for deporting immigrants. Imagine that: those are not targets as in, “This person or those people should not be allowed to stay”, but targets as in, “8,337 a year”. What could possibly be the driver of that, other than racism, a sense of exceptionalism and an attitude that we are somehow better than others?
Simon Hoare
I fear that the hon. Lady is falling into the trap I alluded to in my speech of conflating “legal” and “illegal”. I think most people in this country, including legal migrants, would say that any Government has a duty and responsibility to ensure that everybody who is here is here legally. If that means setting targets to remove people who should not be here, most people support that, irrespective of their national heritage.
Deidre Brock
I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Right hon. and hon Members have made comments about Gypsy Travellers in debates here that have caused my mouth literally to drop open in astonishment and horror. There has been case after case in my constituency office of the most appalling treatment of EU and non-EU nationals alike by UK Visas and Immigration and the Home Office. My contention is that those attitudes come from successive UK Governments’ attitudes towards the issue of immigration as a whole.
Successive UK Governments have created an atmosphere of mistrust and fear, and they are proud of it—the Prime Minister even praises the “hostile environment”. They thought that they had tapped into a source of votes by painting immigrants as some kind of threat to an imaginary British way of life. Now Windrush is blowing up the dust of the UK’s imperial past. People who came to these islands as British citizens are being deported. People who came here half a century ago are being told to go home. The vans may be gone, but the attitude has not. They are being told to go back to countries they would not recognise now. Their children and grandchildren are also targeted—people who were born in the UK and have never lived anywhere else. Some have already been deported, some have declared themselves stateless to avoid deportation and many more are living in fear that their lives are about to be utterly broken. These people came here when there were labour shortages. They worked, paid their taxes and built lives and communities. They had children who worked, paid their taxes and built on that legacy. They have grandchildren who are doing the same.
The UK is unlikely to change any time soon, but Scotland needs immigrants—we need population growth, and we need the energy and the impetus that comes with them. Our country is damaged by the right-wing xenophobia of deportation, document checks and fear-mongering. EU citizens and Windrush people should not be discouraged or deterred; they should be welcomed and encouraged. This debate is less than it should be—it should be an in-depth and unflinching analysis of the continuing racism of the body politic here. That is our shame and our disgrace, and we should not be content to hand it on to future generations.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am sorry I was not here for the beginning of the debate. I was taking part in questions in the Chamber, where a statement had been asked for. May I say to my brother, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), that I was honoured to be at his wedding? I have to declare that I stand as godfather to the aunt of his children. I am also proud to have known Sam King. Along with Arthur Torrington, he got the Windrush Foundation and the Equiano Society going 21 years ago. I may be fortunate that the people I know whom I would regard as being of the Windrush generation— I use that as a way of embracing a large number of people—have been bishops in my church and headteachers in my schools, and have held every kind of job across the spectrum of our society.
What we have found in this debate is too many people saying, “The other side did not get things right.” What we have lost is a sense of what each of us can do to try to ensure that we do get it right. Some of the lessons I have learned have come from a book by Will Somerville called “Immigration under New Labour”, published by Policy Press at the University of Bristol. It covers 1997 to 2007, so it is not the full period, but in chapters 16, 17 and 18 there is quite a lot of talk about targets. In the days when I served as a junior Minister and my wife served as a more senior Minister, people laughed at us because we would have between three and 11 boxes over a weekend. Various people said, “Why do you read what is put in front of you?” The answer is that we can find that voice among the public officials or the outsiders who say, “Please look at this. It is not sensible. It is not right.”
I was going to appear on “Newsnight” a few days ago, but I got bounced because the subject of the Windrush generation was seen as less important than the future retirement of the manager of Arsenal football club. To some people that may be the right sense of priorities, but it cost me an opportunity to talk about the many people affected by the way the system has worked—albeit for a minority, but that minority matters just as much as the majority. As most people now say, we should not be saying to people who have lived here at peace, paid taxes, registered to vote and contributed as British nationals, “You have to prove what you were doing for elements of your life for each year for the past 40 years.” I could not do that; why should they have to do it?
The presumption ought to be that if someone has obviously lived here for long enough to qualify as a recognised British national—as a subject, a citizen—they should not have to go find all these documents. We should say, “This person has been on the electoral register for the past 15 years. It is clear that they came out of a school. Here they are in a confirmation class. Here they are in Guides or Scouts. Here they are at a college or university, or in a recognised training situation, or even just as a taxpayer.”
The Inland Revenue knows who has been paying taxes. The Department for Work and Pensions knows who has been paying national insurance. If, on the face of it, that shows they have absolutely no chance of being an illegal immigrant who has come in during the past two or three years, they should be granted British citizenship formally, recognising what is formally right anyway.
I do not want to criticise the media, because we rely on them, but what on earth was that nonsense about the landing cards? British subjects did not complete landing cards. They did not do it. The fact that the landing cards were or might have been destroyed is irrelevant. That should have been obvious to anyone doing work experience at a newspaper, let alone someone working in one of our great news organisations, the Press Association or the BBC.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The hon. Ladies can sort out between themselves who I am giving way to.
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman says the landing cards are irrelevant, but my constituent Paulette Wilson was sent a letter from the Home Office out of the blue in 2015. It told her that there was no evidence of her entry to the UK, despite the fact that it had destroyed that evidence.
Siobhain McDonagh
In the cases of Trevor, Ken and Neville, if they had had those landing cards, that would have been proof of their entry.
Sir Peter Bottomley
First, I do not know when landing cards came in. If someone arrived on the Empire Windrush in 1948 or on a ship in the next 15 or 20 years, I do not think there were landing cards. Secondly, if they were British, would they have been asked to fill in a landing card, even if they had arrived by air? I think the answer is no.
I campaigned for Krishna Maharaj, who spent 31 years wrongly imprisoned in Florida. He is British. He was born in Trinidad, but being born in Trinidad made him British, and British people do not fill in landing cards. We allow distractions to take away from the common-sense point: what on earth are we doing thinking that the landing cards would solve the problem? Even the manifests do not solve the nationality problem. When people came here, especially from the Caribbean, after the war, they were British until our laws started to change. But we are not talking about that generation; we are talking about the generation of the Sam Kings, the Arthur Torringtons and the like, who also wrote about the contribution that the people from the Caribbean made before 1948 as well as during 1948 and afterwards.
For those who want to know where targets came from, they were not new in 2010 or in 2015. They are discussed in the Will Somerville book, “Immigration under New Labour”, and I have no doubt they were probably there before new Labour as well. What we should say to those who are undocumented British nationals, subjects, citizens, is, “How soon and how easily can we give you the documents you need?” We are not talking about someone who says they are 17 when they are actually 23 and have sadly had to come across the Mediterranean from Syria or from another country in the past two or three years. We are talking about people who, just by looking at them, I can tell have been around for almost as long as I have, or as long as my children have, which is still quite some time. We should say, “Let’s get you documented in the easiest, fastest, simplest and fairest way possible.”
Those advising Ministers, whether inside a Department or outside, should always say to a Minister, “Is this fair? Is it right? Will it work?” I look to this man here, my brother, the right hon. Member for Tottenham. If we sat together for three quarters of an hour I could probably solve much of this and take away the anxiety. We could apologise for the distress that has been wrongly caused to too many for too long, but the fact is common sense normally works. Let us apply it.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I want to thank Patrick Vernon, originally from Wolverhampton—all the best people are—for setting up the petition, and I want to say a huge thank you to the 178,000 people who signed it. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his powerful advocacy and his incredible work and determination to seek justice for the Windrush generation.
Finally, I want to add my thanks to those of my colleagues to thank all those British people of the Windrush generation—whether they have the documents to say that they are British or not, they are British—for coming here in the post-war period and helping to rebuild Britain. My right hon. Friend was right to say that the way they have been treated is a national disgrace.
I want to talk specifically about my constituent, Paulette Wilson, one of the Windrush generation who has been treated by the Government in the most appalling and inhumane manner. We know that the Home Secretary resigned last night, but in my view that is not the end of the matter. The Government still have serious questions to answer about the way Paulette and others have been treated. Also, they have questions to answer about how we avoid that happening in future to the Windrush generation and other Commonwealth citizens, but also to EU citizens way into the future.
I still think that the Prime Minister has serious questions to answer about a raft of policies that she introduced as Home Secretary to create a hostile environment and to create the conditions for this awful scandal. Not only do we have to deal with tackling the injustice of the way the Windrush generation has been treated, but we have to look at the policies, too, and the Government need to change some of them.
My constituent, Paulette Wilson, came to the UK from Jamaica in 1968 at the age of 10. She has worked in the UK all her life and has never left the country. She even worked here in Parliament, serving and waiting on MPs in Commons restaurants. She received a letter from the Home Office out of the blue in August 2015. To her dismay, it accused her of having no evidence of being here legally and having no evidence of her entry to the UK. She started having to report to the immigration centre in Solihull. Two years later, despite the fact that she had gathered substantial evidence of her 50 years in the UK, including 34 years of paying national insurance and the fact that she has a grown-up daughter and a granddaughter, she was detained during one of her visits to the immigration centre.
Paulette spent a week in Yarl’s Wood, fearful of what was going to happen next. She became even more scared when she was taken to the detention centre at Heathrow. Let us imagine for a minute what it was like for her. Imagine ourselves in her shoes: you have lived and worked in the UK for 50 years and raised a family. You feel, and you are, British. You have not left the UK in all that time and you suddenly find yourself in a detention centre at Heathrow airport being told you are going to be put on a flight to Jamaica.
Paulette could hear planes taking off and she really thought she was going to be put on a plane. I intervened and so did the Refugee and Migrant Centre in Wolverhampton. Her family—reluctantly, because they are a private family—contacted the media. Paulette was released at the eleventh hour. I want to thank the Refugee and Migrant Centre and the journalist Amelia Gentleman for helping Paulette and her family. But that experience has stayed with Paulette. In the weeks after she was detained, she talked about struggling to eat and sleep. Despite repeated demands for an explanation, we still do not know why she was sent to the detention centre and detained at Yarl’s Wood.
I have some questions for the Immigration Minister. She might not be able to answer them today, but I would like some clarification. Why were we never given an explanation as to why Paulette was detained? Why did the Home Office not consider 34 years of national insurance contributions? Why did it not check with the Department for Work and Pensions? The family provided other evidence of Paulette’s decades of living in the UK. Why was that disregarded and disbelieved?
The Prime Minister was in Wolverhampton last week and apologised to Paulette through the Express & Star, which is welcome, but why has the Prime Minister, or any other Minister, not apologised to Paulette directly? More broadly, why did it take an initial refusal by Downing Street to meet the Commonwealth Heads of State, the action of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and the many articles written by Amelia Gentleman for this national scandal to come to light? I have known about this matter for months; other Members have known about it for years. I do not understand why it took so long for us to realise that there was a severe and cruel injustice being meted out by the Government.
In January, I asked the Government a written parliamentary question on how many Commonwealth citizens legally resident in the UK had been detained and deported, and would the Government apologise in those cases? The Immigration Minister, who is here today, which I welcome, said it would be too costly to give the numbers. However, the Government have since committed to doing that, so when can we expect to have those numbers? Will the Minister and the new Home Secretary undertake to write to those who have been mistreated to give them an apology? When can we expect the compensation scheme to be in place? Will the Government consider putting in place legal aid for those willing to come forward?
I have been troubled by a briefing I received—other Members will have had the same briefing—from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. The departing Home Secretary said in the House recently that she could guarantee there would be no future enforcement action against the Windrush generation if they made themselves known to the new taskforce. However, according to the briefing document that I have, the head of the taskforce told the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants that referrals to immigration enforcement would be made case by case. Will the Minister clarify that, because it is still not clear what the Government expect in terms of documentation from people of that generation who come forward? We cannot blame them for being fearful of coming forward, given what has happened to my constituent and many others.
The focus of the past few days, and particularly yesterday evening, was what the departing Home Secretary knew about local or regional targets, and whether she—unknowingly or not—misled Parliament. She said that she did not knowingly mislead Parliament, but in a way, that is now an irrelevance. I want to know why there are regional targets for removal. Why are the Government treating people as numbers, not human beings? What will be done about the targets? Are the Government going to get rid of them?
It is a terrible irony that the Government destroy landing cards and then accuse my constituent and others of not having evidence of their entry to the UK. It is a terrible irony that the Government collect taxes and national insurance contributions, but disbelieve individuals when they produce that evidence—I do not know why the Government cannot look for it themselves. It is a terrible irony that the departing Home Secretary is apparently not on top of her paperwork, but the Government accuse my constituent and others of not having their paperwork in order to prove their status.
The Home Office seems systematically to distrust and disbelieve people, and now it is asking the Windrush generation, who perhaps do not have the paperwork they need, to trust that the Government will believe them. It is not a surprise that that generation still feel betrayed, and still feel distrustful of the Government.
The Government need to get a grip on the situation very quickly. They still need to explain what went wrong and why it took so long for the scandal to come to light. I would like personal apologies to everybody who has been mistreated, including my constituent, and the compensation scheme needs to be dealt with properly and urgently. On top of all that, the Government need to look at their policy. They need to get rid of the removal targets and start treating people as human beings, not numbers.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I, too, thank the campaigner Patrick Vernon for pulling together and launching the petition, and my right hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for their work in Parliament challenging the Government’s handling of the Windrush scandal. They speak with great power and authenticity. I also want to put on record how proud I am that my constituency secured the third-highest number of signatories to the petition.
I will briefly quote the writer Caryl Phillips, who was born in Leeds and writes very movingly on a number of topics, including the Windrush generation. In his text “Higher Ground” he said:
“I am grateful, and would thank the Gods…that I have finally mastered this art of forgetting—of murdering the memory.”
He is probably talking about slavery and a number of other things there, but it is very relevant to today’s debate. I challenge us, as a Parliament, not to murder the memory of the Commonwealth and, in particular, of the Windrush generation.
I have permission to mention a couple of constituency cases. One of my constituents came to the United Kingdom with her parents in 1964 when she was a year old. Her representatives were eventually able to use medical records to persuade the Home Office that she had been here continuously since before 1 January 1973 and was settled at that time, and therefore has indefinite leave to remain. The Passport Office, however, has not accepted that in relation to her grandchild, and is refusing to issue the grandchild a passport. That is because, according to the Passport Office, the grandchild’s mother, who has lived in the United Kingdom continually since her birth in the 1980s, is not a British citizen.
The Passport Office refuses to accept that the grandmother had indefinite leave to remain when her daughter was born. Therefore, she is not a British citizen and neither is her daughter. The Passport Office is now also contemplating withdrawing my constituent’s British passport. I would be grateful if the Minister responded—perhaps not today, but in writing if I raise the case with her—specifically about the grandchildren.
As a Commonwealth citizen, I recall that in the old days my grandmother always referred to the UK as “the mother country”, and we used to travel on our parents’ passports. It is therefore easy to see how such confusions arose. I think we are all saying in today’s debate that we need to give people the benefit of the doubt, and the wonderful story from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) is so moving, in all its complexity.
Even though the debate is not strictly about other Commonwealth citizens, will the Minister touch on those from Cyprus and other areas? Due to the publicity, many other people are starting to ask questions. For example, I met a woman well into her 70s who came to the UK from Cyprus, who is now having to do a citizenship quiz. She has worked as a seamstress in north London for years and years. Given that her daughter represents us on the London borough of Haringey, it seems almost an insult to ask her to do a citizenship quiz at her advanced age.
I hope that this can bring more transparency not just to the way that some people are dealt with, but to others who are affected. On Friday, I had another woman come to see me in tears. Her job in another local authority has been outsourced to a large company that has asked her to do a biometric test at the Home Office. She did it, and she does not qualify for thresholds she cannot cross. Yet she showed me the stamp in her passport—she has been in the UK since 1970, with indefinite leave to remain.
Given all the expense that the citizenship process entails, why would that woman think to claim citizenship? I think what upset her was not so much the paperwork—slowly we can resolve those issues with the excellent caseworkers that so many MPs have, myself included—but the fact that for all these years she had felt part of the furniture and part of us, yet now she feels she is other, outside or different, and has a strong sense of not belonging.
We had a hug, and I hope that we can sort this out, but I am not sure that MPs can just provide tea and sympathy. It comes down to a policy response that needs to be more transparent, with equality at its heart. There are not enough MPs, hugs and cups of tea to go around. We need equality and genuine transparency in our system.
I welcome the fact that the outgoing Home Secretary has paid for this with her political career, and the trail probably leads higher than her. Once again, we will not give up. We must continue to ask questions, and we have the wonderful example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and others, who have continued to hammer away at this question and to keep alive the flame of equality and not murdering our history. As the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) noted, the new Home Secretary has said
“that could be my mum...my dad...my uncle...it could be me.”
I hope—I always try to end my speeches with a sense of hope—that with the new Home Secretary, given his personal experience, we can continue to work together to solve this and to have a genuinely equal society, where we are all the same under this sky.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I, too, thank the petitioner and the signatories for bringing the debate before the House today, the Petitions Committee for scheduling the debate, and the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for ably introducing it. We have had lots of powerful and thoughtful speeches.
The arrival of 492 passengers onboard the Empire Windrush at Tilbury docks in June 1948 was a pivotal and iconic moment in British history. The pictures and TV footage from the time, which can still be seen on the internet, show people’s faces brimming with optimism. These people were legally full citizens of Britain for the first time, thanks to the British Nationality Act 1948, which was aimed at preserving a united Commonwealth.
Despite a labour shortage, which one Government survey estimated at between 600,000 and 1.3 million people, it is fair to say, as hon. Members have pointed out, that the arrival of the first of the Windrush generation was initially neither welcome nor encouraged. An emergency meeting of the Cabinet Economic Policy Committee was called to discuss the situation, and urgent reports sought the ringleaders of the so-called incursion. The Minister of Labour had to reassure MPs that
“no encouragement will be given to others to follow their example.”—[Official Report, 8 June 1948; Vol. 451, c. 1851.]
As many hon. Members—especially the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—have pointed out, despite that less than enthusiastic initial welcome, that generation went on to make a massive contribution to rebuilding the country after the war, enriching it both economically and culturally. If there is one tiny silver lining in this disastrous episode, it is that a light has been cast once again on their extraordinary role in our history. I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to them and thanking them for that.
Fast-forward seven decades, and that tiny silver lining will be of scant comfort to those who have been treated so appallingly by the Home Office. This appalling episode can and should be seen as a not just predictable but inevitable consequence of the UK Government’s migration policy. It is not simply a matter of an administrative cock-up. The truth is that the Home Office and the Prime Minister entirely neglected those Commonwealth citizens when they went about ramping up the hostile environment and demanding checks on status at every turn. It seems that little thought was given to the fact that it would often be close to impossible for many Windrush children and others to prove their legal situation. Over time, they were dismissed from jobs they had done for years, they struggled to access NHS treatment and services, and they even faced detention and removal, as we have heard from hon. Members today. Some who went abroad were not allowed to return.
The Home Office knew that this sort of scandal could happen. It is not just that MPs raised individual cases with it: non-governmental organisations, including the outstanding Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, warned it, the high commissioners representing Caribbean countries raised concerns, and, later, its own equality impact assessment for the Immigration Act 2016 flagged up precisely what would happen. It is almost as if the implications for the Windrush generation were seen as little more than unfortunate—they did not require action, never mind the urgent action that was desperately needed.
Quite rightly, there is a widespread public outcry, as the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) described. Parliament is rightly angry, and hon. Members have asked a number of important questions. Given that confidence in the Home Office has been utterly shattered, surely the Government must now provide legal aid for those who believe they may be required to contact the Home Office helpline. Otherwise, many will simply not do so.
Will the Minister discuss with the Ministry of Justice the absolute necessity of providing legal aid? Will she assure us that no one from the Windrush generation is in detention or being asked to report? As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked, will she make it absolutely clear that information from the hotline will not be passed on and used in enforcement action? How broad is the Home Office search for others who have been wrongly detained and removed or not allowed re-entry? What standard of proof does the Home Office require for citizenship or settled status here? What rights will there be to challenge negative Home Office decisions, and what will the compensation scheme look like? Can we have an absolute assurance that Home Office staff are not under pressure to remove or deport individuals, and that there is not a target that incentivises them to ignore or not explore the possible right to be in this country? All those questions require an answer.
A number of hon. Members have rightly said that we have to see this scandal in a broader context, because it is just the tip of the iceberg. The Windrush children are just one of several groups of utterly innocent people who have been treated almost as if they are expendable, while the Prime Minister relentlessly pursues her now widely ridiculed and utterly bogus net migration target. Her policies mean that tens of thousands of children across the UK have been separated from a parent living abroad. Even more couples are kept apart by some of the most draconian, restrictive family migration rules in the world.
The checks that the Prime Minister imposed on landlords in England have pushed landlords and landladies into the role of immigration officers, with the result that the fear of getting it wrong has driven discrimination against prospective tenants who look foreign or have a foreign-sounding name. Despite the fact that the Home Office has been regularly criticised for poor decision making, the Prime Minister has removed in-country rights of appeal, which means that folk have to leave their jobs and families for months on end—sometimes longer—to try somehow to overturn those decisions from abroad. Thousands of innocent students have been arrested and deported, without even getting to see the evidence that the Home Office used to decide their guilt, never mind having the chance to challenge it in a tribunal. At the same time, the Home Office has commissioned a review of the complexity of its immigration rules, yet it insists that they are not complex enough to justify legal aid in England and Wales. Fees for citizenship and passport applications have soared. The list of injustices goes on and on.
Two weeks ago, the then Home Secretary said she was concerned that the Home Office has become too concerned with policy and strategy and sometimes loses sight of the individual. She is right, but that is the fault of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who have created policies and strategies that forget the individuals and families whose lives are being destroyed. It is the “computer says no” approach, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) aptly described it.
All the while, there is not a shred of evidence that any of this has achieved anything other than division and messed-up lives. Since the Immigration Act 2014 came into force, voluntary returns have actually gone down. Evidence that the Home Affairs Committee received suggests that the hostile environment sometimes actually makes it harder, rather than easier, to enforce immigration rules, because it drives folk into the black private rented market and the black employment market.
There has been some talk today about illegal migrants, as if they are one body of very wicked and evil people whose removal we should celebrate, but they include husbands and wives unable to secure status because of the very strict immigration rules that I described. We heard today that the Home Office is trying to remove somebody who served in Afghanistan—an Afghan national who worked alongside our forces in that country. He is an illegal migrant, too. There are lots of people who came here as children who did not understand that they needed to regularise their status here, and could not even afford to do so. I will come back to that point in a moment.
Before we can go around talking about a hostile environment, we need a system that gets decisions right, that commands public confidence, that has appropriate oversight and systems of appeal, and that has a clear and simple way to determine who is here lawfully and who is not. None of that remotely exists at the moment, so the hostile environment must be reined in urgently. It is essential that MPs from across the House start standing up to the hostile environment and finally put the notorious net migration target out of its miserable existence.
The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) rightly asked what can be done. An early test for Parliament will be the Data Protection Bill and the Home Office’s attempt to help itself to a massive immigration exemption. There is absolutely no doubt that stripping people of their right to know what data the Home Office has about them, and to challenge inaccuracies, will create further burning injustices. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East pointed out, we need to prevent a repeat of the Windrush fiasco.
What work has been done to identify other groups—Commonwealth citizens or otherwise—who may be at risk? Let me suggest two things the Government can do. First, tens of thousands of children who were either born in the UK or have lived most of their lives here are undocumented. They are entitled by law to British citizenship if they register, but if they cannot register and become citizens, they face exactly the same issues as the Windrush generation. I cannot see how the Home Office can justify charging more than £1,000 for the privilege of registration. Those children are entitled to British citizenship, and they should not be charged to exercise their rights in this country, any more than the Windrush generation should. That must be put right immediately.
Most obviously and urgently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said, we must look after the 3 million and more EU nationals in the UK. The Government must urgently update us about their progress in establishing a system for seeking settled status. Regardless of how successful that system eventually proves to be, it is very hard to see how, at the end of the grace period, we can avoid there being tens of thousands—probably hundreds of thousands —of people who have not successfully navigated the system to secure a document proving their status. If that happens, it will be Windrush on an even more desperate scale.
Those are the immediate priorities. If Parliament is seriously angry about the hostile environment, it will get down to the business of a root-and-branch review of the Immigration Act 2014 and the Immigration Act 2016. We must indeed start putting in place a system that properly respects people, their human rights and the rule of law. The one we have now too often fails to do so. Windrush is an awful and extreme example, but it is far from the only one.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
I, too, have a Commonwealth heritage, and I understand and support every word said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I thank him for his excellent and impressive work against this injustice. I also thank the petitioner and the 178,000 who signed the petition.
The Prime Minister tried to hide behind the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), but, in reality, she was the architect of these terrible policies and their awful consequences. The previous Home Secretary simply carried on her work. The news coverage of the past few days has been wall to wall on the politics of the resignation of the previous Home Secretary and the appointment of the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). The petition allows us to recentre the debate on the most important issue: the Home Office’s appalling treatment of the Windrush generation. They are British citizens who have been made homeless, been denied healthcare, lost their jobs, and been detained and potentially deported.
Thanks to The Guardian, a number of cases are now well known. We have also heard many cases in today’s debate, such as Paulette Wilson’s. Another case I want to share is that of Sarah O’Connor, who arrived in this country aged six. She worked in a computer shop from age 16 until last October. She lost that job when the benefits agencies challenged her immigration status. Other employers refused to hire her when they realised she had no passport. Only last month when her case received national media attention did the Home Office promise to waive her fee for a biometric card application. As we know, there are many more such cases and, at a Windrush meeting in my constituency, I came across similar heartbreaking cases.
The scandal is wider than the Government want to admit. It includes those who came from other Commonwealth countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, many African countries and others. The Migration Observatory estimates that 57,000 such UK citizens from the Commonwealth are directly affected. The scandal also affects children who were brought to this country after 1973, by parents who had arrived here before then. Immigrants who are starting out in a new country cannot always afford to bring their children with them. Although those children did not arrive in the UK before 1973, they are clearly part of the Windrush generation.
How did this scandal come about? Two words: hostile environment. That was a policy that was supposed to apply to illegal immigrants but, as was predicted, it affected anyone even suspected of being an illegal immigrant. That is exactly what happened to the Windrush generation. In 2014, the Tory-led Government removed protections for Commonwealth citizens who had arrived in this country before 1973. When she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister brought in the 2016 Immigration Act, which obliges landlords, employers, the NHS and benefits offices to demand written proof of nationality, which many people do not possess. The Government knew that the early arrivals from the Commonwealth—British citizens—did not possess such proofs, but they went ahead anyway.
We have heard many questions from Members in the debate. What needs to happen now? We need answers. How many of the Windrush generation have been deported or detained? How many left voluntarily, under threat of deportation? How many have been refused re-entry after travelling abroad? Will the victims be fully compensated for all costs, all loss of income and services, and distress? Will the helpline report cases for deportation enforcement where it believes people are here illegally? Did the Home Office issue advice to immigration tribunals and judges of the change in the earlier Immigration Act 2014, which removed protections for Commonwealth citizens?
The Government have attempted to introduce red herrings in the debate, but illegal immigration is opposed on all sides, and Labour is in favour of deporting illegal migrants—we have pledged 500 extra Border Force guards to tackle the problem. The Commonwealth citizens who came here legally are still legal. It is only this Government’s policies that have treated them in effect as illegal. It is that scandal that the Government have created and should end.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and all right hon. and hon. Members across the House who have participated in the debate. They have spoken with passion, knowledge and indeed determination.
As we can clearly see, there is significant public interest in today’s debate, and rightly so. I thank members of the public who have attended, as well as all those people—nearly 200,000 of them—who added their name to the petition. The debate was obviously scheduled before the tabling of the urgent question, and I am probably at somewhat of a disadvantage compared with those Members who could be in the main Chamber for at least some of the earlier debate. The message conveyed by the new Secretary of State for the Home Department makes it clear that he is absolutely, personally invested in this issue.
Let us be in no doubt about the debt of gratitude that this country owes to the Windrush generation. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay described in his opening speech, they were invited to come to the United Kingdom immediately after the second world war and in the decades that followed to help us to build modern Britain.
As I said, the new Home Secretary was on his feet in the main Chamber when this debate began. He has rightly made it his clear priority to address Windrush, building on the work of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who showed commitment to addressing the issue. It was a pleasure to work with her in the Home Office, and I look forward to supporting the new Home Secretary in continuing that vital work.
I would like to do justice to the comments, questions and individual cases raised by Members this afternoon. All of them are important. Many Members will have noticed that I took copious notes throughout the debate, but I mention first the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) even though, somewhat shamefacedly, I wrote very little about his contribution. That is because I preferred to listen—to his passion and to his determination to convey to me, Members, the public and the Government how strongly he feels that we must right this wrong. We are determined to do so.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is not in his place, on his tone. In fact, I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed on their tone. There has been real consideration of the issue and real determination to convey the message to me as powerfully as possible. I therefore wish to start by saying that of course I feel shame and of course I am deeply, deeply sorry.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised three cases, highlighting real and personal stories, which were similar to the personal stories that I heard over the weekend when I was in Croydon and in Sheffield with caseworkers who are on the frontline, doing their best to help people through the process. I have to say that I was very impressed with the determination of those caseworkers to be sympathetic and understanding, and to talk people through the process as gently as they possibly could while at the same time enabling them to give their stories and to provide a picture of their life in the UK—helping them through a process with which we should have been helping them much earlier.
We cannot fail to be moved and to be ashamed when confronted with the individual stories, but as a result, be determined to get the wrong righted, to sort the cases out and to make sure that the legal status is confirmed. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned three cases; we have done a very rapid trawl of those appointments that are already scheduled and I believe that one of those cases will hopefully be resolved tomorrow.
It is important that we as Members convey to our constituents and to the public at large the fact that this process is designed to be constructive and to help. When I first spoke on this issue, I tried to impress on everyone the fact that we needed to have confidence built in the system, so that people would have the courage to come forward. Undoubtedly, the strongest advocates are the people who have been for their interviews and had their status confirmed, who have been willing to speak to the media to confirm that that has happened.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) spoke of the melting pot of Cardiff; I represent part of the city of Southampton, another area that has a very large port. I was very fortunate last Thursday night to go and meet, albeit in the road that crosses the edge of the constituency, one of my constituents called Don John, who for many decades has been a leader of the Caribbean community in Southampton.
I discussed the issue with him, knowing very well that this weekend, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) was holding an event in her constituency attended by Home Office officials, in order to give confidence to those from Bristol who might be affected that the Home Office is there to help. I said to Don on Thursday night, “Let’s see how the event in Bristol goes, but what I can do as a local Member is to make sure that people in Southampton have the opportunity to have an event. I will make sure that there are Home Office officials there.” I say that to all Members: where there is a significant community that they think will be affected, let us reach out to communities; let us not be just a reception centre in the various places that we have up and down the country; let’s make a real effort to go to communities and make sure that events take place in places that are comfortable for people.
I am the first to acknowledge that there can be barriers to coming and making contact with the Home Office. Working with my right hon. Friend the new Home Secretary, they are barriers that I am determined to beat down, because they should not be there.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about trust, which is why I take her comment on the chin. We have a duty to rebuild that trust, and I am determined that we must do so through demonstration and through action, and through an assurance from me and those working on the taskforce that no case will be passed to immigration enforcement. When somebody contacts that helpline, we have absolutely undertaken that none of those details will be passed on to immigration enforcement.
Mr Lammy
The Minister will recognise that the Government still say that there is a burden of proof, although they have lowered it. If there were Windrush generation or Commonwealth people who contacted the Home Office who did not meet that burden, so did not get their status, would they be subject to enforcement? That fear is very real.
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question. I give that assurance. People may well come forward who cannot not produce the proof. It is imperative, if we are to build trust, that we say, “We will not pass those details to immigration enforcement.” The message has to be what I saw on Saturday: we want to be able to help people to build their own story. We want to be able to use whatever disparate pieces of information they may have. A gentleman came to Croydon on Saturday morning who could produce his City & Guilds qualification in horticulture, I believe. That one certificate was pretty much the only evidence that he had of where he had been at school. We have to listen to people and use our own records.
Catherine West
Does the Minister have a view about the legal aid question? In the old days, we all had legal aid centres that people could go to, but they simply do not exist in communities in the way that they did, due to Government reductions. [Interruption.] Will she comment on the possibility of legal aid?
Caroline Nokes
I am slightly concerned that there is an outbreak of coughing in the debate.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady is right—it is absolutely freezing. I have been shaking throughout the debate, although that may not be due just to the temperature.
That is an interesting question, and we are already working with the Ministry of Justice on a review of legal aid. I do not want people to have to use lawyers; I want them to be able to go through an easy process. I get the message from the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) that we have to build trust, and I am determined to do so.
Caroline Nokes
I will finish this point. I do not want people to have to incur more stress and cost—we will reimburse them for their legal costs already, as part of the compensation scheme, which I will address.
There is an important aspect here: we are determined to make this easy, by having the most senior and able caseworkers—who we are trying to empower, through a change of culture in the Home Office—to take decisions. We want not the “computer says no” attitude, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset and many others have referred to, but a position where, better than the computer saying yes, the human says yes. That is a real change.
Eleanor Smith
I am one of the second generation of Windrush; my parents came in 1954. I really do not understand why people have to prove that they live in this country when they have children aged 30 or older and probably have grandkids, too. Why are we talking about having to prove it? Why can we not just give them a blanket exception? I do not understand why, if people have entered the country from 1948 onwards, and up to 1974, which is about 45 years ago, the Minister is talking about having to prove that they live in this country. Is that what she is saying?
Caroline Nokes
There is a significant question of deemed leave and processes in 1973 that did not give people a legal document that demonstrated their status. That is the failing that we have to put right. There may well be people out there who do not come forward. We have to work to give people confidence, but also to give them an important document that enables them to go on and get their British citizenship—all at no cost. I do not want anyone to fall foul of this going forward. If we just grant deemed leave again, we may find ourselves in this situation again.
Many Members have mentioned the difference from EU settled status. That is an important and difficult point. Since I came into this job, a great deal of my time and energy have been taken up with making sure that the settled status scheme, which we will open later this year, will work. It matters to me that it works digitally and easily, and that, rather than the “computer says no” mentality, we have a default position whereby if people are here, the computer will say yes.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) asked about whether the app will work on iPhone; we have been working on that for many months. It works on an Android phone, but Apple as yet has not released the update that would enable it to work on iPhones. I recognise that that is a problem. I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to talk about that, because I cannot force Apple to participate—I wish I could, but I cannot. It is important that, for those EU citizens, many of whom have been here for years just like the Windrush generation, we make the process simple, straightforward and digital.
Afzal Khan
I thank the Minister for the clarification that no case will be passed on for enforcement, but we have seen that this is not simply a question of enforcement. There is the health issue—people are suffering from cancer and dying—and people are becoming homeless or losing jobs. What will she do to help them?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is absolutely right to say that the taskforce is prioritising appointments for people in vulnerable positions—those who are out of employment or at risk of falling out of employment, those with health conditions and those with problems with tenancies. There is a significant group of people with whom we must work, but it is right to prioritise people on the basis of need. We are working really hard. In Sheffield, it was great to see call-backs going on, appointments being made and people having conversations.
My right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary made it very clear that we will compensate people for loss, but it is right that we get the compensation scheme right from the outset. Members have raised interesting points about what should be included in that, many of which might seem really self-evident and straightforward—it should cover legal costs, loss of employment and housing, and so on—but there might be other aspects to it. A number of people have talked about counselling for stress and trauma. It is important that we have an independent person who enables and empowers us to get that right from the outset. That will take a little time, but it is important that we have someone independent of the Home Office who is able to engender trust.
Caroline Nokes
I will take an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, even though he has not been here long.
John Spellar
I thank the Minister for the welcome remedial measures she is outlining, which could help to deal with the outcomes, but does she not recognise that this issue comes from deep systemic and cultural problems inside the Home Office? Members of Parliament raised cases and pointed out the flaws in the Home Office’s arguments, but it utterly refused to reconsider them. This is not just about the computer, or the initial person at the end of the line, saying no; it is about a failure of management then to remedy things. That is why we are having to get into compensation, taskforces and everything else. The Home Office will still have those deep problems. What is she going to do about that?
Caroline Nokes
Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman takes me away from the contributions that have been made and towards the—I do not know how to describe it—somewhat drier technical detail provided to me by officials. I am happy to move on to that, but I would like first to respond to the points made by Members who have been here for the whole debate.
I have addressed some important points about settled status for EU citizens and the responsibility for getting that right, but I would like to highlight the history lesson and information provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). He painted a picture of how the Government can use evidence that is already at our disposal. That is really important. We can share data with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—the list is long. That is exactly what the taskforce is doing. We are trying to lift the burden from individuals and place it on ourselves so that we provide the information and ensure we get it right.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) rightly started by thanking all those from the Windrush generation who have contributed so much. She raised difficult and important questions for me about how we stop this happening again, and she was absolutely right to do so. We have to stop it happening again. We have to ensure that the same cannot happen to future cohorts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) mentioned the Gurkhas—that Nepalese community —who are so numerous at their base in Hampshire, and we must be mindful the whole while that other communities may well be impacted. I have indicated time and again that uppermost in my mind is the truly enormous number of people from the European Union—3.3 million—who are already here. I do not underestimate the scale of that task.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East asked how we can right the wrong done to her constituent, Paulette Wilson. Mrs Wilson absolutely deserves a personal apology. I am not sure that me saying sorry today is adequate. If the hon. Lady would like me to do so, I would be very happy to meet Mrs Wilson. Every one of us was struck by the severe and cruel injustice that was done to her.
The hon. Lady and the Opposition spokesman raised questions about how many people have been affected, how many have been detained and how many may have been subjected to letters asking them to leave the country voluntarily, or potentially even to removal. We are trawling through the Home Office computer system—the caseworker information database, which goes back to 2002—and scrutinising cases very carefully, using both date of birth and nationality information to verify that, as one might expect. I do not wish to get into numbers until I can be confident that they are correct. We have an absolute duty to ensure that we get that right. To date, we have not found any single individual who has been removed from the country wrongly. However, I wish to ensure that we get it right.
Caroline Nokes
Everybody is leaping to their feet. I will take a final intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, but I have to crack on a bit.
Mr Lammy
There is an important group of people who may not have been removed but who are watching and listening to this debate and communicating with their families in this country. That is the group of people who went back to the Caribbean, most often to attend a funeral, and were not allowed to come back to this country. It is very important that those people have access to the hotline and to compensation—many of them lost their jobs and are still there—and that they are properly tracked and attended to.
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point those people out, and I am very conscious—
Caroline Nokes
May I conclude my point before more people jump in? The right hon. Gentleman is right to point that issue out. As the former Home Secretary said last week, we will facilitate those people’s coming home if they wish to. Of course, we must also ensure that visas are available to those who have settled back in their country of origin or elsewhere, should they wish to come here on a visit or relocate here permanently. That is crucial. It is important that we ensure that we enable that to happen for them.
Sir Peter Bottomley
It may be that the Minister wants to write to the right hon. Member for Tottenham after the debate. Officials may want—not today, but in time—to consider and advise Ministers on checking with airlines. Often, those people went with a valid ticket to an airline desk and were refused boarding by the airline because they might be refused entry to the country. The airlines will almost certainly have a record of that. It would be useful information.
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I have made to officials. I was very concerned that people might be turned away at airline desks. We absolutely must not let that happen. Equally, the Border Force in the UK has to understand that this is a generation of people to whom we owe a duty to get things right from this point forward. We cannot allow this dreadful situation to arise again.
Lyn Brown
On the issue of trust, my constituents are concerned that deportations are continuing, despite our debating the issue and despite reassurances from the Minister, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. One of my constituents, Zita, contacted me to ask about flight PVT070, which she tells me is about to go to Jamaica with people on board who are being deported.
Caroline Nokes
It is absolutely not. We are looking very closely at all our enforcement practices to make sure that nobody can be impacted in this way, and that is crucial.
Several hon. Members rose—
Caroline Nokes
I hope hon. Members will not object if I move on somewhat. I apologise, but there are some important matters that I must get on the record, and I intend to do so.
I am very clear that there has been a failure by successive Governments to ensure that individuals who arrived before 1973 have the documentation they need. We are putting that right as a matter of urgency. My right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary made a statement to the House last week in which she set out our approach to the Windrush generation, including the compensation scheme, which I have already referred to.
I am a pragmatic politician, and I do not apologise for that. I have always been focused on finding solutions, and that is exactly what we are trying to do now. When we saw Windrush cases emerging, we became focused on the operational side of helping those individuals. As the former Home Secretary said, we were too slow to identify the pattern and recognise it as part of a wider issue. For that, I am very sorry.
I want to make sure that we not only put this right but improve our mechanisms, to ensure that if a similar systemic issue were to arise again, the Home Office would be able to identify and resolve it much more clearly. The new contact centre will be at the centre of that, monitoring trends from incoming calls to understand where the problems are. We will supplement that with insight and customer feedback to UK Visas and Immigration. I was asked whether there would be a time limit, and I can reassure Members that there will not be.
Catherine West
I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. Will she clarify whether Home Office staff receive a bonus for the number of removals they make?
Caroline Nokes
I am absolutely unaware of any bonus scheme for removals. What I want to focus on today is not removals but making sure, for the Windrush generation, that we get their British citizenship granted as swiftly as we can and at no cost to them.
Yvette Cooper
I have been listening, and I wanted to hear the contributions—I will want to speak in the debate on Wednesday. My hon. Friend’s question is important, because I heard rumours that the head of immigration enforcement and senior enforcement officials have had bonuses linked to enforcement performance, including meeting removals targets. I appreciate that the Minister may not know the details right now, but it is really important that she finds some urgent clarity on that. It would be very disturbing to have a target-driven system that rewards people for removals they make, when there are no independent appeals against many removals and enforcement.
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Lady has asked a specific question about bonuses, and I have said on the record I am not aware of any such system of bonuses. However, I will undertake to go away and find out, prior to Wednesday’s debate, when I look forward to being able to go over this issue in more detail, with more time, in the main Chamber.
I know, as everyone here and—I believe—everyone in this House knows, that we regard the Windrush generation as being of us and part of us. I believe the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green referred to them as being “part of the furniture”. We regard them as British, but we need to ensure that they have the legal documentation confirming that. Nationality law is incredibly complicated, and I want to ensure that their legal status is cemented as soon as possible. We have made it clear that we wish the process to be simple and that nobody should have to undergo a life in the UK test or attend a citizenship ceremony unless they wish to. Some may, and we would want to make that available to them.
Of course, some may not wish to be British citizens at all. We respect that position, but we still need to confirm their status here—free of charge—as someone able to remain in the UK and access services. This point was made earlier: there will also be people in the Windrush generation who, having worked all their lives in Britain, have retired to the country of their birth but obviously retain strong ties here. We should respect and nurture those ties. Should they wish to come back, we will allow that.
I sympathise with anyone who has found the process difficult, and I would like to assure hon. Members that we are doing everything we can to ensure that it is as smooth as possible. I am pleased that more than 100 people have now been issued with the documentation they sought, but please be assured that I am in no way complacent about that. We will continue to improve the service provided.
Mr Lammy
There is another important point. The Minister will understand that some important Caribbean countries—St Kitts, Antigua, St Lucia and others—got their independence after 1973, and a bunch of people are concerned about the 1973 cut-off. Will she say a little more about the situation for those people, some of whom may have come to this country as British subjects from countries whose independence did not come until later in the 1970s or early 1980s? Antigua’s was as late as 1981.
Caroline Nokes
Of course, my right hon. Friend the previous Home Secretary addressed how we solve the status and situation of those who may have come here between 1973 and 1988. I am aware of this issue, and, going forward, I want to ensure that we have a comprehensive package for those whom I am going to regard as the Windrush children, of whom there are very, very many.
As I have said, I was in Sheffield and Croydon over the weekend, listening to the calls being made and the quality of the conversations going on—they were conversations; they were in no way interrogative. In our process, we have a script that is evolving over time. At the end of every day, the script changes and the lessons that have been learned from those conversations during the day are used to ensure that things are better going forward. It is an evolving, iterative process.
I think I have addressed most of the questions raised. If important aspects have been raised that I have not addressed, I will make them very clear to the House on Wednesday. We are working hard to resolve the situation. The new Home Secretary has made his position, personal investment and commitment very clear, and we are working to ensure that it cannot happen again.
As we have heard, this year is the 70th anniversary of the Empire Windrush arriving at Tilbury docks, which makes the situation all the more poignant and tragic. The Government will be celebrating Windrush day, and in the next few days I will have the opportunity to speak to the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about how we can use that occasion to build trust with those we have let down. It is not lost on me that our new Home Secretary has come to the Home Office from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and, of course, he introduced the paper on integration, which is so important going forward. He has a strong ally in the new Secretary of State in his old Department, which I am sure will provide a strong link.
I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are committed to righting the wrongs for the Windrush generation, to ensuring that those who have the right to be here in the United Kingdom are never treated in such a way again and to restoring trust in the Home Office to deliver the outcome that people deserve. I am proud of the work that has been done over the past fortnight to set us on the right course, and I look forward to working with colleagues and officials in the coming months to accomplish those aims.
Steve Double
I want first to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It has at times been passionate; it has been clear; and there have been excellent contributions from across the House, including many deeply moving personal accounts. I also thank Mr Vernon, and all those who signed the petition that enabled the debate to take place today. We are very grateful and I am delighted that it has been possible to hold the debate, through the Petitions Committee.
There has been great agreement across the House that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Windrush generation, and to all those who have come from Commonwealth countries and played such an important role in our nation, and contributed so much, over past decades. There was agreement that wrong has been done to them. I am grateful to the Minister for her clear message that there is no hiding from it—that something has gone dramatically wrong and needs to be put right. There was also agreement that there are lessons that have to be learned to ensure that where things have gone wrong changes will be made, so that what happened can never be allowed to happen again.
I want, as many Members have done in the debate, to give once again the clear message that we are incredibly grateful to those who have come as part of the Windrush generation, and to others since who have contributed so much to our country. We are sorry about the experience that they have had to go through, and the clear message from this House is that we want them to stay. They belong here and are part of our nation. We want to do everything we possibly can to make sure they know that they are welcome here. We will do everything we can to resolve the issue, so that they have the documentation they need to feel secure, and to feel they belong here for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 216539 relating to people who entered the UK as minors between 1948 and 1971.
Written Statements
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business Update
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
I am today publishing a consultation document which sets out a range of proposals to reform the law governing limited partnerships, including Scottish limited partnerships.
The United Kingdom has a global reputation as a great place to do business. People looking to grow or relocate a business come to Britain confident in our high corporate standards. Part of that confidence derives from our strong transparency requirements, which ensure people know who they are doing business with. Transparency also helps combat illicit activity which is a vital underpinning of the UK’s business environment, a key theme of the Government’s industrial strategy.
The UK is a world leader on corporate transparency and we want to retain this position, so we continue to look for opportunities to improve the transparency and integrity of our legal framework. In response to concerns that limited partnerships might be being misused, we sought and received evidence last year. The evidence demonstrates that the limited partnership, including its Scottish form, continues to fulfil important functions in key sectors of our economy. But it also highlighted that there are ways in which the legal framework governing limited partnerships could be strengthened and updated.
The proposals I am consulting on aim to strike the right balance between maintaining high corporate standards while maintaining the UK’s attractiveness as a place to do business and I look forward to hearing from interested parties.
I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Library of the House.
[HCWS656]
Carbon Monoxide Detection and Safety
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Dominic Raab)
Carbon monoxide which can be released if a boiler or fire is faulty or poorly maintained can be a silent killer.
The Government take the risk and consequences of carbon monoxide poisoning seriously and we have been working closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) on this important life safety issue.
The Government with their agencies continue to raise awareness about the risks. For example, our national fire safety campaign helps fire and rescue services promote carbon monoxide messaging and Gas Safety Week is a national campaign to help raise awareness in homes with gas appliances.
Regulation also has an important role to play. Since 2010, our building regulations have required carbon monoxide alarms when solid fuel appliances are installed and in 2015 we introduced further regulation to require alarms when homes that have a solid fuel appliance are privately rented. The Government have consulted recently on the effectiveness of the regulations in the private rented sector.
As a result of our actions, the number of carbon monoxide poisonings has fallen and incidents are thankfully rare but we cannot be complacent.
In recent years there have been improvements in carbon monoxide alarms and the cost has fallen and Government think it is now right to look at the requirements for carbon monoxide alarms generally to see whether they need to be strengthened.
The Government are therefore launching a review of the requirements and the evidence base which underpins these with a view to consulting by the end of the year. Any future changes in requirements would take account of the outcome of the Government’s consultation on the operation of private rented alarm regulations and the Dame Judith Hackitt independent review into building regulations and fire safety.
[HCWS657]
Justice Update
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
On 9 January, I announced an immediate review into: the transparency of Parole Board decision making; whether there should be a mechanism to allow parole decisions to be reconsidered; and victim involvement in the parole process. On Saturday I published the full findings of that review and the action I will take in response.
The review has looked at issues with the parole process as a whole following the Parole Board’s decision to direct the release of John Worboys. Under the current law, the policies and procedures of the Parole Board mean decisions are taken behind closed doors. Open justice is an important principle of our justice system. It must not only be done; justice must be seen to be done.
Victims, and the public, must have confidence in the criminal justice system. Parole Board decisions are inevitably difficult, but this makes it even more important that information is available about how the process works. We must support victims as they continue to suffer from the impacts of the crimes committed against them, and make sure they receive timely and accurate information about what is happening in their case, delivered in a considerate way.
This review sets out the action the Government will take. We are:
removing the blanket prohibition on the disclosure of information about Parole Board proceedings, so that victims can be given summaries of the reasons for the board’s decisions. Where the Parole Board chair considers it to be in the public interest, summaries will also be available to the public and the media on request. There will be a presumption that this will happen. This change will come into force on 22 May 2018;
launching a consultation on a new process to allow reconsideration of Parole Board decisions on whether to release a prisoner. We envisage a judge-led reconsideration process which in some circumstances could be open to the public, and with the individual or panel that makes the reconsideration decision named. This consultation will consider how the new process should operate and will be open until the end of July. Once that has completed I will set out my plans for bringing the changes into effect; and,
making immediate changes to how we communicate with victims. We are widening access to the Victim Contact scheme and considering further changes to be included in the Victims’ strategy which we will publish this summer.
In addition to the immediate actions I am taking forward as a result of the review, I have also announced a comprehensive examination of all 27 of the Parole Board rules to ensure that the processes and procedures as a whole are right and fair.
This initial package of measures sets out the immediate action we are taking. It is a vital first step in moving toward a parole system that ensures greater openness, challenge and involvement of victims in the parole process, and towards restoring the confidence of victims and the wider public in the justice system.
[HCWS655]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Martin of Springburn
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, on 29 April. On behalf of the House, I would like to extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Kirkhill
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should also like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Benefit Cap: Child and Family Well-being
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the benefit cap on child and family wellbeing since that cap was lowered in 2016-17.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, since 2013, the benefit cap has provided a strong financial incentive for those who can work to come off welfare and so improve their child and family well-being. While 134,000 households had their benefits capped, figures for February 2018 show that around half are no longer capped because they are working at least part time, and so qualify for their full benefit entitlement and therefore a considerable boost in income and well-being.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, a new study by Policy and Practice, which was founded by one of universal credit’s architects, highlighted the human costs of the cap, arguing that it should be applied only to those who are actively required to seek work. Can the Minister explain what purpose is achieved by imposing this measure, which is designed to get people into paid work, on lone parents of infants, who are not required to seek paid work because of their caring responsibilities, thereby causing, in the words of a High Court judge,
“real misery … to no good purpose”?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I beg to differ from the noble Baroness. I would call it not “imposing” but “empowering”. Our research shows that the best way to lift children out of poverty is by supporting parents into work. Record numbers of lone parents are now working: 1.2 million, with 1 million fewer people living in absolute poverty compared to 2010, including 300,000 children. We know that 75% of children in poverty leave poverty altogether when their parents move into full employment. We have doubled free childcare to 30 hours a week for nearly 400,000 working parents of three and four year-olds, and a parent need work only one hour a month to be eligible for childcare costs.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has not responded to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who was referring particularly to mothers of infants. There is no special nursery care for those, and mothers should be with their infants in the early stages.
Baroness Buscombe
I respond to the noble Countess by saying that many women, however young their children are, want to work. We are encouraging jobcentre staff to help people to find work that fits around their caring responsibilities. We are also giving those people extra discretionary housing payments. I add that those who are not working at all are still in receipt of what amounts to a gross salary outside London of £23,000 a year and in London £29,000 a year.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that many local authorities are now having to pick up the pieces of this policy, particularly in high rent areas, where two and three-child families are now being hit? Discretionary housing payments are supposed to be only a temporary sticking plaster, not the complete answer.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, we welcomed recent external research on the benefit cap, working with local authorities. We are finding that there is a positive employment impact from the lower benefit cap, even at such an early stage in a child’s life. This supports our evidence that the cap is increasing work incentives for previously workless households.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, welfare reform was predicated on the principal that work should pay, but that principal is being undermined, not least by the two-child limit. In future, a family with three or more children seeking to avoid the cap by moving into work will find themselves subject to the two-child limit instead. They could end up losing out by going to work. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of this perverse incentive?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I would not call it a perverse incentive. Our reforms of support for children make sure that people on benefits and those supporting themselves solely through work have the same choices, including whether or not they can afford to have another child. Our policy is about fairness and incentivising work. Of course, child tax credits were not available before 2003, and, no matter how many children someone might have, they continue to be paid child benefit for each and every child.
We welcome last week’s decision by the High Court in relation to kinship carers. We have considered that part of the judgment, which I referred to during a Question last week, pertaining to non-parental carers, alongside internal reviews that the Department for Work and Pensions carried out in parallel to the legal case. We are pleased to announce that it is right that this change should be extended, not just to those in non-parental caring arrangements but also to include children who are adopted who would otherwise be in local authority care. We can respond positively to all noble Lords who have been pressing us on this point.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that and I commend the Government for having made the right decision, but will she think about what the next stage is? My honourable friend Anna Turley has raised the case of a constituent who had two dependent children in her care and was then asked by social services to take in two of her grandchildren. As a result, the household was hit by the benefit cap. Will the Minister think about that for a moment? There is not much point in exempting kinship carers from the two-child policy if, in practice, they cannot claim those benefits because the benefit cap then kicks in. Might the Government either review who is affected by the benefit cap or, at the very least, consider exempting the benefits given on behalf of the children that a kinship carer has taken in when the benefit cap is considered?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I cannot assure the noble Baroness that we will consider this any further. It is right that I articulate the fact that we are already spending £95 billion a year on benefits for people of working age. We have a budget in our department of £200 billion, which is 25% of the whole of the budget for government. We have to think about affordability before we can continue to extend our policies, notwithstanding that each and every individual case is of great importance to us. Our concern is to ensure that we help those who are genuinely in need.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that children come out of poverty only if the two parents get excellent, well-paid jobs, and the vast majority in this category do not do that?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, perhaps I can also explain that, not only is universal credit giving so much further support and really making work transform lives that, in a family with three children, for example, the couple need only work up to 24 hours in total a week to be exempt from the cap. So the cap comes off and they receive benefits to the equivalent of a salary of £35,000 gross a year, and that does not include housing benefit. Noble Lords should accept that such a salary compares extremely favourably with the income of the many thousands of families who do not call upon the welfare system.
St Petersburg International Economic Forum
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the attendance of United Kingdom executives at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum from 24 to 26 May.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, the attendance and participation of UK companies at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, or SPIEF, is entirely a matter for them. We have not sought to influence them one way or another. Her Majesty’s Government continue to offer advice to UK businesses operating in Russia and support legitimate sanctions-compliant trade and investment.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but the Japanese Prime Minister, the French President and senior members of the European Commission will be there pushing their Governments’ cases. Who will be representing the British Government? Does she accept that some British businesses feel rather bereft of support in view of the way the sanctions debate with Russia has escalated rather out of control?
Baroness Fairhead
I thank my noble friend. It appears that Prime Minister Abe and President Macron will be attending and there is a whole series of bilateral ministerial levels in Russia. In line with government guidance, there will be no ministerial representation. However, I can confirm that Her Majesty’s ambassador to Russia will be there. He will be present to meet, greet and support our UK businesses. That is part of a calibrated response to signal that we are unhappy about what has happened, while at the same time making sure that we support our businesses. That sort of engagement is critical to making sure that there is engagement between businesses and people.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, while recognising the sensitivity of the timing, I declare that last week, St Petersburg International Economic Forum organiser, Roscongress, requested that I assess and advise, at no cost, on trade-only related matters to encourage interaction sector to sector in addition to SME co-operation with the UK. Does the Minister agree that restricting all engagement with Russia is probably self-defeating? As the Government push towards a truly global Britain, in which UK private sector corporates must compete in the international marketplace, fully cognisant of bilateral and multilateral sanctions, would it not be circumspect for the Government’s approach to trade policy to be distinct from other tiers of government policy?
Baroness Fairhead
I agree that engagement matters and that we need to continue engagement to make sure that ultimately we get a good outcome. It is true that we have suspended all planned high-level bilateral contact with Russia, but we are not restricting all engagement. Indeed, we encourage engagement in areas of common interest such as culture, education, sanctions-compliant business, environmental protection and climate change. The important message is: engage, but beware. It is a calibrated response, but I agree with the noble Lord that engagement matters in these situations because that is how we will get a positive outcome.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, what advice is the Department for International Trade giving to British business about the peculiar political and legal complications of operating in Russia for either trade or investment? The Bribery Act and various other things clearly come into play. Are special forms of advice being offered to British business in these circumstances?
Baroness Fairhead
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I can confirm that specialist advice is available. We have special advice from the DIT in London and the British embassy in Moscow. Indeed, a number of other expert organisations, such as the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce, can also offer advice, as can a number of individuals in this Room. Advice is available: the DIT offers it and it can be accessed on location in Moscow, too.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if Ministers from other Governments will be present—as they clearly will be—what is deterring British Ministers from standing up for our country, negotiating and taking part in meetings and gatherings of this sort? Absence achieves nothing.
Baroness Fairhead
In terms of our stance on Russia, and in response to actions in Syria and Ukraine and the Salisbury attack, we are trying to show that this matter is a real threat to a rules-based international order. We are trying to send a clear message that those actions are unacceptable and illegal and to give a calibrated response that shows how unhappy we are with them, while continuing to engage in other areas and support businesses that take part in sanctions-compliant activity. We think that is the right way to do it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I want to offer the Minister some help. Perhaps she should just argue that the cost of going will be too high. After all, a place at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum will cost $8,600. I have looked through the 36 pages of the business programme, seven pages of the sporting programme and 78 pages of the cultural programme; it is quite a feast of pleasure, I must say. If she is interested in culture and so on, I would have thought there was a case for doing that.
More seriously, reading deep into the programme, why are we not sending people to the following sessions, which seem very important: “A Recent History of Blockchain”, which has apparently caused a sensation in Russia and for which expert advice is available, and “Exporting Trust: Building Safe Global Digital Infrastructure”, which is about what Russia can offer? Do these really not attract Dr Fox?
Baroness Fairhead
I thank the noble Lord for his advice and help. SPIEF is a major event—143 companies attended last year—so he is right: the programme is very full. I am happy to say that almost all major UK companies will be present, as will our DIT staff and ambassador, as I said. It is one of a number of our interactions because engagement has to continue. We have put this guidance in place at a bilateral ministerial level. Our policy is very clear: engage, but beware. That is the right calibrated, nuanced approach. We are supporting companies in their engagement and we absolutely believe in supporting the digital economy, because that is where the heart of our new technology will reach global markets.
Secretary of State for International Trade: Visits
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many countries the Secretary of State for International Trade has visited since the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has undertaken 56 visits to 35 different countries since the EU referendum in June 2016.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that I have also visited one of those countries—New Zealand? While, of course, it would be willing to agree a trade deal with the United Kingdom if we leave the European Union, its priority is a trade deal with the European Union and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In fact, most of the people we met in New Zealand said, “Why on earth are you leaving the European Union?” Why do we not take their advice and let Liam Fox off his wild goose chase?
Baroness Fairhead
New Zealand is indeed one of the countries that we hope to have an early free trade agreement with. It is one of the nations with which we have trade and investment working groups. We have 14 of those and 21 countries are participating. It is clear that they are engaging with us. We are working with them very actively and they are looking to work with us on areas and sectors. The noble Lord shakes his head but I know that these trade and investment working groups are having an effect and people are starting to focus on specific areas where we will be able to start negotiating. As the noble Lord knows, we are unable to negotiate any future free trade agreements while we remain a member of the EU.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, last month’s official data from the EU showed that UK exports to non-EU countries fell by 8% over the last year; to the EU they grew by 6%. The Government’s position to turn this around is that there will be trade deals with non-EU countries that we are not currently part of in the EU in operation immediately after the Brexit period. However, her predecessor said in an interview with the Guardian on Friday that,
“it will take three to five years. It won’t happen overnight and in the interim companies might think twice about investing and consumers might decide they want to be more cautious”.
Is the noble Lord, Lord Price, right?
Baroness Fairhead
Exports grew overall by more than 10% last year so there has been growth. Regarding how long it will take a free trade agreement to come into effect, we will be able to negotiate future free trade agreements from March next year as part of the implementation period. We will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify without implementing. There are a whole range of free trade agreements that can take anything from a year to multiple years. There are also many other types of cooperation that we are looking at, as noble Lords will be aware, such as joint trade reviews, economic partnerships and mutual recognition agreements. There are a whole series of trade arrangements we can have with other countries and we are looking at those. Our drive will be what is in the best interest overall of the UK and UK business.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I understand the Minister’s department is rolling out a programme of trade commissioners. What is their role? Are they going to be masters of their strategy? When will this possibly take effect from, and will they be properly financed?
Baroness Fairhead
I thank the noble Viscount for his question. We have announced the creation of nine Her Majesty’s trade commissioners. It is a pretty important role. We are trying to coordinate all the opportunities we have from UK companies exporting to overseas markets. They are very high level trade commissioners. Five of them have already been appointed and generally, they have been recognised as people of extreme competence who will have a real impact. Their role is to make sure that other nations are very aware of the capabilities we have in our country. We are very clear that our export strategy needs to be linked to our industrial strategy, so that the world can benefit from what we can provide in the UK and is made aware of the skills and expertise in this nation.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Will the Minister remind the Secretary of State before he next visits the United States—which he been to more than once—that food poisoning cases per head of population in the United States are 10 times the figure in the UK? In 2016, 450 people in the United States died from salmonella and in the last five-year period for which figures are available in the UK, no one died of salmonella. We will not want to be importing American eggs.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I hope I have been clear at the Dispatch Box before that food standards will remain paramount. We are very clear that the safety and health of people in this country is paramount, so we have been clear that food safety standards, as well as environmental standards, will be maintained at the highest level.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, when the International Trade Secretary visited the Philippines he talked about shared values with President Duterte. Given the President’s record in office, which values were he referring to?
Baroness Fairhead
That rather flummoxed me because I do not know the specific ones he was referring to. We share with a number of countries a real desire to help our businesses make people’s lives better. I hope that was part of it.
Muslims: Population Growth and Sharia Law
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of figures from the Office for National Statistics showing that the Muslim population of England grew 10 times faster than the general population between 2001 and 2016; what is their estimate of future growth; and what is their assessment of the impact of that trend on the relationship between Sharia and domestic law.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the ONS is charged with the collection and publication of statistics related to the economy, population and society of the UK. It is independent from government. The Government have made no assessment of the current or future growth of the Muslim population, or that of any other faith, in England and its impact. The Government recently confirmed in their response to the independent review of sharia law that sharia law has no jurisdiction in England and Wales.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, but I am afraid it is not really adequate. Good Muslims must follow Muhammad’s example and impose sharia law on their hosts when they are strong enough to do so.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Well, let’s talk about it. Several of our local authorities will soon be Muslim-majority and anger is already rising among our kufr working class at the Islamification of their communities.
First, I again ask the Government whether they will require all teaching in our mosques and madrassas to be in English.
Secondly, I yet again ask them to foster an open national debate about Islam to include our Muslim friends so that we can all understand with what we may be dealing in a few years’ time.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think your Lordships’ House would agree that points about good Muslims and bad Muslims are not for this House. I was just wondering whether I, in that context, was a good Catholic or a bad Catholic, but I do not think that sort of thing has any place in your Lordships’ House or in society. We do not prescribe English being taught in madrassas, but we absolutely acknowledge that English language skills are fundamental to taking advantage of all the opportunities of living in modern Britain—getting a job, mixing with people and playing a full part in community life. The Government have no plans to hold a national debate on Islam.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this great country of ours has always accepted immigrants of different faiths, traditions and cultures, and that tolerance, respecting of difference and accepting the rule of law as determined by Parliament must always be the way we go forward, along with standing up to Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and any other form of hate that seeks to divide us?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I could not agree more wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. He and I are of Irish descent and first-generation Irish respectively. In fact, when we look around your Lordships’ House and this country, there would not be many of us if we did not have immigration.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that domestic law in most Muslim-majority countries is based on modern western legal systems and that sharia is actually a moral code that requires Muslims, among other things, to be just and fair in their dealings with everyone and always to promote what is good and to prevent what is wrong? Will she join me and the overwhelming majority of this House in celebrating the appointment today of the first British-Pakistani, born of Muslim parents, to hold one of the great offices of state?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly agree with the first part of the noble Lord’s question and am very pleased to be able to join him in welcoming Sajid Javid as our new Home Secretary. While I have an opportunity, I also pay tribute to my right honourable friend Amber Rudd.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a prerequisite to any intelligent discussion of Islam or any other religion should pay attention to the ninth commandment, which is that you will not bear false witness against your neighbour?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The right reverend Prelate is right. I was just trying to think of my 10 commandments and might have forgotten some of them.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, talking of national statistics, the Minister may not be aware that, 100 years ago last week on St George’s Day, the Navy carried out a huge raid on Zeebrugge and more Victoria Crosses were won on that day than on any other in the First World War, on which I am sure she will congratulate the Royal Navy. In that raid, more ships were used than we currently have in the entire Royal Navy. Does she believe that the Home Office supports the government view that there should be more ships in the Royal Navy?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord never loses an opportunity to weave something about the Royal Navy into a question. I did not think that he would manage it today, but he has. I am very happy to join him in paying tribute to the Royal Navy.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, will the Minister launch an investigation into the growth in the number of people named Pearson in this country and assess what effect it is having on racial harmony?
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, the trouble with your Lordships’ treatment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is that you will not listen when he actually talks sense. There are a number of points which he raises which your Lordships should have the courage to examine, rather than simply denigrate his approach to them. One such point is the implication for democratic trends in this society, which is equally a subject of interest, but in a totally different context, in Northern Ireland. It is not a subject that should be entirely brushed under the carpet until things change.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I certainly was not denigrating the noble Lord’s points, save to say that they were not helpful in the context of anything other than singling out one particular faith in society. I think that my noble friend meant demographic rather than democratic. There is certainly demographic change in this country, but it is all to the good because, if we had purely the indigenous population, we would be looking at population decline and therefore some major problems in meeting employment need.
Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill
Monday 30th April 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 View all Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 27 April 2018 - (27 Apr 2018)
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 30th April 2018
(6 years, 7 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-R-V Fifth marshalled list for Report (PDF, 409KB) - (30 Apr 2018)
16:41 - Division on Amendment 49 - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 244 - Amendment 49 agreed.
18:34 - Division on Amendment 50 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 260 - Amendment 50 disagreed.
19:26 - Division on Amendment 51 - Ayes: 270 / Noes: 233 - Amendment 51 agreed.
22:08 - Division on Amendment 59 - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 181 - Amendment 59 agreed.
Viscount Hailsham
“Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the European Union
(1) Without prejudice to any other statutory provision relating to the withdrawal agreement, Her Majesty’s Government may conclude such an agreement only if a draft has been—(a) approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, and(b) subject to the consideration of a motion in the House of Lords.(2) So far as practicable, a Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the resolution provided for in subsection (1)(a) to be debated and voted on before the European Parliament has debated and voted on the draft withdrawal agreement.(3) Her Majesty’s Government may implement a withdrawal agreement only if Parliament has approved the withdrawal agreement and any transitional measures agreed within or alongside it by an Act of Parliament.(4) Subsection (5) applies in each case that any of the conditions in subsections (6) to (8) is met.(5) Her Majesty’s Government must follow any direction in relation to the negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which has been—(a) approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, and(b) subject to the consideration of a motion in the House of Lords.(6) The condition in this subsection is that the House of Commons has not approved the resolution required under subsection (1)(a) by 30 November 2018.(7) The condition in this subsection is that the Act of Parliament required under subsection (3) has not received Royal Assent by 31 January 2019.(8) The condition in this subsection is that no withdrawal agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom and the European Union by 28 February 2019.(9) In this section, “withdrawal agreement” means an agreement (whether or not ratified) between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU and the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.”
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am in danger of repeating myself, in the sense that I now rise to move this new clause—which I am glad to say has attracted support from many parts of this House. This amendment is designed to ensure that the future of our country is determined by Parliament and not by Ministers. The Prime Minister and other senior Ministers have promised Parliament a meaningful vote; and in a parliamentary system of government, parliamentarians, and in particular Members of the House of Commons, have a right and a duty to determine what is meant by “a meaningful vote”. When the negotiations are concluded, both country and Parliament will be asked to consider the outcome, terms or no terms. The question that will then arise is what should be the role of Parliament, and in particular that of the House of Commons. My view is as follows.
If terms have been agreed, the choices available to Parliament, and in particular to the House of Commons, should obviously be to accept or to reject those terms. If the decision is to reject the terms, Parliament should have the right to suggest further negotiations—I should be rather chary about that, but it should have that right; or to determine that we leave the European Union without terms—that is, to crash out; or to determine that we stay in the European Union on the existing terms. In the event that no terms have been agreed, the same choices should be available to Parliament: that is, to accept that the country should leave the European Union on no terms; or to determine that the country should stay in the European Union on the existing terms; or to request further negotiations, although I am chary about that. In other words, whatever the outcome, terms or no terms, this country’s future should be determined by Parliament, ultimately by the House of Commons, and not by Ministers. In a parliamentary democracy, that is what ought to be meant by “a meaningful vote”.
So, we need to ask ourselves: what is on offer from the Government? Those who were present in Committee will have heard my noble friend Lord Callanan set out the Government’s position. He did so frequently and with clarity and we are indebted to him. On 14 March, my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes—I am glad to see him in his place—asked this direct question:
“Perhaps we are not being as intelligent as we should be. In the phrase ‘a meaningful vote’, what does the word ‘meaningful’ mean?”
Noble Lords may think that that was a very sensible question. He got rather a curious and surprising answer. The Minister said:
“We have never used the term ‘a meaningful vote’”.—[Official Report, 14/3/2018; col. 1650.]
He was, of course, mistaken. The phrase “a meaningful vote” has been used by the Prime Minister, Mr Davis and other senior Ministers on many occasions. I am indebted to the House of Lords Library for examples, which I would happily share with my noble friend should he require them. However, given that my noble friend has, throughout these debates, always adhered very strictly to the script in his ministerial folder—he is not a Minister who goes off-piste—his response troubles me. The Government must not be allowed to dilute or in any way move away from previously given commitments, however meagre they may be.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, this amendment also bears my name and the names of other noble Lords. I will focus my brief remarks on the eventuality of the United Kingdom facing the prospect of leaving the EU in March 2019 without any deal having been reached between the EU and the UK on the terms of a withdrawal treaty, or on the framework for a new relationship between them. I will, too, set out a pretty compelling case for this eventuality to be covered if a parliamentary approval process is to be genuinely meaningful.
This House is no stranger to debate on the no-deal situation. When we considered the Bill authorising the Government to trigger Article 50 before the end of March 2017, we voted by a substantial majority for a meaningful process that covered the no-deal eventuality. The other House, where at that time the Government had a single-party majority, rejected that amendment, and we did not insist. We must, however, face the fact that this Government have never made any commitment to give Parliament any say on a no-deal outcome, although they have committed themselves—rather inadequately—to giving Parliament a say if a deal is struck. The rest of this amendment deals with those circumstances. In the no-deal scenario, there is a void—a vacuum. That is not really tolerable for such an eventuality.
I do not intend to speculate about what circumstances might give rise to this eventuality—that would be a bit of a mug’s game six months before the end of a negotiation. The Government seem to have put away their rather foolish mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal, which I welcome. Suffice it to say that until the final moment of the Brexit negotiations, no deal remains a possibility and needs to be provided for in any meaningful process of parliamentary approval.
On the substance of no deal, I say only that there is now a much wider understanding of the fact that it would be seriously damaging to our economy, as we fell back on WTO terms. The Business Committee of another place brought that out very cogently as recently as last week. There are plenty of other disadvantages outside the trade field if we were to find ourselves going over a cliff edge in March 2019, but this is not the occasion nor the time to have that debate about what the consequences of no deal would be. What needs to be debated today, and I hope decided, is to set out the fact, as subsection (8) of the proposed new clause provides, that Parliament and not the Executive needs to be the ultimate arbiter in such circumstances. I hope that we will establish that in this House at the end of this debate.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is also on this amendment, and I wish to speak briefly on the role that this Chamber needs to play. We are a revising Chamber and we have spent some time looking at the detail of this extremely complex and important proposal to leave the European Union. We also have to be concerned with constitutional propriety, and we are rightly concerned that a referendum which was partly won on an argument to restore parliamentary sovereignty should not be allowed to lead to greater executive power.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, the Prime Minister has promised that Parliament would be allowed a meaningful vote on negotiations once they are completed. The Secretary of State for DExEU has promised that the resolution presented to Parliament will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship with the EU. That should provide some reassurance against fears that most difficult issues are likely to be left for further discussion after the UK has formally the EU.
This amendment puts those promises into legislative form. It spells out the deadlines required to ensure that Parliament is permitted to scrutinise whatever is agreed in good time before the end of March next year. The amendment requires Commons approval by November 30 and Royal Assent by 31 January, and provides a backstop for ensuring parliamentary sovereignty if no agreement is reached by the Government by the end of February. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is quoted in today’s Daily Mail as saying that these are “false deadlines”. I hope that in replying as the Minister he will tell us, if these deadlines are to be disregarded, how the UK will get through the constitutional requirements for leaving the EU by the end of March 2019 and what deadlines he might propose instead.
We are acutely aware of divisions within the Cabinet and the Conservative Party about what form of customs arrangements ought to be acceptable. That is a fundamental issue which is not yet decided but which the Government ought to have resolved, at the latest, by the time that they triggered Article 50 some 18 months ago. In her Mansion House speech two months ago, our Prime Minister admitted that it is in Britain’s national interests to remain associated with many of the EU agencies that hard-line Brexiteers wanted to break away from. She promised in that speech a new security treaty with the EU, to ensure continuing co-operation in combating organised crime and counterterrorism, and a close partnership in foreign policy and defence. But we have been told almost nothing more since then about such important issues or about the compromises of sovereignty in the national interest which they would require. We risk a backlash from all sides when the terms for leaving are sprung at the last minute on an uninformed country.
Ministers have repeatedly assured us that negotiations are well on track, even though they will not tell us what they are doing, and that an agreement can be reached by October—in less than five months’ time. If that is true, this amendment offers no difficulties for the Government; if it is not true and the likelihood is that all that will be agreed by October is a loose statement of principles, with the hard details of our future relationship kicked down the track to be sorted out in the implementation period—as the Government like to call it—after we have left the EU, then Parliament needs to intervene. Leaving the European Union without a clear and detailed agreement on the future relationship would be a disaster for our economy, our foreign policy, our relationship with Ireland and our internal and external security. This amendment guards against that unfortunate outcome.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
Will the Minister address one point when summarising? Has consideration has been given to the wording of the meaningful vote? If so, what will it be?
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I have great respect for all the proposers of this amendment. It makes me all the more astonished that they should put forward a clause which could, and very probably would, lead to not one but several constitutional crises. I am reluctant to draw the conclusion that that is the purpose of the new clause, that that is the intention behind the new clause, that so determined are its movers to thwart the will of the British people to leave the European Union that they wish to provoke a constitutional crisis, but that is the perilous outcome to which this new clause opens the door.
My noble friend made a very fine speech, but the new clause which stands in his name goes far beyond the fine sentiments which he addressed. I shall concentrate on just two of its consequences. First, the new clause gives your Lordships’ House a veto on any agreement which the Government have reached and which the other place has endorsed. It is instructive to compare the wording of subsection (1)(b) of the new clause with subsection (3). We have not heard very much so far from the movers of the new clause about its precise terms, so it falls to me to draw your Lordships’ attention to those terms.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The noble Lord is giving us the speech he gave us in the Article 50 Bill, when it was indeed the case that the amendment then moved did not differentiate between the Lords and the Commons. If he looks at this amendment with care, he will see that there is a very clear differentiation and that it is only the Commons that has the right of decision; we have the right of consideration.
Lord Howard of Lympne
If the noble Lord waits until I have concluded my remarks, I think he will be better able to form a judgment about how careless I have been.
Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that the Government may conclude an agreement only if the draft has been approved by the House of the Commons and has been subject to the consideration of a Motion in your Lordships’ House. The Minister may have something to say about the circumstances in which such a Motion might be considered. It is not a point I intend to dwell on, although there is clearly a possibility that your Lordships may vote not to consider such a Motion.
Subsection (3) of the new clause provides that a withdrawal agreement may be implemented only if it has been approved by an Act of Parliament, and subsection (7) provides that that Act must have received Royal Assent by the end of next January, so the new clause expressly contemplates a situation in which the Government have reached an agreement with the European Union, the House of Commons has approved that agreement, but your Lordships’ House, simply by delaying the passage of the Bill beyond next January, could defy not only the will of the people but the will of the elected Chamber of Parliament. If that would not provide a constitutional crisis, I do not know what would.
The new clause goes on to provide a prescription about what would happen if such a situation were to arise. It proposes that the negotiations should be taken out of the hands of the elected Government of our country and be decided on a resolution of the other place and the consideration of a Motion in your Lordships’ House. I had the great privilege of serving in the other place for 27 years—not quite as long as my noble friend, but almost—and I have the greatest respect for it, but it is not a negotiating body. I do not believe it has ever taken that role upon itself, I do not believe it wants it and nor should it have it. I need hardly add that if this new clause were to become law, the situation would arise that it would immeasurably weaken the Government’s negotiating position with the EU and would make our Government and our country a laughing stock.
The truth of the matter is that, while a great deal has been spoken about the House of Commons—my noble friend talked about the House of Commons—at the end of the day the House of Commons will have its say and the House of Commons will have its way. The House of Commons does not need to be given any guidance by your Lordships’ House as to how it should go about its business. There are many ways in which the House of Commons can achieve that objective, and the House of Commons will do so.
This new clause is thoroughly and fundamentally misconceived. I am afraid that it illustrates the appalling lengths to which die-hard remainers are prepared to go to achieve their aim, and I urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, as an answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has just said, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said in moving the amendment that this was all about “Take it or leave it”. Is “Take it or leave it” a meaningful vote? Throughout Committee, the main answer given by the Government was, “We are implementing and executing the will of the people”, while every single day the press says, “Implement the will of those 17.4 million people”. But, as the noble Viscount said, “Leave, whatever the terms”—is that what the people actually said? Is that what is in the national interest?
At the heart of this issue is the fact that in the other place at the time of the referendum two-thirds of MPs, on all estimates, thought that the best thing for this country would be to remain, and right here in this House about 75% thought the same. Yet when the referendum took place, hundreds of those MPs’ constituencies voted to leave, so the MPs are caught in a trap. The confusion is whether they see themselves as delegates or representatives of their constituencies. Are they making these decisions in the best interests of their constituents and country or of their party? Are they managers or leaders? The difference between a manager and a leader is that a manager does things right but a leader does the right thing. Do they have the guts—the guts of the so-called mutineers such as Nicky Morgan, Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve, Jonathan Djanogly and Tom Tugendhat, and I could go on—to stand up when the time comes to do the right thing?
We discovered in Committee that whether we were discussing borders, education or movement of people, no argument was made. The Government were like a stuck record, simply saying: “The will of the people”. The amendment would give MPs in the other place and this House the power to stand up to do the right thing for the country. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, talked about a constitutional crisis. What constitution do we have where a Government bully Parliament and say, “Take it or leave it”? It is Parliament that should be supreme, in the best interests of the people and the country. Thanks to this amendment, Parliament would have the ability to stop the train crash that is Brexit.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, is absolutely right to draw our attention to the constitutional dangers that lurk within the amendment. It goes too far to bind the Government.
I think it is time that we drew breath. We have had a very exciting couple of weeks but it is time to think about the respective roles of the Executive and Parliament and of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as other noble Lords who have spoken have done. Parliament is not the Government and it should not try to usurp their role. Of course the Government emanate from Parliament and are accountable to it, the Government should be advised by Parliament and are invigilated and sustained by it, and if they lose the confidence of Parliament then they fall, but the Government are not the same as Parliament and Parliament is not the same as the Government. We have a separation of powers. The Government are the Executive, and Parliament neither can nor should act as the Executive.
It was improper and inept for the Government ever to suppose that they could bypass Parliament in dealing with Brexit. Of course there must be a meaningful vote, but it is for the Government to negotiate, listening all the time to Parliament—Parliament constantly proffers its advice—and then eventually to submit the deal that they have negotiated to Parliament for its approval or otherwise. You can call it a take-it-or-leave-it vote, but nobody could say that that is not a meaningful vote.
Dominic Grieve, someone for whom I have the greatest respect and the warmest regard, justified his amendment to Clause 9, requiring that the final terms of the deal should be approved by a statute, on the basis that it was essential to prevent the Government exercising the biggest Henry VIII power ever. That was an understandable and legitimate motive, but to require that the deal should be approved by the laborious process of statute seems to me to go too far in an inappropriate direction. Parliament cannot negotiate. Parliament certainly cannot negotiate by legislation or amendment. It cannot change the deal, it cannot bind the European Union. It can bind the Government in an excessively narrow straitjacket, and that would be an extraordinarily unhelpful thing to do in the national interest. The process of legislating such a statute would serve only to prolong the uncertainty about which everyone complains.
Amendment 49 would develop the Grieve amendment and take it further. It repeats the requirement for a statute already in Clause 9, but doubles up with the requirement for a resolution. It then goes further. Proposed new subsection (5) states that if the House of Commons does not approve the draft terms, the Government “must follow any direction” given by the House of Commons. That seems to me the most extraordinary provision. Of course, legislation routinely binds Governments for the future, but it does not tie their negotiating hand. It should not, specifically, tie this Government’s hands as they seek to perform this particular complex, sensitive, immensely difficult, crucial set of negotiations.
The resolution could say anything. It could say, “Go back to the negotiating table”. It could stipulate that the Government deliver what is undeliverable. It could rescind Article 50. It could call for a general election or another referendum. These are exceedingly important matters where the Government should listen to Parliament, but the Government should lead and Parliament should respond.
If we reflect on the relationship between your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons and our respective responsibilities, surely it is our responsibility to advise the House of Commons, to advise the Government. In the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, it is to suggest, to argue, to explain. It is no part of this House’s responsibility to seek to manipulate the House of Commons or the Government, to seek to choreograph future proceedings of the House of Commons, and certainly no part of our responsibility effectively to pull the rug from under the Government.
If we pass this amendment and some of the others on the Marshalled List today, I fear that we shall be getting too big for our constitutional boots, and many of our fellow countrymen feel the same.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hailsham made an eloquent and powerful speech. If I had closed my eyes, I might have thought I was listening to his father. However, despite his eloquence, he did not go very deeply into the detail of his amendment. I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Howard said.
The first part of the amendment, proposed new subsections (1) to (3), it might be argued, roughly and broadly mirror what the Government themselves have outlined: a resolution in the House of Commons, the withdrawal Bill, primary legislation and trying to get a vote before the European Parliament has voted. But my noble friend Lord Hailsham then inserts a series of triggers with rigid dates. If the vote of approval has not taken place by 30 November, if the Act of Parliament has not received Royal Assent by 31 January, and if the withdrawal agreement has not been agreed by 28 February, a whole lot of things happen. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, highlighted, what happens is that the House of Commons or Parliament effectively takes over negotiations and can impose conditions. This is a most extraordinary thing. It has never been the case before that Parliament has dictated how a Government should negotiate a treaty, but this is what would happen under the provisions of the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, Parliament could dictate all sorts of things: it might dictate that the Article 50 notice be withdrawn or it might dictate, although it would perhaps be subject to dispute, that Article 50 was extendable. This would be for Parliament to assume extraordinary powers in a way that has never happened before. It would be a major constitutional innovation.
Lord Howard of Lympne
It is a question, and my noble friend has not finished.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Are we learning the lessons of history? Sometimes it is very valuable to see what has happened in other countries when similar steps have been taken. We remember the reluctance of Mrs May to allow Parliament to be involved. She wanted the Government to be in charge. My mind went back to Berlin in March 1933 when the enabling Bill was passed in the Reichstag, which transferred the democratic right from the Parliament into the hands of one man—that was the Chancellor, and his name was Adolf Hitler. Perhaps I am seeing threats that do not exist, but they are possible. Who would have thought before the 1930s that Germany, such a cultured country, would involve itself in such a terrible war?
Let us take the warning. What we are doing here must involve Parliament. I would like to see it involving the people as well, but it must certainly be in other hands. We cannot let an enabling Act of the United Kingdom possibly lead to the catastrophe that took place in Berlin in 1933.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to those noble Lords who have proposed this amendment but I have concluded, on the basis of the other arguments which have been set out, that it is fundamentally flawed, for both constitutional and practical reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, the constitutional argument is that it risks completely confusing the roles of the Executive and the legislature. We have a system in this country where the separation of those is very clear. The Executive can command authority so long as they have a majority in the House of Commons. Their role is to bring proposals to Parliament; Parliament’s role is to be the legislature. You cannot have a negotiation where a Parliament seeks to be the negotiating partner: that is an impossible situation. Subsection (5) in the new clause proposed by the amendment allows Parliament to try and direct the details of the negotiation. That is constitutionally inappropriate—that is the role of the Executive. The Executive are accountable to Parliament but it is their role to negotiate and bring their proposals to Parliament.
On a practical level, even more importantly, and as other noble Lords have said, it would completely undermine the Government’s negotiating position if they did not have the opportunity to walk away. A negotiation has to involve compromises by both sides. If the European side of this argument knew that, however onerous they made the conditions, the Government would come back to Parliament, which could tell them to go back and concede some more, we would simply be offering the opportunity for one side of the negotiations to keep pursuing its case rather than compromise. That would completely undermine the practical basis on which negotiations have to be held between two sides which have the authority to negotiate, with proposals brought back for approval by the House.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I have a couple of observations, one specific and the other more general. The specific observation relates to subsection (1) in the proposed new clause, which talks about the way in which a withdrawal agreement would be approved or otherwise by Parliament. This issue has been raised several times in the past by me and other noble Lords. If you require parliamentary approval, what happens if one House says yes and the other says no? This is particularly serious in relation to anything connected with the ratification or otherwise of agreements between the Government and the EU 27. Either House saying no—in this case it would probably be the House of Lords—would, in effect, be a veto on the whole process. To be fair, there is an attempt to deal with this problem, because proposed new subsection (1) requires approval,
“by a resolution in the House of Commons”,
but the simple,
“consideration of a motion in the House of Lords”.
My simple, factual and specific point is just this: we do not need an Act of Parliament in order for us to consider a Motion. We can do that any time we want to, pretty well, on any subject we choose. That is not any kind of control or limitation whatsoever. I would say, “Good, but what on earth is subsection (1)(b) doing in an Act of Parliament?” It is absolutely unnecessary—otiose may be the word, I am not sure, but it is irrelevant and we should not clutter the statute book with points such as this which are of no value whatsoever. My more general observation is that we are putting ourselves in a bizarre circumstance. We are saying that we, the unelected House of Lords, should pass an amendment which effectively tells the House of Commons how to hold the Government to account. Essentially, it is instructing the House of Commons. A lot of noble Lords have been in the House of Commons. That House holds Governments to account day in, day out. It does that by a multitude of different mechanisms: by debate, adjournment debates, emergency resolutions, questions to Ministers, and Bills.
The function of Parliament in general and the House of Commons in particular is to hold Governments to account. We are simply saying to it by this amendment, “We think you should have additional powers to hold the Government to account”. If the House of Commons wants to exercise control over the way in which the negotiations proceed, it does not need any advice, still less any extra powers given to it by us—it has them already. Government is subject to the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not the servant of government in a parliamentary democracy, to quote the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but ultimately it is the other way round: the Government is the servant of the House of Commons.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
If my noble friend is right in every case, why did Gina Miller have to take action in the High Court?
Lord Grocott
My noble friend was not present at the time, as a number of us were, but if he is in any doubt whatever about the ultimate authority of the House of Commons, he should have been in the House of Commons in 1979—
Lord Grocott
I am sorry; it was later. My noble friend missed the boat by a few months. That was when the House of Commons—just before my noble friend enriched it with his presence—threw the Government out. I can think of no more substantial control than throwing the Government out of office and calling—
Lord Grocott
Yes, sadly, they were a Labour Government, and my vote was not enough to enable them to survive. If anyone is in any doubt whatever about the capacity of the House of Commons to do what it needs or wants to do in respect of this or any other piece of legislation, those powers exist already. It does not need any advice from us.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
The House of Commons is not in control of the legislative canvas—the Government are. This amendment, sent to the Commons, would provide it with a canvas on which it can operate. It can change it or modify it if it does not like bits of it and send it back, but without this canvas it cannot operate in the way my noble friend is describing.
Lord Grocott
I have never seen the word “canvas” in Erskine May—I do not know quite what my noble friend refers to. However, we know that the House of Commons can pass legislation if it wants to; it can be introduced by a Private Member’s Bill if required, although obviously not on a matter like this. Legislation can be introduced—
Lord Cormack (Con)
Surely if we in this House pass this amendment, the House of Commons can send it back, and no serious-minded Peers in your Lordships’ House would seek to resist the power of the House of Commons. It is being given a chance, and if it does not like it, it can tell us where to get off.
Lord Grocott
I hope all noble Lords were listening carefully to that. A lot of noble Lords were saying, “Hear, hear”, so should the House of Commons send this back to us, I very much hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said is correct, and we would press the matter no further. Undoubtedly, the House of Commons can send amendments back or not as it chooses.
The related point I want to make—apart from stating what I think is the obvious in a parliamentary democracy, that Parliament, or the House of Commons, is supreme—is the reference that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made to his concern: if the Government’s conclusion of its negotiation with the EU 27 were rejected, what would happen next? If the Government were to lose any vote on the cardinal element of their raison d’être since the general election—namely, implementing the decision of the people that was made in the referendum—that would be the end of the Government, unless the whole constitution is rewritten and turned on its head. The Government would have to resign if that were to happen. How could they possibly continue? We keep hearing about the number of Bills that are related to our departure from the European Union. If that were to happen, how on earth could the Government remain in office? Of course, that may be a good or a bad thing.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
The constitutional position has changed radically with the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. My noble friend is implying that no Government would be prepared to suffer the embarrassment of staying in power. But on the record of this Government, they might be quite prepared to stay in power.
Lord Grocott
My noble friend knows perfectly well that the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act provides for a vote of no confidence in the Government. It would be the equivalent of a Motion of no confidence in the Government if they lost the support of the House of Commons for their central legislative plank.
The Countess of Mar
Noble Lords may get up only once, and the noble Lord has already done so.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, the interventions reflect what we have known throughout the passage of this Bill—and, indeed, politics since the general election. The overwhelming majority of Members in both Houses voted for remain in the referendum and, through all sorts of different mechanisms, they want to either delay or stop the whole Brexit process. It is Parliament’s right to do that, and if the House of Commons decides to do so, that is what will happen. I personally strongly recommend against it in the light of the referendum, but that is what parliamentary democracy means and that is how it operates.
My final point is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I have heard on a number of occasions that, somehow or other, if we query in any way the relationship between the Government and Parliament, we are denying the central argument of the people who want to leave the European Union: to enable Parliament to restore its authority, which it lost in substantial measure with the passing of the European Communities Act 1972. My answer to that is this. Quite simply, if anyone in this House, or the other one come to that, is deeply concerned about parliamentary sovereignty—and indeed if they love parliamentary sovereignty, as I do—the best thing they can do is to make sure that the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed as rapidly as possible. That is far greater a restriction on the authority of Parliament, and on the House of Commons in particular, than anything the amendment to hand attempts to remedy.
I am not going to be accused of in any way challenging parliamentary democracy because I do not think that this is a terrific amendment, but I will not lose any sleep if it passed, for the reasons that I have said: Parliament can do what it likes and the House of Commons can do this in any case. However, we must not miss the wood for the trees. As far as the sovereignty of Parliament is concerned, the problem comes from the European Communities Act 1972 and not from any amendment that this or any other House can pass.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate because I read in the newspapers a forecast of what the result would be. That suggests that, for most of your Lordships, the decision has already been taken. However, having listened to the debate so far, I thought it was right for me to say a word or two.
I have never been a Member of the House of Commons, but by the constitutional arrangements that then existed I was given a very senior position in Her Majesty’s Government, which lasted for almost 10 years. One of my fundamental approaches to the matter of discharging that office was to respect the views of Members of the House of Commons who were members of the Government. There are colleagues of mine here who know in practical terms that that was so. On the other hand, it was always possible to suggest ways in which their policy could be implemented with less danger to the community than otherwise might have happened.
I had the privilege of nominating my noble friend Lord Hailsham to be a silk. Her Majesty the Queen graciously accepted that nomination. But I did not have the opportunity to exercise power that would have enabled him to have the title “learned” in this House. That does not in any way derogate from the force of what he had to say except that, from my point of view, it is arrogant in the extreme for Members of the House of Lords, together or otherwise, to tell the House of Commons what to do.
I learned in the course of my experience as Lord Chancellor that it was very wise for Members of the House of Commons to be given what they wanted so far as possible. I am sorry to say that my colleague, the lady Speaker at that time in the House of Commons, is not in her place, but I remember that in relation to arrangements for things in which we were both involved it was universal that her wishes were implemented. There is an arrogance in our House telling the House of Commons how to go about its business. I agree entirely with what the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Howarth, said about that. As I said, I had not intended to speak, but I feel that this House needs to think about its attitude to the powers and discretion of the House of Commons.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I find myself torn between pragmatism and principle—the principle of parliamentary democracy and upholding and preserving the constitution; and on pragmatic terms, the ability the Government need to manage the process we are in. But I keep hearing in this debate the language of “telling the House of Commons what to do”. Call me ignorant, but I did not think that that was what we were doing. I thought the role of the House of Lords was to scrutinise, improve and ask the Government to think again. That is what we are called to do and that is where the principle applies. Then it is up to the House of Commons and the Government to decide what they do with the arguments put forward from this place. Not to do that is to deny the appropriate role of this House in doing its job.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, if this amendment is passed, this day, 30 April, should be called hypocrisy day because the overt objective is the opposite of the covert objective. The overt objective is apparently to give greater powers and a greater say to Parliament. The covert objective, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, will be to do the opposite. If one wanted examples or specific reasons why one says that, we need only look at the Factortame case a few years ago, when Parliament was clear that it wanted its way on a European shipping matter, and our courts eventually came down in favour of the European Court having the final say. There is no question but that if we stay in the European Union, Parliament will be one of the worst sufferers.
The acquis communautaire is another example. It is the basis of what the European Court does and is entirely to do with the centralisation of power away from national institutions and organisations such as Parliament. The proposers of this amendment may argue that they are in some way strengthening Parliament, but exactly the opposite would happen in the end.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
We all know what the intention of the amendment is: not to improve Brexit but to impale it. What does “meaningful” mean? A meaningful vote seems to be one that somebody has won; then, it is meaningful to them. Otherwise, it appears in certain quarters that “meaningful” is meaningless unless you have won. Was the referendum meaningful? Was the last election meaningful? Apparently not. Was the election to this House of the noble Viscount meaningful? I am sure that it was—although perhaps in hindsight we on these Benches might have done well to have inquired a little more deeply into his passions. It would have made for some fascinating hustings.
The Government have repeatedly promised a meaningful vote. Clearly, if words mean anything, that commitment is inescapable. Let us imagine for one moment that the Government broke that promise and tried to offer an unacceptable vote—or no vote at all. What would happen? There would be fury. There would be uproar in the Commons and all sorts of turmoil in the tea rooms. Your Lordships would beat their noble breasts. Speaker Bercow would be brought to bear. I have no idea whether the rather rude sticker about Brexit that was on the back of his car is still there—I cannot possibly repeat it—but I think we can guess that he would leave no parliamentary stone unturned.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was right. The House of Commons has any number of different means to raise this subject. If all else failed, we could surely rely on Mr Corbyn. I know that the prospect terrifies some Members on the Benches opposite; I can see their tight lips and I felt a frisson of anxiety as I mentioned his name. But surely they could rely on their leader to slap down a Motion of no confidence, as happened time and again in 1978 and 1979, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said. In other words, the Government cannot under any conceivable circumstances avoid a meaningful vote.
So the amendment is utterly irrelevant. It is also deeply—and, I believe, deliberately—damaging. It is designed to undermine our negotiating position—to confuse, to cause chaos and to give encouragement to EU negotiators to contrive the worst possible outcome, in the hope that some new vote, parliamentary decision or referendum will force Britain into retreat or even to hold up its hands in surrender.
Lord Dobbs
I am glad that the noble Lord is still awake. I take it as a compliment. In 2016, Mr Clegg said clearly that we,
“have to abide by the instruction to quit the EU”.
Note the wording: not “advice”, not “recommendation” but “instruction” of the people to exit the EU. There are those in this House—decent, principled people—who hate the idea of leaving the EU. I understand those feelings. But there are also those in this House who have vowed to do everything they possibly can to destroy Brexit. That is a matter not of principle but of abuse of privilege—a direct attempt not to secure the best for Britain but to drive Brexit on to the rocks. This a wrecker’s amendment and I wish it ill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am not a natural ditherer. I am very—perhaps overly—decisive. However, I did hesitate on some of the amendments that are coming up today. But I decided that, in the interests of democracy—which did not stop on 23 June 2016—that I would vote for them. However, the speeches in favour have turned me against this amendment. Clearly, there is more of an agenda than just allowing more of the people’s will, more of their say and more parliamentary control in the process. So I will not vote for the amendment now.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who has not so far spoken in one of these debates, I want to make a brief contribution. One sees how this debate has gone, with the Brexiteers on one side and the remainers on the other. I speak as somebody who has already spoken in this House as a remainer. I campaigned to remain. I now find myself in, as I would put it, the weakest of positions: a reforming remainer. We have had the referendum, the decision was taken and we are now embarked on the negotiations. My view on the amendment before the House is that one of the beneficiaries could be Monsieur Barnier.
My worry is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, we are cutting the feet from under the Government. In the present situation—which I did not choose and where I see many problems for the Government—we have to see how we can at least stand together to try to get the best possible deal for our country in this difficult situation.
Having said that, we will then get towards the end of the negotiations without being tied down by some of the very difficult dates included in this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard in his reference to the unnecessary inclusions and the difficult constitutional crises that might be involved in it. We should come to the end of that process. I have never been in any doubt—having been in this building, I am appalled to say, for 48 years at one end or the other, with terrible consequence—that in the end Parliament is going to decide. Any suggestion that we must have this amendment with all its flaws to make sure that it happens, I regard as quite unnecessary, unwelcome and unhelpful. Everybody here, I hope, on whichever side—as I say, I am a remainer, but Brexiteers as well—wants to get the best possible deal and then Parliament will decide whether it is sensible to go forward. I stand for the sovereignty of Parliament. That is why I believe that this amendment should not be approved.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I think we have now heard, especially if what has been said is true, that the House will be more in favour of the amendment than against. The balance of speakers now is possibly to allow one speech in favour of the amendment.
It is a bit of a shame as I wanted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, because it is always such fun. The only disadvantage of him being in the House is that he is not writing another television play. Please go back to doing that. The uproar in the Commons which the noble Lord mentioned—I am afraid he cannot stand up again—can be in another play.
These are serious issues and I cannot agree more with what the previous speaker has just said. It is about allowing for the deal to be negotiated—the best deal for this country, we hope—and then for it to come to Parliament. This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, about creating a constitutional crisis; nor is it about asking the Commons to become a negotiator, as someone said. It is to ask the Commons and Parliament to decide whether the outcome of the negotiations is good enough for the country. That does not seem too much to ask.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, worrying that it will somehow affect the negotiating timetable if our negotiators have to come back to Parliament, that, of course, is exactly what is happening on the other side because the negotiator Monsieur Barnier has to go to his Parliament—the European Parliament—to get it through there. We could see that one side has to go to a Parliament to get the deal approved but not ours. I really do not see that the timetable is quite a problem.
We always feel very sorry for the Minister—and me—on these long days because we do not get any lunch. Today I gather he got absolutely none because he was on the radio at lunchtime. What did he say? He said that the amendment was about overturning what the people decided in June 2016. That is not what it is about. It is about asking the Government to put the results of their negotiations to Parliament. It is quite hard to see why the Government, or the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the others, are so worried about it. What do they have to fear—that the deal will not be good enough?
We support the amendment, which is quite simple but has to be written quite complicatedly because we are trying to get it right. It is to put into law the undertaking that the Prime Minister gave that both Houses of Parliament would have a vote on the outcome of the withdrawal negotiations. There are five reasons for supporting it. First, as with Article 50—but this time without having to go to court—it is to ensure that the withdrawal agreement is put into statute by Parliament because a mere Motion, which is what we have been offered, has no force of law. In fact, I doubt that it is even, in the words of Article 50(1) of the treaty, in accordance with our “own constitutional arrangements”, which is what is required.
Secondly, the votes in Parliament must be meaningful. That means that they need to be effective, but also that there must be a real choice and that the outcome must be binding on the Government. Particularly for the House of Lords, it would be meaningless, if the Commons voted yes to the deal, if we were then asked to vote. If we wanted to vote no, we would know that it would not be binding and that the Government were going to ignore it—it would not matter what we did, so we might as well follow the Commons. Or, if it was binding on the Government, we would be in the difficult position outlined by my noble friend Lord Grocott. If, as an unelected House, we wanted to vote no, we would risk overturning the elected House. My judgment is that in those circumstances we would have to vote yes regardless of what we thought of the deal. That would be a meaningless vote.
Thirdly, the votes in both Houses must offer a reasonable choice. It would, I suggest, not be meaningful to vote either to exit on a deal if we think it is poor, or else to crash out on no deal—that is, on even worse terms: WTO terms, no safeguards for UK citizens abroad or, indeed, EU citizens here, a hard border in Ireland and no transition period. That is Hobson’s choice. It is true that last week David Davis suggested that there might be a third option—perhaps extending Article 50—but without it, if we simply have the deal on the table or a cliff edge and off, that is not a meaningful vote.
Fourthly, as has been said, the promised vote is currently only on a negotiated withdrawal deal. It gives no role to Parliament over a decision by the Government to walk away without a deal—again, with WTO terms, no safeguards for our UK citizens living in EU countries nor EU citizens here, a hard border in Ireland and no transition period. That cannot be something that the Government decide without Parliament.
Lastly, the promised vote says nothing about the consequences of a rejection of the withdrawal deal, or of the no deal that we heard about earlier. As we have heard, the amendment, in its different ways, answers all those shortcomings. It puts the vote into law. It removes a Lords’ veto that would otherwise make our vote meaningless. It extends the vote to a no-deal situation, and it signals what must happen should the deal be rejected or there is no deal; that is, the House of Commons must then decide the next step. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, with all courtesy to the noble Lord, perhaps he would get the feeling of the House, which is to have the Minister stand on his feet.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I thought this amendment was about Parliament having a say. It is unreasonable not to allow a noble Lord who gave way to the noble Baroness opposite to have a say, so we should hear him.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
I am grateful, but I am not surprised by the reception because this House is of course a cosy cabal of remain.
As your Lordships have heard from my noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Howard, this is a wrecking amendment, designed to delay, frustrate and ultimately block Brexit. For all the protestations of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and others, it is a wrecking amendment in substance. Those proposing and supporting it are playing the role of a fifth column for Monsieur Barnier and the EU negotiators. I am sure he is very grateful; they are doing his job for him, as my noble friend Lord King pointed out.
The amendment would tie the Government’s hands in the negotiations, in both time and content. It seeks by disguised means to overturn the referendum result and would make our negotiators’ already difficult job even more difficult. It is therefore against our national interest. There are many in Germany and elsewhere in the EU who would like us, as they see it, to come to our senses and reverse Brexit, not least because they see us as one of the few sensible people in the room with them. The proposed new clause would work towards that goal.
Of course, its proposers will deny any such intention. It would be more admirable if they were transparent about their intentions, even if they cannot accept the referendum result. At least, the Liberal Democrats are open about their intentions; not so the Labour Party. But the 17.5 million people who voted to leave, including many Labour voters, are watching and noting the manoeuvres in this House.
The proposers and supporters of this new clause are perfectly entitled to do as they are doing, but we are perfectly entitled to call them out for what they are doing: acting as a fifth column for Brussels by undermining the Government from inside.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I feel that several of my noble friends have exaggerated its aims and intent. This is not about frustrating Brexit, nor is it about overturning the referendum; it is merely about fulfilling our role, which is to ask the other place to reconsider. It is about asking the other place to ensure that there is a meaningful vote on whatever the Government manage to negotiate. It is not intended to undermine the negotiations. We are asking the other place to consider whether the vote being offered is meaningful. If the other place is satisfied and it comes back to us, that is another matter, which we will not overturn.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank all the contributors to this debate. It is right that we have taken the time to discuss it at length, because this amendment has potentially serious implications for delivering a successful Brexit. Of course, I understand why this amendment might look notionally appealing, at least—it triggers a greater role for Parliament should any of the deadlines set by the amendment pass without their terms being met—but let me be very clear; this is not an innocuous, measured amendment. It contains a number of constitutional, practical, legal and political difficulties, all of which we should seek to avoid if we are to leave the EU with the best deal possible, which is what the Government want to achieve. Indeed, this amendment would create a profound constitutional shift in terms of which branch of the state holds the prerogative to act in the international sphere, a point so well made by my noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Howard and by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, from the Labour Benches.
I do not suppose that those who are proposing this amendment are making this suggestion lightly, but I cannot support such a move, as I do not believe that it is in the best interests of the country to redefine the nature of our democracy in this way. It is a well-established feature of our constitution that the Executive represent the country in international diplomacy, and this constitutional arrangement exists for very good practical reasons. In any negotiation, there are judgments to be made as to what can reasonably be achieved. Those judgments can be made only by those engaged on the detail. It would be impossible for negotiators to demonstrate the flexibility necessary for an effective negotiation if they are stripped of their authority to make decisions. That will do nothing but guarantee a bad deal for the UK, which is something I hope we all wish to avoid. If the UK is to be a trusted and effective negotiator, with the EU or anybody else, the Executive branch must be competent to negotiate, just as they are competent to act on their own judgment in other areas of international relations. I speak in strong terms, because I want to demonstrate the seriousness with which the Government take this amendment, its implications and the precedent it will set.
The drafting of the amendment itself is of further concern. It states that a draft of the withdrawal agreement must be approved by the Commons before it can be concluded, but it is not clear what “conclude” means in this context. This may seem a lesser point but noble Lords will understand that we need legal certainty to ensure that the vote occurs at the right time in relation to the process of withdrawing from the EU. We would not want to end up in a perverse situation in which a vote must be offered while negotiations are ongoing, for instance. The vote must happen once the final text has been agreed. Until that point, there would be nothing for Parliament to vote upon, given that ultimately, of course, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to be careful. He is a Member of the European Parliament and knows perfectly well what “conclude” means: it is the moment at which the two parties to an international agreement, having fulfilled all their constitutional requirements, notify one another that the thing can be brought into effect. There is no doubt about that.
Lord Callanan
I was a Member of the European Parliament, but I also know that the vote of the European Parliament is in effect a take-it-or-leave-it vote. They do not seek to bind the hands of the Commission negotiators either.
I also question the implications of this amendment on the public’s confidence in our democratic institutions. The scope of proposed new subsection (5) is extremely broad, giving Parliament the power to direct the Government on anything in relation to negotiations: casting back to last week’s debate, it does not even add an “appropriate” or “necessary” restriction. That means directions do not have to be just about negotiating tactics or objectives but could feasibly encompass delaying or thwarting our exit completely, which I believe is the motivation of many of the supporters of this amendment. We should think very carefully about how that could be perceived by the electorate. Such a situation would not be compatible with either the result of the referendum nor the commitments given by many parliamentarians to respect the result. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lamont that this amendment would set a range of arbitrary deadlines and milestones after which Parliament may give binding directions to the Government, up to and including an attempt to overturn the referendum result itself.
Does this give the Government the strongest possible hand in negotiating a good deal? I am afraid that it does not—in fact, the opposite: it would create a perverse negotiating incentive for the EU to string out the negotiations for as long as possible. It is not in the UK’s interest to hand the EU negotiators a ticking clock and the hope that the more they delay, the more they can undermine the position of the UK Government and create damaging uncertainty and confusion. I agree with my noble friends Lord Blackwell and Lord King, who made precisely this point. The amendment would bolster those who wish not to secure the best deal with the EU but rather to frustrate Brexit altogether—a point that was well made by my noble friend Lord Howard.
However, I do not wish my response to be misinterpreted. I do not make these arguments because I think that the Government are somehow not accountable to Parliament. Of course we are. We have made a number of assurances on this matter. For example, there are some who have argued that this amendment is necessary to ensure that there is a vote on the final deal after the negotiations have concluded. I disagree. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs observed, our commitment to that is very clear and is in the best traditions of Parliament. It was made at the Dispatch Box and confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement and has been repeated many times since.
I will make that commitment once again: the Government will bring forward a Motion in both Houses of Parliament on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, this vote will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship, but we have not settled on the precise wording.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Will the Government confirm also that that Motion will be amendable in both Houses?
Lord Callanan
I am not going to dictate what Parliament might want to do with that Motion or any other. Members will be free to table amendments to the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Will the Minister answer the other question: will it be binding on the Government?
Lord Callanan
Of course it will be binding on the Government. If Parliament rejects the deal we have negotiated, of course it cannot be implemented.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
I ask the Minister to clarify one other point, which we did clarify in Committee: if Parliament rejects this agreement, is the only alternative that the Government are offering leaving with no agreement at all?
Lord Callanan
If Parliament rejects the agreement, there is nothing for us to legislate further on. It has been rejected. The Article 50 process that Parliament voted for will then kick in: we will leave on 29 March 2019. I repeat that we expect and intend this vote to occur before the European Parliament votes on the deal. If Parliament supports that Motion, we will bring forward the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill—a piece of primary legislation to give the withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect. Of course, that will be amendable. This is in addition to the ratification process that is a requirement under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Additionally, the Government will introduce further legislation where it is needed to implement the terms of the future relationship into UK law, providing yet more opportunities for further and proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
Returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I thought I heard David Davis suggest in a Select Committee the other day with regard to the meaningful vote in the House of Commons that the resolution might be amendable. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Lord Callanan
I have not seen David Davis’s comments but I am sure what he said was true and appropriate.
This is in line with our belief that primary legislation is the appropriate vehicle for major policy changes, as is evidenced by the fact that we have already introduced Bills on sanctions, customs, trade, nuclear safeguards and road haulage.
These are serious commitments. As recently as last week, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union took detailed questions on the vote on the final deal at the Exiting the European Union Select Committee. He said:
“The Government is unlikely to put a vote to the House that it does not intend to take properly seriously”.
Perhaps that answers the noble Baroness’s question. To discount these assurances is to go against the convention that assurances to Parliament can be relied upon.
Finally, in addition to the problems and complexities I have outlined, the amendment is unnecessary because it is a simple legal fact that, following the amendment made to Clause 9 in the other place, there is no mechanism by which the Government can give the full final withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect without introducing primary legislation.
To summarise, whether intended or not, the drafting of this amendment is problematic. Some of the policy choices in it need to be rethought. Ultimately, large parts of it are simply not fit for purpose. While I suspect that I may not be successful, I strongly urge noble Lords to think again about this amendment.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I have a very strong sense that this House wants to move to an early decision. I confine myself, therefore, to making one substantive point. It is to my noble friend Lord Howard, because what he said underpinned many of the arguments articulated by other noble Lords. He said, “The House of Commons will have its say, the House of Commons will have its way”. It underpins his argument, but it is not government policy—that is the point. The Government’s policy, as was brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is “this agreement or no agreement”. That it is not letting Parliament have its say. The truth is, if we want Parliament to have a truly meaningful vote, we have to insist on it. That is what this new clause is about, and I wish to test the opinion of this House.
Lord Newby
“Parliamentary motions on a referendum
(1) A Minister of the Crown must move a motion in each House of Parliament to provide for the option to hold a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should accept the outcome of the negotiations between the Government and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, or seek to remain in the EU by revoking the notification of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50.(2) Such a motion must be moved prior to the enactment of any statute to implement a withdrawal agreement and as a precondition to making regulations under section 9, irrespective of whether either House of Parliament has previously considered or approved a motion relating to the outcome of the negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.(3) If both Houses of Parliament approve the option of a referendum, the Secretary of State must not commence any statute nor make regulations under section 9 to implement a withdrawal agreement, but must bring forward proposals to hold such a referendum, and the Government must seek such an extension of the Article 50 period as may be necessary for this purpose.”
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, your Lordships’ House has just passed an amendment to the Bill that gives Parliament a meaningful vote on any Brexit deal. This amendment, standing in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Wigley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is about what happens next. It says the Government must put forward the option of a referendum on the deal, a people’s vote to determine whether the people as a whole approve the outcome of the negotiations or seek to remain within the EU. It would not require a referendum to be held in all circumstances but only if Parliament—the Commons in particular—voted for one. In what circumstances might the Commons choose to do this? I think it might well choose to do so if it had rejected the deal that the Government had negotiated, and that is a perfectly plausible outcome.
I have had the privilege of listening to almost all the 16 days on the Bill—some 120 hours of debate—and the dubious pleasure of hearing virtually every word uttered by Ministers during the process. Whether we have discussed clinical trials, family law, environmental protection, police co-ordination or international security, the position of the Government has been virtually identical: they wish us to have arrangements as close as possible to those that currently obtain, to the extent of being prepared to submit to the rulings of the hated European Court of Justice in respect of key regulatory bodies, while accepting that we will not have the benefits nor the influence that we enjoy today. In area after area, they accept that we will be powerless rule-takers. The alleged sunny uplands of being in a more favourable position in any of these areas have, to put it mildly, been shrouded in fog. On the key issue of the customs union, vital to the future of Northern Ireland and our trade more generally, and faced with the brick wall of hard reality, the Government’s response is simply that of petulant defiance.
If the Government reach an agreement based on their current negotiating stance, I believe that it will be obvious that it leaves the country poorer, less influential and less secure—as the Prime Minister predicted it would before the referendum. A large majority of MPs and members of your Lordships’ House know this, but may yet vote for it. Why? Because the 2016 referendum vote has become sacrosanct, and the expressed will of the people two years ago holds people under its spell. It is as if it has frozen attitudes in a way alien to the democratic principle, which allows people to change their minds.
There is only one way in which this spell can be broken; there is only one way in which MPs can be liberated to vote for what they know is in the country’s best interest and in line with their beliefs; and that is giving the people the final say. The spell cast by the previous referendum is so powerful because it reflects the political reality that a vote in the Commons to reject a Brexit deal could not be the end of the matter. In those circumstances, the country would demand a final say.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, put it at Second Reading, such a vote would mean that he had,
“no option but to take to the streets”,—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col. 144.]
because he could not get representation in Parliament. I suspect that he is not alone in that view. To save him from a potential criminal record and in order to give the people, who started the Brexit process, the chance to determine how it should be concluded, a vote on the deal should then be held.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
As the noble Lord mentioned my name, the Liberals were very reluctant to accept the result of the first referendum, so why will they accept the result of the second one if it goes against what their interests are?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the first referendum was a mandate to the Government to negotiate Brexit. At the end of the process, a decision has to be taken on whether that mandate has been adequately fulfilled. The only question is whether the Commons alone or the Commons supported by the people should take that final decision.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
With due respect to my noble friend, the first referendum was in 1975, overwhelmingly in favour of the European Union.
Lord Dobbs
I point out to the noble Lord that in 1975 the European Union simply did not exist. He keeps coming out with all this imaginative stuff. I wish we could get back to the facts.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as I was saying, many noble Lords are opposed to referenda, and I have some sympathy with that view, but I am afraid that on this issue the pass was sold when Parliament, including your Lordships’ House, approved the 2015 European Union Referendum Bill. On Brexit, Parliament gave the initial decision to the people; it is in no position now to take a stand on the concept of its own sovereignty on this issue.
Lord Grocott
The noble Lord referred to an initial decision. Could he point to any phase in the passing of the referendum Bill when it was emphasised that this would be just an initial decision by the public?
Lord Newby
Well, during the referendum Bill, all sorts of things were said, including by many people that it was an advisory referendum. That soon fell by the wayside, did it not?
Lord Grocott
This is a point of clarification. The noble Lord said that it was an advisory referendum in 2016, a point often made by my noble friend Lord Foulkes. Can he answer this simple question? Is the new referendum that he is considering an advisory one or a binding one?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I said that during the debate that was said. The truth is that, if you ask the people to have a vote, Parliament, having given them a mandate to have a vote, politically cannot come back and say, “Thanks very much, you’ve had your vote but, actually, we are going to ignore it”. Everybody knows that that is not realistic politics.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Does the noble Lord remember that in 2008, when other people were not advocating a referendum and there was no renegotiation, Nick Clegg put forward the idea that there should be what he called a real referendum—an in/out referendum? If that had come to pass, what would the Liberals have done if the people had voted no and wanted to leave, and there was no renegotiation? Would that have been binding or not?
Lord Newby
My Lords, that was in the completely different context of the Lisbon treaty. In previous debates in your Lordships’ House, a number of noble Lords have thrown at me what former leaders of my party have said. I would just ask the noble Lord, as we are talking about former leaders, whether he agrees with his former leader, Sir John Major, when he made a speech earlier this year and said, of this debate:
“Peers must ignore any noises off, and be guided by their intellect and their conscience”.
To revert to the point that I was attempting to make, on Brexit Parliament gave the initial decision to the people; it is in no position now to take a stand on parliamentary sovereignty on this issue. On Brexit, the horse has well and truly bolted.
It is sometimes argued that people are fed up with Brexit and want to leave it to Parliament and get on and implement it, but that is simply not the case. All recent polling shows that a majority of people now want to have a final say. A poll by YouGov earlier this month, for example, showed that by a majority of 44% to 36% there was support for such a vote. So this is not just the remoaners and, with figures like that, sadly, it is not just the Liberal Democrats. It is a view very widely shared, including by government supporters. In a recent poll of Conservative voters, by a majority of 43% to 34%, almost identical to that of the country as a whole, they said that they now wanted a vote on the issue.
So, what are the objections to the proposed amendment? First, it is argued that it is too soon to put such a provision into legislation. However, just look at the timetable. This Bill will receive Royal Assent sometime in June at the earliest. The Government believe that they will negotiate a withdrawal agreement by the end of October, a claim confirmed by the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU before a Commons Select Committee last week. If we take the Government at their word, this means that the approval resolution, provided for in the amendment which the House has just passed, could be brought before Parliament within 20 weeks of the Bill gaining Royal Assent and before any further legislative opportunity to provide for the referendum option had presented itself.
Far from being premature, this amendment is extremely urgent. It is argued by some members of your Lordships’ House that, if the Commons were to reject a Brexit deal, the correct next step should be a general election, rather than a referendum. However, this is a poor alternative. As last year’s general election showed, the issues which dominate a campaign at the start are sometimes very different from those which do so at the conclusion. At that election, polling showed that, in the last crucial days of the campaign, Brexit was supplanted by terrorism as the most important issue in many people’s minds. In any new election, health, education, jobs, housing, the qualities of the rival leaders, and issues which unexpectedly flare up in the campaign itself—as terrorism did in last year’s—would determine how many people voted. An election is, therefore, an extremely unsatisfactory mechanism for taking the people’s view on any single issue.
It is argued that a referendum would be too divisive but, in the circumstances of the Commons voting against a Brexit deal, to deny the people a final say would be even more divisive.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Will the noble Lord answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Grocott? I understand that he speaks for his own Front Bench and that what he says is, therefore, the formal position of his party. In the event that this referendum were to take place, would the Liberal Democrats accept its result as binding?
Lord Newby
Whatever the legal words, it would be politically binding, by which I mean that the Commons would not seek to overturn it. That is the precedent set by this referendum. We know that, at the time, the vast majority of Members of the House of Commons opposed the outcome of the referendum. They accepted it, though, because that was the political reality, whether it was technically a binding referendum or not. However the people vote if there is a further referendum, that will be taken by the Commons as a binding mandate from the people.
We have to accept that, whatever the outcome of the Brexit process, the country is now very deeply divided. Anybody who has been out canvassing in recent weeks will be only too well aware of that. Many Members of your Lordships’ House will know how keenly their children and grandchildren feel on this issue. All of us who are engaged in public life have a duty to reduce this division in the years ahead, but that great challenge now confronts us, referendum or no referendum.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
The noble Lord just made an important point: there is no certainty that that would be granted. Why does the noble Lord believe that it will be? Surely that is a matter for the ECJ, or may become one. What is behind the noble Lord’s remark?
Lord Newby
It would be a matter for member states acting unanimously. Not surprisingly, those of us who might wish for an extension of the Article 50 process have taken advice from Members of your Lordships’ House, from representatives of institutions and from other Governments, and we have formed the view that they would in those circumstances allow a limited extension of the Article 50 process to enable a referendum to be held.
This amendment complements the one we have just passed. It provides for an option, not a requirement, for Parliament to decide to hold a referendum when we see the terms of the withdrawal agreement. It would give the people who started the Brexit process the chance to have a final say in its outcome. I commend it to the House.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he tell us what the question would be in his referendum? Would it be in essence his speech?
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am glad to support Amendment 50, to which I have added my name, which was moved so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I will add a few comments of my own to explain why it is essential that a provision along these lines is incorporated into the Bill we send back for further consideration to the elected Chamber.
I make it clear that I have a great dislike of referenda as a tool for sanctioning complex legislation. A referendum may be all right for approving a simple, transparent, binary issue which cuts across traditional party divides, such as opening the pubs on Sundays in Wales, as was mentioned in Committee. The more complex the issue, the more inappropriate a referendum is. However, the genie is already out of the bottle. There is a valid question as to whether a decision taken by referendum can—or perhaps I should say should—be overturned by a vote by Members of Parliament or by a general election, and certainly not by Members of an unelected House. None the less, those MPs who at last year’s election gave their constituents a pledge that they would do everything in their power to ensure that the UK remained in the European Union are duty-bound to redeem that pledge by the way they vote, as are MPs who committed in the opposite direction.
By this amendment we would facilitate MPs having a choice at their disposal when the Bill goes back to them—and in fact, they would have two choices. The first is the fundamental one: that MPs can return to the question of whether the Bill should be amended by them to provide a referendum in circumstances where they deem that appropriate. If we reject this amendment tonight, we would in effect prevent MPs giving further thought to that issue. When circumstances change, sensible MPs may want to change their minds. However, unless we give them the hook on which to latch any initiatives relating to a referendum, we essentially lock out the question of a referendum in any circumstances whatever.
The second area of choice we would facilitate by this amendment relates to the circumstances in which a referendum may be required. I believe that if the Government were able to negotiate a deal which enabled the UK, while leaving the EU, to continue to have a customs union relationship with the EU, and which enabled our industry and agriculture to participate in the single market, as outlined in the Welsh White Paper put forward by the Welsh Government and opposition parties last year, that should be endorsed by MPs without a further referendum. Not least, such an option would resolve both the Ireland and Gibraltar issues, which would be as good a compromise as we are likely to achieve. If, however, the Government fail to reach a satisfactory agreement which protects the interests of exporters and those who depend on the availability of EU workers to meet their needs, and if they secure no agreement at all and we face the utter disaster of a cliff edge prospect, MPs must be allowed to revert the issue back to the people. If voters then endorse a no-deal exit from the EU, with all that that means, so be it.
Some noble Lords may well argue that the decision at that stage should be taken by MPs and that they, if they are so minded, should have the option of overturning the referendum outcome. There are, of course, two basic reasons why this may not be possible. The first is that the Government have repeatedly—and again today—stated that the only option other than the negotiated settlement will be to quit the EU without agreement; essentially, on world trade terms. The Government continually refuse to give MPs or this Chamber the option of being able to reject a hard Brexit. In these circumstances, I believe that MPs should be allowed the option of considering a confirmatory referendum as one outcome. This amendment gives them that option. It allows them the maximum flexibility: it does not instruct them to hold a confirmatory referendum but it allows MPs to go down that path, if circumstances so dictate.
It is for these reasons that I implore colleagues, even if they share my dislike for referenda, to pass this amendment tonight and, by so doing, to enable MPs when this Bill returns to them shortly to keep the referendum option open and, in the fullness of time, to use it if, in their judgment, that is the only way to ratify or reject a worst-case scenario of leaving the EU without agreement. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. Although I have always maintained that the people ought to have the opportunity of a referendum on the terms of our leaving the European Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley said, this amendment does not mandate such a referendum. It gives Parliament the option of a referendum if, and only if, Parliament believes that the terms secured by the Government would be more damaging to our country than staying in the EU.
I supported the amendment that the House has just passed. Of course Parliament should be allowed a wider choice than the choice which, as the Minister admitted, the Government intend, and of course we must hope that the Government secure a good agreement. But Parliament should not be limited to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, described as a Hobson’s choice between a bad agreement and no agreement at all. For that reason, I will also support Amendment 62 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack, Lord Reid, Lord Deben and Lord Balfe.
Although no one relishes the idea of a further referendum—I certainly do not—I believe that Amendment 50 is the logical consequence of the one that the House has just passed, which says that, if Parliament withholds approval of the withdrawal agreement, the Government must follow any direction approved by the House of Commons and considered by the House of Lords. I have considerable sympathy with the arguments advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Lamont, against Parliament giving instructions to the Government. However, I believe that there will, in effect, be no choice for anybody about the instructions that would have to be given. About this, we have to be realistic. Whatever agreement is reached will be the result of long and painful negotiations. We cannot realistically expect the EU to be willing to reopen the negotiations and give us better terms at the behest of the UK Parliament—that is simply not a possible prospect.
It is in this respect that Amendment 50 goes further than Amendment 49. It recognises, in keeping with my view, that the only alternative to an unacceptable agreement is no agreement at all. That is not acceptable. The only other option is to withdraw our notice under Article 50. We must be honest that that is what a rejection of the agreement would entail. At the same time—
Lord Green of Deddington
I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, but what would be the terms? We do not know for sure that we can lift our Article 50, but nor do we know—and nor would we know if a referendum were called—what terms we could return on. Would we get the same rebate? Would we have to undertake to join Schengen or the euro and so forth? Surely, we cannot assume that 27 countries will give us a completely clean return. Therefore, it would be rather difficult to know what the two options for the referendum were.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
That is precisely the point that I am making. We certainly cannot be sure that, if the agreement were rejected, the EU would give us better terms. I do not believe for a moment that it would. In that case, the only other alternative is to think again about our notice under Article 50. That is what we need to face up to.
The amendment acknowledges that, since the decision to leave the EU was taken by the British people, a decision to withdraw our notice could also be taken only by the British people. That is where a further referendum comes in. It is not ignoring the will of the people but submitting to it. I realise that those who believe that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union oppose submitting the view of Parliament to a decision of the people. But I find it difficult to see why they regard themselves as more democratic than those who favour giving the people the final say.
Amendment 50 is also realistic about the timetable, as the noble Lord the leader of the Liberal Democrats in this House has said. An agreement even in broad terms will not be reached until this October at the earliest. If Parliament rejects the agreement, time will be needed to legislate for a referendum and hold it. That would, in all likelihood, be impracticable before March 2019. So the amendment requires the Government to seek an extension of the Article 50 period for that purpose. It would, as has been acknowledged, be up to the EU partners to decide on whether such an extension should be granted, but if there is a prospect that it could enable the UK to stay within the EU, I believe that it would be granted.
Those who have reservations about a further referendum should not feel that they would be committing themselves by supporting this amendment tonight. It would be an option if, and only if, Parliament finds the outcome of the negotiations unacceptable. At that point, it would be the only option. But the amendment ensures that Parliament would at least have that option, and I urge the House to support it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment. It is increasingly clear that the public want a vote on the final deal. Perhaps it is not surprising that, asked whether the public or politicians should have the final say, a majority is very clear that it should not be the politicians. They feel that they have been let down by the politicians. The Brexit that was dangled before them no longer seems to be on offer—the land of milk and honey that came with no bill attached was never going to be a reality and the people are waking up to that now.
Earlier this month, I attended the launch of the campaign for a people’s vote on the deal. I confess that it was the first time that I had been inside the Electric Ballroom in Camden, but it was an upbeat and optimistic gathering. By contrast, according to the pollsters, the category of optimistic leavers is shrinking very fast. At the Electric Ballroom, there were eloquent speeches from people who are not the usual suspects. The actor Sir Patrick Stewart talked passionately about his fears for a country that was headed in the direction that this one is. A leading surgeon spoke of the damage that Brexit is already inflicting on the NHS, with doctors and nurses leaving. People working with student unions stressed how strongly young people feel about having a vote on the deal; I know at least one person in this House who was vigorously opposed to the idea of a referendum who has changed his mind because he says that his grandchildren would never forgive him if he did not support the amendment.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment and, along with many of my noble friends, I will vote for it.
Few of us would have started from here. Most of us are in the position of the now-famous maiden aunts of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who turned up at the Odeon next to the Electric Ballroom on 23 June 2016 to find that only two films were showing: “Reservoir Dogs” and “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre”. I am now in a position to tell the House what happened after they went to the cinema. They have been in touch and told me that they decided to return home without watching either film. With the noble Lord’s help, they put a DVD on. It was Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho”. They are still watching it in slow motion. To their horror, the point they have reached is that of Janet Leigh about to go into the shower—or, to be more precise, she goes into the shower on 29 March next year, in 333 days. The big question facing your Lordships and the country is this: is there a better ending to the film, knowing—as we do—that the British people will suffer serious harm if Brexit proceeds, but equally that we are a democracy and believe in the will of the people?
The only way I can see of deciding Brexit democratically, with a real option to reject it, is a referendum on Mrs May’s withdrawal treaty after she presents it to Parliament this autumn. Like many noble Lords, I am not a fan of national referendums for all the reasons that Churchill and Attlee banned them in post-war Germany. The imperative for a referendum on the Brexit deal is that we currently have a Government in office who believe that they are operating under an instruction from the British people two years ago to withdraw from the European Union. If that view turns out not to be supported by a majority of the Members of the House of Commons when they consider the exit treaty in the autumn but the Government present the treaty as a matter of confidence—which they surely will, and must, given its centrality to government policy—the only constitutional course is for the people to judge whether the Brexit treaty is their considered will or their considered will is to stay in the European Union. This could take the form of a general election but we have already had two of those in the last three years so a referendum looks like a highly credible option.
I want to make three quick points. First, I say this to my noble friends: the amendment straightforwardly supports Labour Party policy. The resolution on Brexit, passed unanimously by our conference last year, stated:
“Unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable, then the option of retaining EU membership must be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through Parliament and potentially through a general election or referendum”.
That is party policy and what the amendment enshrines in law.
Secondly, it is important not to be distracted by subsidiary issues. Is the time ripe? In my experience, the time is never completely ripe, but this is probably the only chance we will get before the withdrawal treaty so there is not much time left and we should seize it. What about the referendum question? Parliament will decide on that; of course, as said by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, it will be a decision between the treaty and staying in the EU, because if the majority of MPs are for a referendum, that is the choice they will want to put before the country. Is a referendum too divisive? Well, it will be, but nothing like as divisive as when Brexit goes badly wrong, there is a search for scapegoats and we have to try to get back into the EU after we have left.
Finally, I want to make a point about abstention, which, to my great regret, is my party’s whip. On the great issues of life and politics, it is hard to abstain with dignity and self-respect. All of us will be asked what we did. I for one do not intend to say, “I abstained”. I will say, “I voted for the British people to be in control of their destiny at a moment of supreme national crisis”.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I abstained on the last vote because I thought that many of the arguments against that amendment were very powerful and it was, in many ways, a defective amendment. However, I strongly support this amendment. I have no such doubts. I support it even though I readily recognise that it is entirely possible—many people think, highly likely—that in a further referendum, the vote would again be in favour of leaving. This time, I suggest there is much to be said for making the next referendum, unlike the first, legally binding, with no question of “neverendums”.
Of course, the public have already voted, and certainly that vote—although not legally binding—made it imperative that we give an Article 50 notification. We have done that and continue to explore what terms for leaving the EU are available to us. The public cannot yet vote on those available terms, but why should they not eventually be allowed to do so? Surely not even the most fervent Brexiteer would argue that a further referendum would not present the public with an altogether clearer, and better informed, choice than last time. Why would that not be properly regarded as giving them a further choice and further respecting, rather than betraying, the earlier expression of the popular will?
I have struck out a great deal from what I was intending to say because much of it has already been said by others. However, I should deal with one further point. An argument, which I confess initially troubled me against a further referendum, is this: because the other 27 countries would prefer us to remain, as I think most people believe, if there is a further referendum, they will make the terms of leaving as unattractive as possible to maximise the chance of the public rejecting the deal on a further vote. So, it is said, a commitment to a further referendum would compromise our negotiating position. But I have concluded that, ultimately, that is a completely unreal objection.
In the first place, given that a further vote could very well still, as I say, be to leave, and that if, finally, we were to do so, then it is patently in the interests of all the EU states that we leave on mutually beneficial terms. I do not believe that the proposal of a further referendum would, in truth, worsen those terms. But put that thought aside. The plain fact is that, in any event, there is an obvious and powerful reason why the remaining 27 will not wish to allow us too favourable a deal—namely their concern to discourage from leaving any other state which is possibly inclined to exit the Union as we now propose.
One other point I will touch on is that made by my noble friend Lord Green of Deddington. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, quite appreciated it. What I think my noble friend Lord Green said is: how do we know that we will not, if we vote to remain, lose the rebate and our right not to be within euroland? The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has made it plain—there is nobody better able to do this—that, in his view, a right to withdraw our notification must inevitably leave us in the same position as we started in. I support that view too. Again, given that the other 27 would want the vote to be to remain, I think that they would readily make that clear.
In short, the case for the public to have the final vote on this really most momentous of issues, perhaps in many of our lifetimes, now seems to be overwhelming and I urge your Lordships to support it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, this amendment is reckless. It is peculiarly reckless proposed in an unelected House. It would be reckless if it were to be entertained by the elected House. The 2016 referendum generated bitter divisions in our country. To rub salt in those wounds and fan the flames of that anger by offering this option, raising hopes of a further referendum, seems to be most unwise. My noble friend Lord Adonis, in his Hitchcockian script, truly made my flesh creep.
The 2016 referendum exposed depths of mistrust and resentment against the political establishment and against what has broadly been the policy orthodoxy of recent decades. The appropriate response to that, surely—even if you deeply disagree with the view that was taken by the majority then, even if you consider that people were voting against their own best interests—is not to say, “You are stupid, bigoted and ignorant. You are wrong. You should think again and get it right”. That is how it will be perceived.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Yes, it will. Rather, we should seek to understand the nature of this public discontent and the depths of this anger and offer something better. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Would he not concede that the political resentment against political figures occurred before the referendum rather than afterwards?
Lord Howarth of Newport
Indeed it did, and what we saw in the vote at the referendum was an extremely disturbing expression of that. As I say, we should not fan those flames.
In any case, there is no sign that those who voted to leave have changed their minds. A recent ComRes poll, which took a rather larger sample than the occupants of the Electric Ballroom in Camden, found that 68% think that remainers should show respect for the majority for leave, and that we should get on with it and end the uncertainty. Instead of which, however, there is a proposal for a big campaign in support of a second referendum. That would be a bad use of time, energy and money.
I believe that the result would be the same because the European Union is unreformed. It remains in relative economic decline. It is undemocratic in its processes and it has completely failed to grip the problem of migration. There is deep popular discontent still with the EU. The only proposal for reform that is around is that of President Macron for deeper integration. In the unlikely event that that comes to pass, the UK would find itself even more marginalised.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does the noble Lord think that dissatisfaction with the EU has grown greater since the stance it has taken on the negotiations?
Lord Howarth of Newport
There is a great deal of national grumpiness, and when the British people get grumpy, they are a force to be reckoned with. The dispossessed rejected the status quo and were unimpressed by Project Fear, and my advice to my noble friends is to stop digging.
The false simplifications, the distortions and the mendacities on both sides in the referendum campaign were a degradation of our politics. I believe that the nation’s heart would sink at the thought of another bout of all of that. The second referendum would inevitably intensify the divisions and the bitterness of the first one. There would, I fear, be ugly episodes. The losers would demand a third referendum, whatever the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wigley, say.
We are not immune in this country to the neo-fascism that has so deeply, disturbingly possessed swathes of central and eastern Europe. We are fortunate that the most sinister figure to present himself as a leader of the far right in this country was Nigel Farage. If we were to have a second referendum, I greatly fear that a far more charismatic and sinister leader might emerge on the far right.
In any case, referendums are alien to our constitution, and the issues that would fall to be decided at a referendum, if and when the people were asked to judge the terms of the deal the Government had negotiated, would be immensely complex technical issues about trade, financial services, immigration, security, environmental protection and so forth. These complex issues should be determined by indirect democracy, by the intricate processes of parliamentary government, not by the crude instrument of a plebiscite.
I am always a little unsure of myself when I find myself disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, because I have huge respect for his judgment. He calls for one last referendum. But the Constitutional Committee of your Lordships’ House advised us that referendums should occur only rarely, but were appropriate when a major constitutional issue needed to be decided. That is what happened in 2016. There was a referendum on the great constitutional issue of whether we should leave the European Union and reclaim the sovereignty that we had lent to it. That great constitutional issue has been decided. Strictly, of course, as noble Lords have mentioned, in legal terms that particular referendum was advisory, but politically it was binding.
Noble Lords may recollect this document. The Government sent it to every household in the country. It was sent to 27 million households and cost £9.3 million of taxpayers’ money. In it the Government said:
“The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union … This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”.
We have to live with the results of our democratic choices. If Parliament and the Government were to renege on the commitment made by the Government in that document, I believe there would be a very serious crisis in our country.
Great political turning points in the national life are inevitably uncomfortable for the establishment. The political genius of the British establishment has hitherto been to accommodate itself, however reluctantly, to big, uncomfortable changes: Catholic emancipation, the Great Reform Act 1832, repeal of the Corn Laws, death duties, reform of the House of Lords in 1911, the welfare state and the loss of empire. The latest such challenge is leaving the European Union. Your Lordships’ House and the people who take the big decisions in government and public administration on behalf of the people should now be similarly prudent, constructive and magnanimous. We should not waste our energy in seeking to overthrow the democratic decision of the British people to leave a European Union that is discredited in the eyes of the majority and perceived as failing because of mass youth unemployment, deep inequalities and its undemocratic nature.
It is for the left to rediscover the generous patriotism of JB Priestley and George Orwell. Agitating for a second referendum is displacement activity. The real challenge is to revive the centre left and to get beyond the intellectual and political bankruptcy of social democracy in the period since 2008 and the global financial crisis. But if all the centre can now offer, 10 years after that moment, is to remain in Europe, voters will say, “These politicians don’t understand us, they don’t respect us and they have nothing useful to offer us”, and they will move to the extremes. If the respectable politicians do not engage with voters on these matters of the deepest possible concern then disreputable politicians will take our place. I heard a former Commissioner of the European Union on the “Today” programme criticise his former colleagues, saying that those in Brussels tend to live in something of a bubble. I hope that will not be said of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I will not go into the virtues of remaining in the European Union or leaving it, but simply concentrate on the amendment. I was one of the Minsters who had the privilege of taking the referendum Bill through your Lordships’ House. As many noble Lords will recall, there were debates about the extent of the franchise, among other matters, but there was no suggestion by any of the major parties of a threshold, let alone a second referendum. One can only imagine the response there would have been following the results if it had been the other way around and there was an attempt then to have a further referendum—surely what is sauce for the goose.
It must be remembered that the Bill went through Parliament when a general election was looming. Any party, or combination of parties, could have formed the next Government. Surely it was incumbent on each party to make clear that it would not honour the result of the referendum without a further vote or the option of one.
There are a number of uncertainties about the amendment. Can we revoke the notification of withdrawal under Article 50? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, says that we can, but, with the greatest respect to him—I really mean that—that is ultimately a matter that could be determined only by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. We cannot predict with any certainty what the outcome might be. Similarly, we do not know whether we would be able to seek an extension of the Article 50 period, which is also a necessary part of the amendment as provided by proposed new subsection (3), although I know the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has had some secret soundings. But the whole premise of the amendment is legal uncertainty—precisely the opposite of what the Bill is intended to achieve.
There is yet another unsatisfactory aspect to the amendment. If a further referendum were held, it would give two options: acceptance or revocation of the notification of withdrawal, which would lead to our remaining in the EU should there be agreement by all parties or—this is uncertain—the ECJ rules that we are entitled to revoke unilaterally, notwithstanding the objection of any or all of the other 27. But what about the option in the event of a referendum that we should leave the EU without a concluded agreement? This is the no deal scenario. I—and, I suspect, most of your Lordships’ House—would much prefer that we did not leave without a concluded agreement, but there must surely be an opportunity for those voting in this referendum, having been informed by the lengthy and highly publicised process of negotiations between the Government and the EU, to conclude that they do not wish to remain in the EU and nor do they want to accept the deal that has been concluded. The proposed referendum in the amendment precludes that option.
If Parliament now denies voters a chance to leave the EU, except on onerous terms imposed by a combination of parliamentary fetters and/or unreasonable conduct from the EU, surely we should not deny the people the chance to leave without a deal. That would be treating people with contempt, and would be inconsistent with the EU referendum Act passed by both Houses of Parliament and what was or was not said by all the parties when the Bill went through Parliament. I do not need to elaborate on how divisive a further referendum would be—the first one was quite divisive enough.
Finally, is it not time that the Labour Party made clear what its approach to a second referendum is? If it thinks that voters should have an opportunity to think again, should it not say so rather than hover waiting for some political advantage?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I shall speak briefly on two technical points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Green, asked whether we would have to pay a price if we chose to withdraw the Article 50 letter. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked whether we are confident that we could withdraw the Article 50 letter unilaterally. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Green, is that given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Of course we could not be charged a political price if we withdrew the Article 50 letter during the period of the two years’ negotiation because we would never have left. We would have exactly the rights of a member because we would never have given them up. There would be no question of opt-outs or rebates being taken from us. Of course, the converse would apply if, having left the European Union, we decided that we wanted to come back. There would then be no chance of securing opt-outs or rebates. But, as a member in good standing, operating under the normal voting rules—the rebate is removable only by unanimity and I rather suspect we would not vote for its removal—there is no question that we would be paying a political price.
On the question of whether we would legally be able to withdraw the letter unilaterally, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who is a much better lawyer than I am—I am not a lawyer at all—said that that would be a matter for the ECJ. With respect, I do not think so. If the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom appeared in the European Council and said that, as a result of an election or a referendum, there had been a change of view in the United Kingdom and that we would like to stay in the European Union, there is absolutely no doubt what the European Council’s answer would be. It is on the record. The President of the Council, the President of the Commission, the President of the Parliament, the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany are all on record as saying that, although they respect our plan to leave, they would rather we changed our mind and stayed. There is absolutely no doubt that the European Council would say yes. It is conceivable that, three years later, a case might go to the European Court of Justice. Were the European Council correct and intra vires when it agreed that the British might take back their Article 50 letter, I have absolutely no doubt how the ECJ would rule in that case when it came up.
The second point I want to touch on is whether an extension of the two-year negotiating period would, if we sought it, be obtainable. This seems very relevant to the amendment we are considering. If the House of Commons were to choose to adopt the option—it is only an option in the amendment—of putting the deal to the people, it would require an extension. It would be impossible to do that before 29 March. We do not have a referendum law in our statute book; we would have to pass one. There would then have to be a campaign. Realistically, we would be looking at June or perhaps September. We would be looking for, say, a six-month extension.
Would we secure the necessary unanimity in the European Council for that extension? It is a matter of judgment. In my view, it would depend entirely on the reason we gave. If, for example, we said, “We’d like an extension to carry on negotiating. We’d like to send David Davis across for a few more months”, it is conceivable that we might not get the necessary unanimity. If, on the other hand, we were to tell 27 democracies that we needed an extension because the House of Commons had voted in a way that meant there had to be a referendum, or an election, there is no question but that we would get the necessary unanimity—in my view; that is only a judgment. The option in the amendment, and it is only an option, therefore seems reasonable, foreseeable and possible, and I shall vote for it.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, would we still be members of the European Union for the period of the extension and therefore have all the rights of a member?
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, I shall be brief, but I do not expect it to make me many friends. I cannot believe how many noble Lords have said, “I hate referendums, but I want another one”. It is like falling down the rabbit hole and landing on our heads. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said that a second referendum would be decisive. I suggest that it would not be. If there is a second referendum, why not a third referendum or a fourth? A second referendum would not settle the issue; it would only prolong the agony. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just explained clearly how extended that uncertainty and agony might prove. Which of those referendums—the second, the third or the fourth—would be, in today’s parlance, the “meaningful” vote?
I have to take the noble Lord, Lord Newby, slightly to task when he responded to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about the words of Mr Clegg that he waved in front of him. They had nothing do with the Lisbon treaty. I will quote Mr Clegg. He said:
“It’s time for a real referendum on Europe … Only a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will let the people decide”.
He also asked voters to sign a petition, to give the people “a real choice”. There was not a squeak, not a little chirrup, about a second referendum—no ifs, ands or buts, and no suggestion that people might change their mind.
While we are talking about Lib Dem policy, it is interesting that, in 2011, they forced through the AV referendum Bill. It was their Bill, their policy. I voted against it—I got myself into terrible trouble with my Whips, but I think the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench has forgiven me. It was a binding vote; it was obligatory. There was no suggestion that we could change our mind. It was, I believe, the only binding referendum in our legislative history. There was no chance of Parliament, let alone the people, changing their mind. That until now has been Lib Dem policy, and I do not believe they can have it both ways.
I talked earlier about Mr Clegg’s position on the instructions of the electorate, so perhaps I may briefly wrap up—
Lord Dobbs
I am glad to see that the noble Lord is still awake. All I require now is his attention.
Mr Cable spoke 18 months ago, in September 2016, and used these words:
“There are people in the party”—
the Lib Dem party—
“who don’t accept the outcome, who feel incredibly angry and feel it’s reversible, that somehow we can undo it. The public have voted and I do think it’s seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive to say ‘sorry guys, you’ve got it wrong, we’re going to try again’, I don’t think we can do that”.
I agree with him.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, it may surprise people who follow anything that I say in this House—there do not need to be many—that I am not opposed in principle to a further referendum. How could I be? I was on the losing side once in a referendum vote, in 1975, and I was very keen to have a second referendum. I certainly got one, but it took 41 years. I therefore have no objection to people who say, “Things can change; circumstances can alter, and maybe we should have another referendum” But to have another referendum in two years stretches it just a little. I shall not say, “Wait till 2057”, which would be a direct comparison with precedent, but it certainly needs to be much longer than two years. Anyone seriously arguing for this needs at least to be able to answer yes to one question, which is this: was that made clear when the referendum Bill was going through this House? I sat through nearly all of it—Second Reading, Committee and Report. I must have missed the speech of someone who said, “If this referendum that we all voted for”—we did; there was no opposition to the Bill at Third Reading—“results in a leave vote, we will need to have a second referendum in a couple of years’ time”. Anyone who said that, please ignore the rest of my remarks—I did not hear it. I shall happily give way to my noble friend, who I know is a very reluctant remainer.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I was, until I saw the mess the Government are making of these negotiations. My noble friend makes a very good point on the referendum, but it would not be a second referendum on the same proposition. It is not just the facts that have changed; it is the proposition on which people will be asked to vote that will have changed in the light of the deal.
Lord Grocott
I am really grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that, if circumstances change, there is a case for a further referendum. During the 41-year gap between the 1975 referendum and the further referendum, the European Union became unrecognisable in comparison with the institution that was voted for in 1975. It went from nine members to 28; it introduced the single market; the powers of the Commission changed beyond all recognition, as did the circumstances in which the European Parliament met. Once again, if there was anyone in this House who during that period said, “Really, things have changed quite dramatically; it is now a different proposition”—to use my noble friend’s expression—“and we ought to have a second referendum now to see whether the people still agree with what they said in 1975”, I did not hear that. It is another speech that I must have missed; I keep missing speeches. There was no acknowledgement, so far as I could see, that, because circumstances changed between 1975 and 2016, there should be a referendum. On the contrary, every time a further referendum was raised, any remainer—if I can describe it in those terms—was vehemently opposed to it. Now we have the irony of people who are opposed to one referendum wanting two.
The argument frequently used—I do not know whether this was what my noble friend was getting at—is that when people voted leave, they did not really know the full details and consequences of what they were voting for. I have had the privilege of representing two parliamentary constituencies, both of them very large. I have spoken to thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people. I never found anyone in either of those parts of the country who got confused by the meaning of the word “leave”. Yet for some strange reason, in the immediate vicinity of Westminster there are large numbers of able people for whom the meaning of the word tortures them. They go into paroxysms of uncertainty about precisely what is meant by leave.
I know what leave means: at the very least it means you do not have to continue to obey the rules of the organisation you are leaving. I would also argue that if you leave an organisation you do not have to carry on paying the subscription. My noble friend Lord Adonis supports me in the words I am saying: he left the Liberal Democrats and joined the Labour Party—an excellent move; I commend him for that decision—but I very much doubt whether he continues to pay a subscription to the Liberal Democrats. When you leave an organisation, you do not pay the subs and you do not obey the rules; it is pretty simple.
Lord Adonis
It is true that I do not pay £39 billion to the Liberal Democrats; that is going to be the cost of exiting under the agreement that Her Majesty’s Government have reached. Would my noble friend refund the voters that £39 billion as part of his arrangement for leaving?
Lord Grocott
That £39 billion is a lot less, of course, than the amount we would need to pay in if we remained in for a further 41 years—the figure 41, he may remember, is of particular interest to me.
The other thing I have noticed about so many of these discussions—I have to tie myself down and not jump up every time it is mentioned—is the psychic powers of the remainers, which I am really in awe of. Hardly any remainer I have come across does not know precisely why the leave voters voted the way they did. We keep being told that people definitely did not vote to leave the customs union. People definitely did not vote to leave the single market, we are told. I do not know whether that is true or not—I do not possess these psychic powers—but I can say as a matter of fact that we definitely did not vote to remain in the European Union. That is a certainty as a result of the last referendum.
People say it is not really a second referendum; they are different questions. One question remains on both the referendum we have had and the one that is being proposed. The option to remain is there, so if you did not vote first time to remain, you get a second chance to remain. You do not get a second chance to leave, in a straightforward decision. So I find it increasingly unconvincing that the motives of those seeking a second referendum are an ardent desire to recheck the views of the British public. I think that such an amendment, such an attempt to have a second referendum within two years of the first, is no less than what we all in this House know, remainers and leavers—it is an attempt to reverse the decision of the first referendum. That is unacceptable and we should vote against it.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Newby, spoke to Amendment 50, he spoke about a spell. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that there is one reason why we need this amendment: as he made very clear on the last amendment, the Government are giving us the option of deal or no deal—to crash out on WTO rules. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said that that was not acceptable. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, how it can be fair to give people a yes/no vote. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, compares it with the AV referendum: that was a very simple result; this is a yes/no, leave on any basis. There is no way that the people would have agreed to that on 23 June 2016 with four months’ notice. It is said that people know the reasons why they left with four months’ notice. We in this House are all in the thick of it, still learning almost two years later. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said we are all more informed. A year from now, on 29 March, people will be even more informed.
The Government have given people the impression that there is no other option. When I give speeches, such as the one I gave this morning at Imperial College, I ask the audience, if you were given a chance to remain, would you remain? They say, “Do we have a choice?” And all the hands go up saying they want to remain. Yet the Government are driving this Brexit juggernaut off a cliff. When it comes to the British people having a choice as to whether to go over that cliff, the Government say, no, you have no choice, you are like lemmings who will have to follow us over that cliff. Is it fair to the British public? Is this respecting the will of the people? I say that it is disrespecting the British people.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, if there are those outside this House who, on the basis of the Division list this evening or what they have heard in this debate, believe that they are getting a fair reflection of opinion in support of a second referendum, then they are mistaken. There are many of us who support a second referendum, and have done for several years, who will be abstaining because we believe that this debate is premature. We believe that it interferes with the Government’s negotiating position and that later on this year will be the relevant time to have that great debate. At that stage, I hope it will be approved by Parliament.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I shall keep my remarks very short. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, hinted at the elephant in the room, which is respect for the clear majority who have already spoken in a once-in-a-generation referendum. He referred to the result of the referendum as being sacrosanct. Yet this amendment sticks two fingers up at the majority who voted to leave in that once-in-a-generation referendum. It tells them that we as a Parliament may have passed a law giving them the final say, confident that they would vote to remain, but that they did not repay our confidence, they failed the exam, and now there needs to be what amounts to a resit. But the once-in-a-generation referendum was not an exam and the 17.4 million people who voted to leave did not fail it. If we pass this amendment it will be Parliament that fails to respect the people. We need to respect the majority vote in that once-in-a-generation referendum as sacrosanct. Any noble Lord who truly respects the people and the fact that they have already spoken should oppose this amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we have heard the case that, having seen the terms of our withdrawal, Parliament should have the option of deciding whether to put those terms to a referendum, with the choice between yes to the terms and yes to stay in; with no other question on the ballot paper, such as better terms; and with the decision to hold a referendum to be taken by both Houses of Parliament, which of course gives the Lords a veto. Having only two options on the table may not be the best suggestion for what is now being called a people’s vote, but let us put that to one side for a moment. I want to question the wisdom of asking the Commons to vote on an amendment to the Bill at this stage, which opens up the issue of whether we hold another referendum, given the implications of such a discussion right now for both our national debate and the negotiations with the EU.
On the former, what would it mean here at home? I see a divided country. The referendum may not have divided us, but it certainly provided evidence of that divide. London and Scotland feel quite a different nation from most of the UK on the Brexit question. Views are sharply divided—not helped by the Government, I am afraid. In June 2016, one might have expected a Prime Minister to reach out to the whole nation, including those hurt by the outcome, to bring the country back together. Sadly, instead, David Cameron walked away and the new Prime Minister, in her approach to the negotiations and the sorts of relationships we want to have with the EU after we leave, instead of trying to reflect the fact that nearly half the voters would have liked to stay in, took what I consider an overhasty decision to focus on a particular type of exit, which is really anathema to those on the losing side. Regrettably, she continues to listen only to those on the winning side—those who called for a referendum, who campaigned for us to come out, who won the vote and who now want the hardest of Brexits: a go-it-alone version, leaving behind the very successful trading relationship we have now. This House has voted against coming out of the customs union, but the Prime Minister is still failing to bring the country together and build a wider consensus. She is turning a deaf ear to business, which is crying out for a better sort of Brexit.
I therefore wonder what will happen to the national debate about the sort of Brexit we want if, quite unnecessarily at this moment, we insert into the Bill the potential of a new referendum, with all the division that that will cause. It is unnecessary because the amendment we passed one hour and 25 minutes ago does not close off the possibility, though nor does it trail it. It gives the option as a potential, as indeed the Labour Party conference agreed some time ago, as my noble friend Lord Adonis reminded us, but my concern is that moving the current discourse on to the issue of a second referendum, when the real question before Parliament is the sort of deal we should be seeking, will foster more division and distrust, and it will let the Government off the hook about their disastrous negotiating strategy and the formulation of that strategy.
The external consequences of the amendment have already been mentioned. It is possible that the introduction of a new element of uncertainty—that the deal might need to go to a referendum—could make the necessary compromises in the current negotiations with the EU harder to achieve.
We do not rule out any form of democratic engagement, but we are not persuaded by this call now. We are not sure what exact question the referendum would ask because, if it is only out on the terms negotiated or out with no deal, that would be meaningless; out on the current terms or staying in may also not be the full range of options. We are not persuaded that this is the debate that Parliament or the people want at this moment. In the words of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, it is premature.
There is a further issue. For the referendum to be accepted by the electorate, it would have to be supported more widely than just by those who favour a particular outcome; otherwise, it will be seen simply as a device to stop Brexit rather than a serious poll on the terms negotiated. At the moment, with just one exception—Nigel Farage—only one side is campaigning for a new referendum. Therefore, that is how I fear it will be seen.
We will abstain on the amendment. But more than that, I ask colleagues across the House to think twice before supporting a referendum now, given that that might further divide the country, rather than unite it; given that the option is always there anyway; and given that that would take the attention off the negotiations at this critical moment.
Lord Adonis
Why does my noble friend think that opinion will be less divided in October than it is today?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It may or may not be, but that will be an issue for then. The issue for now, surely, is the negotiations that are taking place and the maximum input and effect that we can have on them.
We need to use every bit of our persuasive powers to change the objectives that the Government seem to have set their red lines on. Not everyone will agree with me on that, but that is where the public debate should be at the moment. I have heard the arguments for a referendum. This is not the time to get the public debate back on to that rather than on the subject of the negotiations. I urge that we abstain on this amendment.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I do not know if the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is in her place but I note that the Companion to the Standing Orders makes it clear that:
“Arguments fully deployed … in Committee of the whole House … should not be repeated at length on report”.
I therefore face a challenge today, as did my noble friend Lord Bridges during the passage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, because we seem to have heard it all before. As he said then and I have said and the Prime Minister has said, our position remains unchanged from the time of the referendum that we will respect that result.
When voters walked into the polling booth on 23 June 2016, they were asked:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”.
This question was put to the public as a result of an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses. The question was not, “Should the United Kingdom negotiate to leave the EU and put the terms of that departure to a further referendum?”—a point that was well made in the excellent speeches of my noble friend Lord Faulks and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on the Labour Benches.
Some noble Lords—possibly the Liberal Democrats—may wish that that had been the case, but it was not. The public, in the largest democratic exercise ever conducted in the United Kingdom, voted on that simple question and that simple question alone—a point made well by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. Both sides in the referendum campaign pledged to respect the result; once the outcome of the vote was clear, that meant to leave the European Union. The public voted to leave and they expect the Government to deliver on that, not try to judge what they may have wished the question was. This promise was repeated in last year’s general election in the manifestos of parties commanding more than 80% of the vote and to which more than half the noble Lords in this House are affiliated. It is on the basis of that commitment that we are here today: the Bill is a necessary component of delivering a successful Brexit. Fundamentally, it is about providing legal certainty, for businesses here and abroad, and for citizens in both the UK and EU—which was also a point well made by my noble friend Lord Faulks.
How would the amendment fit in with that purpose? Inserting a requirement for a second referendum would have exactly the opposite effect. This House will be all too aware that a second referendum would require a further Act of Parliament. What would that process look like? What would the question be? What conditions would be attached? Would there be provision for a further referendum if the Liberal Democrats still did not like the answer? How long would it take to get the referendum legislation through the House and what would happen to business, industry and citizens in the meantime?
Furthermore, while we in this House, and in the other place, debate these issues, businesses and individuals will suffer from the uncertainty that it will bring, when what they really want is a continuation of the certainty provided by our successes in the negotiations so far. There would be legal challenges, I am sure, and perhaps clamour for a third referendum, maybe even a fourth—points well made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs. If we commit to continually looking over our shoulder, to holding a second referendum, we cannot be a strong or reliable partner in the negotiations.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister is making his case by asking for clarification on what the question would be for ratifying the agreement. I ask the Government, however, for the same clarity: what will the question be in the Government’s Motion on a meaningful vote in the House of Commons?
Lord Callanan
I outlined what the Motion would be last time: it would be to accept the deal or not to accept the deal. No simpler question can be asked.
I am grateful to noble Lords for allowing me to present the clear government position again. I ask the noble Lord, possibly without much hint of success, to withdraw his amendment. He will not be surprised to know that this is not a subject on which we will be reflecting further before Third Reading.
Lord Newby
My Lords, it has been an extremely serious and good debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I will make just two comments on points that have been made.
First, a number of noble Lords have said that it would be treating people with disrespect, or contempt, if we gave them more power. I am sorry, but I have difficulty with this concept. It would be treating people with disrespect for a Government to try to ram a solution through the Commons without full opportunity for all the options to be debated and voted on. We have slightly dealt with that issue. In circumstances, however, in which the Commons voted against any deal, to say then that you are treating people with disrespect by letting them have a say seems—to put it mildly—a very curious argument.
Secondly, in response to the argument that this amendment is premature, I repeat what I said in my opening speech: from when this Bill becomes law to a possible final vote in the Commons—and in this House—is a period of approximately 20 weeks, during which there will be a six-week summer recess. In that interim period, there is—as things stand—no legislative vehicle proposed in which such a provision could be inserted. Far from being premature, therefore, this is an extremely timely decision.
I repeat the nub of our contention: if Parliament believes that a Brexit deal is not in the best interests of the country, it should have the courage of its convictions and vote against it. In those circumstances, there should be an option for the British people to have the final say. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Monks
“(a) approval by Parliament of a mandate for negotiations about the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the EU; and(b) ”
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, it is time—indeed, over time—that Parliament exerted influence on the conduct of the talks about the future relationship between the UK and the EU. I am talking about the relationship after Brexit. This is not some attempt to reverse Brexit; it is about applying our minds to what that future relationship will be. To bring this about, Amendment 51 proposes an earlier, extra step that would be additional to the vote already referred to in Clause 9 and Amendment 49.
Amendment 51 would provide that our negotiators work to a mandate approved by Parliament to guide them in the talks—not a straitjacket or a corset but a device to make sure that the Government come clean about what they are trying to do in the negotiations. We know a few things already: as we heard earlier, the Government aim to have a deal on the divorce ready for the autumn that would, I think, cover the money, the reciprocal rights of citizens, the Irish border and the transition agreement. It would also cover the future relationship with the EU—but only, I understand, in very general terms in a concluding section.
The talks on this crucial aspect are only just getting under way. Indeed, it was not until early March that the Cabinet, meeting at Chequers, managed to patch up some elements of a common position to take into this phase of the talks. This position seems to rely on selecting what we like and rejecting what we do not as though it is some kind of à la carte menu—the product, by the way, of a lot of wishful thinking with some of the measures which we have been made aware of. This approach appears, unsurprisingly, to be getting short shrift in Brussels, which is just not good enough for a country like ours in this very serious situation.
The amendment seeks a parliamentary vote on the main principles of what Britain would like that future relationship to be. In fact, no one outside the innermost court of the Prime Minister really knows what the UK is trying to achieve, except in the most general and vague terms. Perhaps even members of the innermost circle do not know; maybe they and others will learn a bit more after the meeting of the Cabinet that I understand is to take place on Wednesday.
From my trade union experience, I learned that if you enter talks without a clear idea of your objectives, you tend to end up negotiating more with your own colleagues than with your opponent. There are certainly signs of that happening in the Cabinet at present, if the Sunday papers are any kind of accurate guide.
The slogan, “It is time to take back control” was effective and powerful in the 2016 referendum. Surely it is now time for Parliament to recall that phrase and exert a measure of control over the British approach to talks about the future. It cannot be left just to fudges designed primarily to pacify different wings of the Conservative Party.
Critics of this proposal will certainly say that for Parliament to establish a mandate is unconstitutional. They will quote the convention that the Government cannot be instructed on how to conduct themselves when they are involved in international negotiations. However, this would not in fact be unprecedented. Parliament has stepped in and intervened in recent years regarding military interventions in the Middle East and Libya.
The decision on our future relationship with the EU is just as momentous as a declaration of war and too important for Parliament just to stand tamely on the touchline and play the role of spectator. It is too important for jobs, for prosperity and for peace in a continent with a troubled history. To give one example of how momentous this decision will be, a Canada-style free trade agreement, which is where the EU is currently heading, could on the Government’s own figures cut the UK’s GDP by a massive 5%. That would result in a smaller, poorer nation.
I do not know where a meaningful vote in Parliament on a mandate would lead. It is quite possible that it could endorse the Government’s position, whatever that is, except that they are very clear that they are ruling out membership of the single market and the customs union and any continuing role for the European Court of Justice. It could happen that that position would be endorsed, or a meaningful vote could perhaps lead to the insistence on a sharp, clean break and a switch to WTO rules. Or it could, as I would prefer, aim for the UK to stay in the European Economic Area, perhaps via membership of a strengthened EFTA, thus retaining membership of the single market and the customs union. That is not an ideal position, but with our size we would certainly be more than rule takers. In my view, it is the best option available among some rather unpalatable ones that are consistent with observing the outcome of the referendum.
Whatever the outcome of a meaningful vote on a mandate, Parliament would have spoken on the future relationship and not left these matters solely in the fumbling hands of the Cabinet. After such a vote, it would be incumbent on us all to get behind the decision for better or for worse and to try to make it work for both the UK and the EU. So my message to the House today—and particularly perhaps to the other place—is: assert ourselves, do our democratic duty and uphold the sovereignty of this Parliament before it is too late to influence affairs. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, Parliament needs to know what the Government are trying to achieve in their negotiations. The original vision of having the benefits of EU membership without any of the perceived downsides has evaporated. For the second time this afternoon, I shall quote Sir John Major, for I can put it no better than he did. He said that,
“every one of the Brexit promises is—to quote Henry Fielding—‘a very wholesome and comfortable doctrine to which (there is) but one objection: namely, that it is not true’”.
If “cake and eat it” is off the menu, what is it that the Government are aiming to achieve in our future relationship with the EU? This amendment seeks to give Parliament some say in what the future relationship would look like before it is too late.
We will no doubt be told that it is foolish to try to tie the hands of the Government in their negotiations—but the noble Lord, Lord Monks, has more experience than most of conducting negotiations, and he convincingly introduced this amendment. My experience comes from the other side of the negotiating table, but it leads to the same conclusion: being able to say “my members” or “my board” or “my Parliament” would never accept such and such strengthens rather than weakens the hand of the negotiators. It would surely help the Government to have some idea of where the red lines are as far as Parliament and the House of Commons, in particular, are concerned.
This afternoon the Minister once more made very clear that the Government would like to deprive Parliament of a meaningful vote on whatever deal or no deal they negotiate. This House has demonstrated its objection to that, and I believe that the Commons will uphold that vote. Our system of democracy demands that Parliament should take back control of the Brexit process. Insisting on a meaningful vote is progress. This amendment goes one step further. It endeavours to give Parliament an input into the shape of the deal. We are led to believe that there are differing views within the Cabinet on whether the UK should have a customs partnership with the EU. But if there is a majority of MPs who insist on a customs partnership, would it not make sense for the Government to be aware of that while there was still a chance of negotiating it? If a majority of MPs believe that the country needs to be in the equivalent of the single market of the 27, would it not be sensible to establish that sooner rather than later? It sometimes seems that the only mandate in which the Government have an interest is that granted by the Daily Mail. Parliament surely should be granted as much say in the Brexit process as the tabloid press. This amendment would give Parliament the power to strengthen the hand of the Government in their negotiations with the EU and I urge the House to support it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, is it not quite clear that what the Government have to seek to do is restore self-government with a minimum of economic dislocation? I do not see any point in Parliament denying the Government freedom of manoeuvre as they seek to achieve that.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is often said that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, but I rather think, after our proceedings today, that repetition would not achieve the same objective. I have the advantage of following, yet again, the succinct appreciation of these issues by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and wish to add only a few thoughts of my own. I will make a contemporary reference. The resignation of Amber Rudd from the Cabinet has not just had consequences for the Home Office but is generally regarded as having had very severe consequences for the balance of opinion within the Cabinet, which leads me to a point that has already been made by the noble Baroness. The requirement to state the terms of mandate might once and for all force the Cabinet to clearly indicate precisely what they are seeking to achieve. A mandate based on principles would not tie the hands of the Government. It would not put handcuffs on the Prime Minister or even, for that matter, Mr Davis. It would set out in a clear and unequivocal way precisely what the objectives were. That, as the noble Baroness has already indicated, would create an opportunity, emboldened by authority. It therefore cannot be argued on behalf of the Government that the passing of this amendment would in any way detract from their ability to carry out an effective negotiation.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I was not really intending to get involved in this debate. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, has gone on about the canard that we do not know what the Government want out of the negotiations. He then explained to us what the Government want out of the negotiations: as easy a deal as possible. It is quite straightforward what the Government want. They want a free trade deal. They want to go on doing business with the EU in the way that they have in the past, with as little change as possible.
I hear your Lordships say, “But we’re not going to get that”. That is probably true, but that is because the EU is not prepared to give us that. It is prepared to suffer when it comes to its trade in goods—as it sells so much more to us—for the benefit of punishing this country, because for some reason the EU is such a wonderful organisation that you have to punish people who want to leave it. We voluntarily joined the EU; why can we not be allowed to leave it voluntarily without being punished? That does not say much for it, does it? This is one of the problems that the Remain campaign had during the referendum: what was the narrative that was so wonderful about staying in the EU? The fact that no narrative could be produced was one of the reasons why the Leave campaign won.
So let us not mandate the Government to doing x or y, as the amendment suggests. It is quite clear what the Government want. They want a bespoke free trade deal that carries on business as we have done in the past. It does not look as if we will get it but that is what the Government want, and mandating it will not make the slightest bit of difference.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. He spoke in rather a different tone from the previous speakers, my noble friend Lord Monks, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who have brought to this discussion what I might call a mature, thoughtful approach to a crisis facing this country that will become even more stark when we get to October.
A lot of people have mentioned today the relationship between the Lords and the Commons. I draw the House’s attention to a creative opportunity that we have right now in the light of the report published on 13 March by the Brexit Select Committee of the House of Commons, chaired by Hilary Benn MP. By a majority in some cases but unanimously in others, it has produced something pretty much like the sort of remit that I imagine will make sense in terms of the detail that one would present to Mr Barnier, who has his own remit. Perhaps I may pick out one or two points from it to give the flavour.
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, says it is obvious, and everyone knows, what the Government want. I think that, on a scale of one to 10, we know about only two or three out of 10 what is in the negotiating mandate. If we were to make a constructive contribution then, first, there would have to be something in the mandate because otherwise on what criteria would anyone, including ourselves, judge the outcome of the negotiations? I return to the analogy that my noble friend Lord Monks drew with trade union negotiations. The two things are analogous in some ways, though not totally. What you do not do is go into cloud-cuckoo-land at the start and say to the employer—on an industry basis or a company basis; it does not matter at the moment—“Here is our claim: double the pay, double the holidays, halve the hours and double the pensions”. There are two reasons why mature trade unions do not go down that route. First, you will not get what you have asked for, and what do you do when you come back to the executive? Does it call a strike? That would be a fantasy and it would not get anywhere. The second reason, of course, is that that trade union would not be taken seriously on the other side of the table. I know some trade unions can be satirised in that way, but then I suppose I could satirise Boris Johnson quite adequately if I put my mind to it.
With regard to the degree of specificity that is needed in a mandate at the moment, I shall read one or two of the proposals in the report of the House of Commons Select Committee. If the House of Commons is to be part of looking at a mandate, it does not matter who writes it down. The Government have yet to respond, by the way, to the report, which picks up a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I shall read just one or two:
“The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland must remain open, with no physical infrastructure or any related checks and controls, as agreed in the Phase 1 Withdrawal Agreement”.
That is very difficult to implement, and things follow from it to do with the customs arrangement and the single market. If we are to get somewhere between cloud-cuckoo-land and the specificities, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that there is no button to press that says, “Take back control. Job done”. This has taken two years of an educational exercise—we are in the middle of a huge educational exercise. Whether or not people argue in the pub about it—and some people do—the fact is that it is a very complicated matter, and it is now understood a lot more than it was at the time of the referendum. Let us try to see how people could understand it a bit better. Surely it would be good if there could be more transparency from the Government. I am sure they would get more respect in Brussels, Paris, Berlin and the rest if they could be franker than they have been so far—although we know the reasons why they cannot easily be franker at the moment and why Parliament needs to give them a nudge.
To give another example, on crime and terrorism, the report says that,
“arrangements must replicate what currently exists in operational and practical cross-border co-operation. In particular, the UK must retain involvement with Europol and the European Arrest Warrant and continue to participate in the EU’s information-sharing systems including SIS II”.
It goes on:
“Institutional and decision-making frameworks must be identified to ensure that the UK is able fully to participate in foreign and security co-operation with the EU, to meet the challenges it shares with its neighbours in the EU-27”.
Another example is:
“In respect of trade in goods, there must be no tariffs on trade between the UK and the EU 27”.
There are a dozen such propositions that would be highly desirable in an adult democracy, which has been a democracy for 1,000 years, or whatever it is. Surely that is the minimum that we can expect: a little more transparency, please. Then people would know that they were being treated as adults and take it from there. We have a huge problem with the credibility of where we are all headed in the continued mention of October this year. I am not saying that the idea that we can get to this place by October is impossible, but it stretches one’s imagination to see how all this will be done. A mark of our seriousness could be to make a proposition.
It is not a risk-free exercise for anyone, whatever their views, to put up a comprehensive proposition. The only way we can describe the arrangements from which we have to select is that they are all different trade-offs, or different package deals. Some people have seen a paper that a trade association produced on the different trade-offs on offer. The maximum at what you might call the remain end of the market would be something that does not look very different from where we are. Another, mentioned by my noble friend and increasingly the position of many industries, is to stay within the European Economic Area by moving from pillar 1, which is the EU, to pillar 2, which is EFTA, of which we were a member from sometime in the 1960s to sometime in the 1970s—a long time ago. It is an organisation that, on trade, works. No one doubts its position in the world. We must look at these practical alternatives. If we were to adopt the amendment, the House of Commons would find it a very constructive way forward to reach some accommodation, not only between the Lords and the Commons, which is a consideration, but between the Government and the people, as mentioned many times today. The amendment will provide constructive input, if the House will support it today.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, in one way, it is difficult to imagine a more pertinent week for this amendment to arrive in this House. It is true that perhaps it would have been better if we had included it in the Article 50 Bill: if when, as we authorised the Government to fire the starting gun on our departure from the EU, we had laid down at that stage the requirement for the negotiating mandate which would have set out our future relationship with the EU and asked for it to be approved by Parliament.
As it turns out, that would have been good for the Government as well as for the country, as it would have forced the Prime Minister at that stage to fashion a mandate to find favour with Parliament: avoiding a further year of disputes, lobbying and, dare I say, manoeuvring within her Cabinet. Indeed, the Government’s dithering and internal party arguments have held up parliamentary work on, for example, the Trade Bill, with 12 wasted weeks’ delay on a crucial Commons vote—the equivalent of a 10th of the time allocated for the Article 50 negotiations. Such uncertainty has left the EU scratching its head as to what exactly the UK wants.
It must also drain the Prime Minister’s time and energy as she seeks to reconcile the irreconcilable within her party rather than putting the country’s interests first. The prime, perhaps the central, job of any Prime Minister is to defend and promote her country’s interests. That is what she should be doing, rather than acting as a nursery teacher controlling unruly youngsters.
That behaviour rolls on. On the one side, she is under huge pressure from within her Cabinet to abandon even consideration of a customs partnership, with, we read, senior Brexiteers “preparing for a showdown” at this week’s Brexit sub-committee. Incidentally, the showdown is in part led by Liam Fox who, in 2012, called for a new relationship with the EU based on,
“an economic partnership involving a customs union and a single market in goods and services”.
At the same time, David Davis was saying that his preference was to remain in the customs union. So their former selves were looking towards that, and your Lordships’ House, by its view on the customs union, has expressed a fear about a physical and regulatory break from our largest trading partner.
We also hear that from businesses, trade unions, environmentalists, those speaking about Northern Ireland and, possibly, from a majority in the House of Commons, where, in due course, there will have to be a crunch vote on the shape of the customs union relationship, in particular. The Prime Minister will not be able to postpone that indefinitely. As the saying goes, “You can run, but you can’t hide”. Part of the reason that that is happening now is because we did not have parliamentary approval for the negotiating mandate at the start of the process.
The amendment demands that the articulation of our future relationship—what the Government want to achieve from the negotiations—should be spelled out and put to Parliament. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, is right in what he says about what that will spell out and what the mandate would include, but why not have it endorsed by Parliament?
We support the amendment, which would ensure that that negotiating mandate, which would cover trade and our future relationship with the EU, is approved not just by what is a rather divided Cabinet at the moment, but by Parliament, which is where the decision should lie.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I begin by making it clear that Parliament has a critical role in scrutinising the Government’s negotiating position. It is our responsibility as a Government to provide both Houses with ample opportunities for scrutinising both the approach we are taking to exiting the EU and any implementing legislation—and we are doing so.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU has provided an Oral Statement to the House after every negotiation round. He has provided evidence to the Select Committee on Exiting the EU five times, and has appeared before the Lords EU Committee four times. On 29 occasions to date, DExEU Ministers have given evidence to a wide range of committees, from Environmental Audit to Science and Technology. As my noble friend Lord Hamilton observed, the Prime Minister has laid out her intentions for the future economic and security relationship between the UK and the EU in several speeches, most recently in those made in Munich and in London’s Mansion House. Her intentions were also made clear in the seven future partnership papers, where the Government set out their negotiating objectives across a number of areas, including customs, science and innovation. Government Ministers have made a series of speeches laying out their intent for various aspects of the future relationship between the EU and the UK.
The scrutiny received during these parliamentary appearances, and in the multitude of reports from the committees of this House and the other place, have been of great value, and have done much to help inform the Government’s work so far. There has also been a wide range of engagement activity by government with key stakeholders across business, civil society and other interested groups. While there are some who think that Parliament should have a greater role in setting the terms of our negotiations, we simply cannot hold up the already tight negotiating timeline by providing for a further approval process prior to negotiations ending. It must be for the Government, not Parliament, to set our goals for the negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU, and to conduct them.
As I said in my response to the first amendment that we considered today, the Government have been clear from the start that Parliament will get a vote on the final deal, when Parliament will have the final say on the withdrawal agreement and terms for our future relationship, as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. Only if Parliament supports that Motion will the Government bring forward the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to give the withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect. The Government will then introduce further legislation where it is needed to implement the terms of the future relationship in UK law, providing yet further opportunities for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Debates in this place and the work of the committees of both Houses represent valuable forums and opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny, and we have used Parliament’s input to shape our approach to negotiations so far. Indeed, I conclude by quoting some wise words from our own House’s EU Committee’s fourth report of 2016-17, titled Brexit: Parliamentary Scrutiny:
“Parliament should not seek to micromanage the negotiations. The Government will conduct the negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom, and, like any negotiator, it will need room to manoeuvre if it is to secure a good outcome”.
My noble friend Lord Boswell will no doubt not let me ignore the fact that the report goes on to call for the avoidance of “accountability after the fact”, but I hope that the House will agree that the right response is not to go to the extremes of micromanagement by Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment tonight.
Lord Monks
My Lords, I thank all those who took part in this debate, which has continued the theme of this afternoon and early evening about the relationship of the Executive to the legislature. This amendment goes to the heart of that relationship. The fact is that we are in a position where we know what the Government are ruling out very clearly; what we do not know is what they are ruling in. In fact, the debates taking place in the Cabinet, as I understand, this coming Wednesday, show that the Government are all over the show about the objectives that they have in the negotiations about the future relationship.
This amendment seeks to provide the means for Parliament to put pressure on the Government to come up with some clarity. There has been activity, yes—and the Minister laid out the wide range of things that have been going on in Parliament about Brexit—but the crucial issue of the future relationship of the UK to the EU is still vague or wishful thinking or a combination of the two. I think that the Government can do better than that and owe it to Parliament to do better, and this amendment is a way of putting pressure on our Executive and the Prime Minister to do something about that.
I will make a quick reference to the punishment scenario painted by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. There is a range of things on offer from the European Commission, including membership of the single market and the customs union—many things that would make it business as usual, such as in the EEA and so on. It is our Government who are ruling out those kinds of things, which would provide as much continuity as we possibly can, which seems to be the objective of what the noble Lord was saying.
With all those points in mind, and bearing in mind the hour, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Lord Cormack
“( ) It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government to make every endeavour to facilitate the enactment of the statute described in subsection (1) prior to the ratification of the withdrawal agreement by the European Parliament.”
Lord Cormack
My Lords, Amendment 52 is grouped with Amendment 62 and I will address most of my remarks to the latter. Although I hope that my noble friend Lord Hailsham will not be cross with me, Amendment 52 deals rather more succinctly with the subjects that were dealt with in Amendment 49. As your Lordships’ House has already passed that amendment by a substantial majority, and has therefore emphatically accepted the need to have a meaningful vote, and enshrined that in the Bill, it would be tedious of me to repeat the arguments or to ask your Lordships to vote. At the appropriate moment, I will say the appropriate words.
Amendment 62 is very important. It is a logical consequence of Amendment 52 or, now that we have put it in the Bill, Amendment 49. The meaningful vote must be underscored with a meaningful process. There is a great deal of uncertainty around what the meaningful vote will look like and what the consequences would be should Parliament decide—as I hope it will not have to—to vote against any agreement. Amendment 62 seeks to address the current uncertainty in the Bill around this process. It is possible that, if the withdrawal deal fails to get through Parliament, the UK could leave the EU with no deal at all and fall back on WTO terms, which the Government’s own assessment shows would be the worst option, reducing growth, according to some estimates, by 8% over 15 years. Parliament must therefore have the right to request that the Government get back to the negotiating table for a better deal if that is the outcome. Amendment 62 would ensure that, if Parliament declines to approve the Government’s Motion on the withdrawal deal, the UK would retain our current relationship with the EU and the Government would be required to request an extension of Article 50.
Amendment 62 is therefore a common-sense amendment, which would strengthen Parliament’s ability to consider the withdrawal deal effectively, both in good time and in a position to send the Government back to the negotiating table while providing a degree of continuity and stability for our economy. This is very much a common-sense amendment, and if it is not pushed to a vote later this evening, because it will not be reached for some considerable time, I hope that we will have the opportunity to look at these issues again. It is important that we have a good deal, and it is crucial that we do not have no deal. This amendment is therefore a constructive one, and I very much hope that the sentiments behind it will commend themselves to your Lordships’ House at the appropriate moment. I beg to move.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendments 52 and 62. Given the strictures on repetition, I will not rehearse again anything on Amendment 52, which would allow the British Parliament to have its say before the European Parliament is asked to approve any deal. I already made plain my views on that in Committee so I will stick to Amendment 62. With this amendment we are seeking to safeguard Parliament’s ability to have a “meaningful” vote. It would have been handy if it had been linked with Amendment 49, but I realise the conflicting pressures that are on the Front Bench to decide the groupings. Nevertheless, Amendment 49 has taken a huge stride tonight in underpinning a meaningful vote. However, it is by no means perfect, and it has gaps.
Parliament’s consideration of the withdrawal agreement will be a serious task—we all know that. Our debates this evening alone have shown the level of complexity and sheer number of issues which the withdrawal agreement will have to address in detail. Yet as the clock ticks onwards that exit day comes ever closer—it is now within a year—and if there is no withdrawal agreement, we lose guaranteed access to our biggest market, certainty on the Irish border, and confidence for British citizens living and working in the rest of Europe and for the European citizens who are here. Given the timescale, those are immense risks.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
What evidence does the noble Lord have that you get a better deal when you go back to the table than the deal you have already got?
Lord Reid of Cardowan
The noble Lord may be able to predict whether it will be better or worse, but any deal that is acceptable to the British Parliament would be better than the disastrous situation of no deal at all. But that may need time. Why have an artificial deadline cutting us off from the conclusion of a deal, which may be there in the bones or, in the famous words of the Brexit Secretary, as a “platform”—and deny ourselves the opportunity of having the alternative of a cohesive deal rather than no deal, which I think would be the worst of all worlds? This is an opportunity that we should take.
A lot of the debate on Amendment 49 was about the ideological motives of those who are handling this. As my noble friend and occasional protagonist Lord Grocott keeps pointing out, I was a reluctant remainer. I was sceptical about the eurozone and the bureaucracy and unaccountability of the European Union, but on balance I wanted to stay in because all the challenges that we face are global: cyber, terrorism, trade and the environment. Being part of a larger bloc is, on balance, worth it. Therefore, my approach to this is pragmatic, not ideological. I admit to being confused by the ideological positions of the leaders of the major parties. We appear to have the leader of one party who is ideologically inclined to remain in the European Union but doing her best to get us out of it, and a leader of the other party who is ideologically inclined to remove us from the European Union who appears to be doing his best to keep us in part of it. I am confused about the ideologies that are supposed to be driving this on all sides of the House.
I believe that we should take what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, called a common-sense position. It is possible that the vote on the final deal could be little more than a deal or no deal choice, where a rejection of the Government’s Motion would mean the UK exiting the EU with no deal on WTO terms, which would be the worst possible option for the UK. That is not according to me, in my lack of wisdom, experience, depth and analysis, but according to the Government’s own impact studies. I believe that we must insure against that, which is what Amendment 62 seeks to do.
The Secretary of State told the House of Commons that the agreement will deliver the “exact same benefits” as our EU membership. That is basically what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said our objectives were. As it happens, that is also the commitment of the Opposition Front Bench, which has adopted it as one of its six tests. Amendment 62 simply safeguards this commitment by guaranteeing that we keep our current benefits until a withdrawal agreement has been reached that can match our objectives. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, it is a common sense, pragmatic amendment. It has no political motivation and no ulterior motive, other than the objective of preserving the best for this country. That is what this whole debate is supposed to be about.
It is my great pleasure to support Amendment 62. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for indicating that, if time constraints prevent us pushing this to a vote later tonight, we may come back to it at another stage.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that this is really about the European Union. This is about parliamentary sovereignty. I have to say that I do not understand why it is that the Government do not want Parliament, in the end, to be in a position to make the decisions which these two amendments make possible. It seems to me, in any case, that that would be valuable to the Government in negotiation, because it would enable them to say that a deal, if both sides want a deal, is one that has to get through Parliament. However, I do not want to go down that route. I want to go down the route of parliamentary sovereignty.
This is the most important decision we have made for a very long time—perhaps the most important peacetime decision that we have made ever. There are people in this House on either side of the debate and I would not be able, even if I wished to, to pretend that I was not absolutely committed to one side. But I am also a parliamentarian, and it is clear to me that there is no reason why Parliament should not make sure that it is able to make a proper decision on this issue and to make a decision that does not leave the nation in an impossible position. All that these two amendments really do is to ensure that there is a sensible programme into which Parliament is “properly”—I use that word in almost a technical sense—conjoined.
Why should one not want this? Well, one might not want it because it is not properly drafted. Of course, the technique of Governments of all kinds is to say that they would be very happy to go along with something but unfortunately there is this or that technical reason why it does not work. Maybe that is so, but I would therefore ask the Government this: if it is technically wrong, would they come before the House with the amendments that would make it technically right? If they do not, they are saying that in this most important issue of all, the Executive are going to make the decision, and that they wish to leave themselves open to making the circumstances in which Parliament cannot make a sensible decision. They would be saying to Parliament, “Vote for us or total disaster and collapse”. This is the technique of dictators down the ages: “Me or chaos; me or something much worse”. This House should insist that the decision is in Parliament’s hands. That means avoiding circumstances in which it is possible for the Executive to say, “However bad this is, anything else would be very much worse”.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton is also arguing from a clear, previous position—so we are in the same situation. He asks whether we have any evidence that going back for a further negotiation would be better. I have been in business since I was 22, except for when I was a Minister, and I have never started by saying that if the negotiation was not successful I was not prepared to go back and see if I could do better. That is how you run businesses and make money. It is how you improve the circumstances. I do not know in advance whether I can achieve something better, but I would never say that I would never go back and put myself into a position in which I could not negotiate again.
So I say to my noble friend that all this amendment says is that if Parliament decides that a negotiated agreement is not satisfactory, then, and only then, the Government will have to go back and seek something better.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Is the negotiation with the EU not somewhat unique, because you are negotiating with 27 different countries?
Lord Deben
It is unusual to negotiate with 27 different countries, but I have negotiated with large numbers of different people on the other side. That is one thing that we just have to accept. It is, like anything else, a negotiation. If we think that it is so unique that we cannot do it, we should not have started the negotiation in the first place. It does not make any difference if you have a second negotiation: it is the same position that you had with the first negotiation. The fact that it is with 27 different countries makes no difference because it does not change from the first negotiation to the second. I do not think that my noble friend has a point on that.
The real issue is the fundamental fact: the amendment does not operate unless Parliament has voted in a particular way. The Government’s answer to the amendment must therefore be that they have a reason not to let Parliament continue to be involved after such a vote. The Government do not think that Parliament will take such a decision. They are very sure—and I have listened to government speakers again and again—that they will produce a result that will be cheered by Parliament. We will all be thrilled with what they have been able to achieve. I would be very suspicious if the Government’s answer is that they do not think they will get that sort of result and therefore do not want to get themselves into a difficult position. I am assuming that, whatever agreement they have, it will be a good one and this amendment will never come into operation.
The only reason for the amendment is to be a backstop for the circumstances in which the Government do not achieve what they tell us they can achieve and they therefore produce something that is so unacceptable that Parliament decides that it cannot accept it. The Government have to say, “What happens then?”. Unless they accept the amendment or some technically different one that suits them, their only answer can be, “We the Executive will decide”. That is why this is not about the European Union. It is about the powers of Parliament and it is why I am surprised at my noble friend Lord Hamilton, who was chairman of the 1922 Committee, who protected and defended the rights of Members of Parliament and who believes and believed in the nature of Parliamentary democracy. It is why I do not understand why this divides the House.
This should be something that both leavers and remainers—and those who wander between and those who are confused—all of us, should accept that we want Parliament to be in a position to accept and to decide. This will not work unless Parliament has decided that it does not want the agreed solution. The amendment will not come into operation unless that happens. Surely it is not too much to ask that the Government say, if we get to that point, that Parliament should have the right to ask the Government to go back and try again.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am a great admirer of my noble friend Lord Reid and therefore, if he presses this to a Division later on in the evening or at whatever hour of the night we get to it, I will of course support him. I have nothing against the contents of the amendment because it is clearly desirable that, if we cannot support the Government’s treaty, the default should be that we stay in the EU unless the House of Commons has a better set of propositions that it wishes to agree to.
However, my concern is that there is a certain element of unreality to the proposals to try to bind the hands of the House of Commons as to what it may or may not do in the autumn. One of two things will in fact happen when the Prime Minister presents her treaty. The House of Commons will either vote for it or vote against it. There are no other alternatives. If the House of Commons votes against the treaty, that is, to all intents and purposes, a Motion of no confidence in the Government. There has not been an incident since Gladstone’s Home Rule Bill in 1886, which was rejected by the House of Commons, where the central plank of a Government’s policy was rejected outright by the House of Commons. The idea that there could be a further negotiation after that is entirely unrealistic. The negotiation would have been concluded with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, and ratified or not by the European Parliament and so forth. It is not realistic in the real world to expect that there would be further negotiation.
In the eventuality that the treaty is rejected, there are only two things that could conceivably happen. Either there will be an election because the Government have been defeated on what is in effect a Motion of confidence—it might take a formal triggering Motion under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to produce it—or there will be a referendum, which we discussed earlier. A referendum could happen if the House of Commons itself resolved that there should be one immediately after the defeat or perhaps as an amendment to the Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has said would be tabled. Everything else beyond that seems to be superfluous. The policy of the Government will then be the outcome of the referendum or the outcome of that election. A Government will have to be formed after the election, which will have to have a European policy and that will then be the policy of the Government that they would seek to negotiate in Brussels. There would either be some amendments to the treaty, if that is possible or—as I hope there is a Labour Government—there will be a decision not to proceed with Brexit, or there would be a referendum and we would proceed with the outcome of that referendum.
I say all that mainly to my noble friend on the Front Bench and her colleagues in the other place. There is no point in engaging in this displacement activity at the moment and making it sound as if we are being very tough on Brexit by placing ever more elaborate manacles and handcuffs on what might or might not happen in the vote in October. The only thing that really matters is the attitude of the Labour Party when the Government present their treaty. Either we are in favour of it or we are against it. If we are against that treaty, I can assure my noble friend that everything else will take care of itself. If we are against the treaty and vote against it, we do not need all the protections in this Bill. One of two things will happen. Either there will be another referendum or there will be an election. If there is an election, what matters is the policy of my party in that election. Will we or will we not proceed with Brexit if we win the election? Very simple facts of political power come into play.
What happens in Parliament after that will depend on those decisions. Ever more elaborate provisions in this Bill are, I say respectfully, entirely beside the point because they miss the reality of political power. That is that there has to be a Government, they have to have a policy and that can come from only one of two ways. Either a new Government are returned if this Government are turned out on the treaty or there is a referendum that will determine it.
I am entirely in favour of everything in my noble friend’s amendment and I hope that it will be warmly welcomed from the Front Bench, but what really matters, I say to my noble friends, is the policy of the Labour Party when the Prime Minister presents her treaty. If we are against the treaty and we are successful, there has to be either an election or a referendum. I am afraid that there are no alternative options on offer.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
With the leave of the House—and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, if she is in—I want to say something. I used to say to a friend of mine—he was an acquaintance, really—in the Militant Group that I wished I was as sure of one thing as he was of everything. There is an unusual hint of that in what my noble friend just said. It is not true that you can ordain in the future in politics the inevitability of one or two courses. In the wise words of Harold Macmillan, when asked what he was most frightened of, “Events, dear boy, events”. I would therefore be very cautious about taking that view—although my noble friend is perfectly entitled to ask the Labour Front Bench what the party’s position is—on the inevitability of history. Great philosophers have made that mistake before. If I am correct and he is wrong, it would be wise to have some form of plan or safeguard for each contingency. All we are trying to do, in a non-ideological and non-partisan fashion, is say, “Let us have a common-sense plan for the contingency that Parliament votes this down”. There is a huge complexity about what might happen afterwards and none of it is unavoidable or predictable in advance.
Lord Adonis
My noble friend makes a very good point, but all of those further eventualities would be so much clearer if my party’s policy were clear in the first place.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to agree with people from the Labour Party. I certainly agree with that final remark: it would be nice if the Labour Party’s policy were a little clearer. I have known—I would not say that I have had the pleasure of knowing—the Leader of the Opposition all the time he has been in politics. I cannot recall a single occasion, from the referendum in 1975 through all the treaties, when he has supported anything to do with Europe. I suspect that part of the reason for the difficulties of the Opposition today is this squabble at the top. The feeling among one or two leading Members of the Labour Party is wanting to stay in the European Union—certainly in the customs union—and the feeling right at the top is, “over my dead body”. I ask the Opposition to start supposing; that would be a big step forward.
I rose to speak because I put my name to both of the amendments. I want to look at the role of the European Parliament in particular. We talk about parliamentary sovereignty but two Parliaments are involved in this. I listened to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but we are negotiating not with 27 countries, but the European Parliament, which has a position, and the Council, which has a position and, through Monsieur Barnier, someone to pull that position together. Amendment 52 says,
“prior to the ratification of the withdrawal agreement by the European Parliament”.
Amendment 49 is slightly better worded, in my view, because it says,
“debated and voted on before the European Parliament has debated and voted on the draft withdrawal agreement”.
Although I put my name to Amendment 52, I concede that Amendment 49 has a better form of words. We cannot assume that the European Parliament will go along with the position of Mr Barnier. The European Parliament has its own rapporteur on withdrawal: Mr Guy Verhofstadt, whose job is to reach a common position in Parliament.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the case has been made that should Parliament fail to approve the Government’s withdrawal deal, the Government should pause the Article 50 process and go back to the negotiating table. That might appear to be a sensible, common-sense—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—possibly even essential proposal. Indeed, it was one of the arguments we used when we urged the Government to remove the fixed date for exit in the Bill—we will return to that next week but I am sure they are aware of that—to give the flexibility they may need in exactly those circumstances.
However, I fear that the particular route of Amendment 62 runs counter to the whole thrust of what we have just agreed in Amendment 49. Should the Government’s deal be voted down, the consequences of that failure to negotiate a satisfactory outcome and to win the support of Parliament for it would indeed be extremely serious. Amendment 49 says that in those circumstances it should be the Commons rather than the Government which starts to take charge. The Commons may well decide to take the route suggested in Amendment 62 with a quick letter to the EU asking it to consider an extension. It might consider as an alternative that it wants a referendum. It might decide that it wants to withdraw the Article 50 trigger altogether rather than just extend it, as set out in the later Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.
However, today is not the time to speculate which of those would be the right outcome for the House of Commons in those circumstances. We cannot know now and we certainly should not try to second-guess the correct option if there is not a majority in the Commons for the deal that has been negotiated.
It would be a shame if in any way the amendment appears to put the initiative back into the hands of Ministers, rather than the Commons. Amendment 49 said it was for the Commons, not the Executive, to take the next step should we find ourselves in that position. On that basis, we will be abstaining on Amendment 62—assuming that it is dealt with tonight, rather than early in the morning. Our reason is that it is tangential or even superfluous—rather than objectionable—and could be seen to conflict with what we have just agreed at 5 pm today in Amendment 49. It narrows, rather than widens, the options the Commons would have should the final deal be voted down.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I welcome the constructive nature of my noble friend’s criticism, if you follow me. I am not sure that the two are incompatible. I am not sure that the House of Commons can actually, in international relations, speak for a sovereign state the way that a Government have to speak for a sovereign state. I take it from what my noble friend said that she is not ruling out the idea but objects to the imperative nature of it and the apparent conflicts with what was passed earlier. In that case, I hope that she and the Government will engage in seeing how we could reconcile those apparent differences.
Lord Callanan
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I remain as confident as I was debating the first group that we will reach a positive deal with the EU and that Parliament will want to support it. However, the noble Lord proposes that, in the event of Parliament rejecting the deal, we should seek an extension of Article 50 and stay in the EU. An extension to Article 50 is not for the UK to decide alone. It would require the unanimous agreement of the European Council. This should not come as a revelation to any noble Lords, as this point was made clear before and during the passage of the notification of withdrawal Act.
I do not think it is by any means certain that in the event of having agreed everything, only to find that nothing is subsequently agreed, it would be in the UK’s or the EU’s interest to reopen, for an undefined and potentially endless period, our withdrawal negotiations. I know that many noble Lords take a great and affectionate interest in the European project. It is not right to seek to extend our negotiations and act as a block to the EU’s ability to address its priorities.
Here at home, this amendment touches on the points we discussed in the previous groups today. Again, it is not the role of the legislative branch to instruct the Executive on how to act on the international stage. I realise that EU exit might have changed some noble Lords’ minds on this position, but this would be a constitutional shift potentially larger than our departure from the EU and is not something to be entered into via an amendment at this stage of the Bill.
We are, however, absolutely committed to giving Parliament the final say and, in line with the request in the noble Lord’s Amendment 52, we will make every endeavour for this vote to be held before the vote in the European Parliament. Of course, this House and the other place will also want sufficient time to consider the deal and to debate it. The noble Lord’s statutory commitment to our political goal could place these in tension. As we cannot control the timetable of the European Parliament, if it chooses to rush to a vote faster than would allow this Parliament to properly debate the deal, we would not want to try to force this House to a vote before it is ready.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Balfe, we are engaging extensively with the European Parliament. Indeed, I have met with Richard Corbett, as well as many other MEPs. We have been engaging at a ministerial level, from the Prime Minister downwards. I myself have visited Brussels and Strasbourg and attended many meetings and discussions with numerous MEPs from all of the political groups. I am pleased to tell my noble friend that there is a lot of support for a good and constructive deal with the United Kingdom in the European Parliament. His point is well made. We are engaging extensively with it; I myself am doing so.
As noble Lords will know, the UK and the EU have the shared objective of reaching an agreement by October 2018. That ensures sufficient time for the vote to take place, in both this House and the other place, before the vote in the European Parliament and substantially before our exit day. This vote will have to be prompt to leave the requisite time for the passage of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, to which we are also committed.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord of the Government’s commitment to delivering a timely vote and that a statutory direction to an extension to Article 50 is not appropriate. I therefore ask that he withdraws his amendment. Let me make it crystal clear that I cannot give him any false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if he wishes to test the opinion of the House he should do so now.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I have no intention of seeking to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 52 because we have already passed Amendment 49.
Lord Cormack
I do not know whether I am grateful for that or not, but I made it plain at the very beginning that I would not ask the House to vote on Amendment 52. The House has passed an amendment with similar intentions by a large majority. I trust that the Government will reflect on the implications of your Lordships’ views as expressed in the Lobbies earlier.
Before I seek leave to withdraw Amendment 52, I say to my noble friend that although we share his hopes that the deal will be a good one and we would love to be able to share his expectations, various things have happened that make us concerned. We wish him and his colleagues well in the negotiations. We hope that the House of Commons, in particular, and your Lordships’ House will feel able to commend them, but we do not yet know, and it is important that we have safeguards in the Bill. Although now is not the right moment to press Amendment 62—my noble friend does not give much hope for us on that—I repeat what I said and what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said in his admirable speech, underlined as well by my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe: this is a common-sense amendment which is a logical follow-up to Amendment 49. I am sorry that the Official Opposition do not feel able to commend a vote and therefore I do not think there is any point or purpose in having one tonight, but we shall seek methods by which we can keep this issue on the agenda and have occasion to return to it later on Report, because there are amendments where we can refer to these things again and perhaps at Third Reading, too. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 52.
Lord Judge
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I bring this amendment with support from all sides and wonder whether your Lordships would be kind enough to listen to me while I read to you the effect of Clause 9(1) and (2) taken together:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations … make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act)”.
By contrast with primary legislation, which has been through all the legislative processes in both Houses, with all the opportunity for discussion, debate, rethinking, amendment and, above all, scrutiny that are inherent in our processes to create primary legislation, this clause vests power in a single individual, a Minister, one man or woman, to promulgate new laws by regulation drafted in their own departments. What is worse, that single individual is by regulation empowered to override, repeal or amend primary legislation which has been enacted after both Houses have been through the processes which I have just described.
I have said before, and venture to repeat myself, that in a democracy that is a remarkable lawmaking power given to a single individual. Vesting such power in a single individual is a very dangerous constitutional habit. Clauses such as this are inserted into primary legislation with what I at best can say is casual indifference. It would be interesting to be able to know, and we never shall, when a Minister signing off proposed primary legislation questioned the inclusion of such a clause. Was it last year, 10 years ago or maybe 20? Even more, would it not be wonderful if a Minister not only questioned it but insisted on its removal? I cannot imagine anybody here thinks it happens very often. Such clauses go into Bills like confetti strewn about at a wedding.
What about us, Parliament? We have not been as assiduous as we should have been. As I have said before—I am sorry, it is a mantra that you will hear me repeating—the last time the Commons rejected a statutory instrument was in 1979, just about 40 years before exit day. There was a much more recent example in this House, as all noble Lords will remember, but the proper exercise of those powers by this House was treated as if it had created a constitutional crisis. It had not, of course, but many thought that it had. On the basis that the scrutiny process of regulations in the Commons has become obsolete, this power to make new law and override existing law by ministerial regulation is effectively synonymous with ministerial proclamation running the country.
The very same House of Commons which is said to have given that dangerous Henry VIII these powers would regard our efforts to control them, our distortion of our legislative processes, as at the very best pusillanimous. It is a remarkable feature of Clause 9(2) that it actually repeats words in that notorious Act of Proclamations 1539. The Act provides that royal proclamations were to be obeyed,
“as though they were made by Act of Parliament”.
That is why I read out what our current provisions are proposing to put in. I think that it is a shameful echo. For lawmaking purposes, it means that one man’s or woman’s word is equivalent to the entire parliamentary process. In 1539, that very same Commons—I regret that it was the Commons, not the Lords—did something that it is never given credit for. Remember that it was dealing with Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell. But the Commons expressly qualified that very wide grant of powers by making the provision that the words should not be understood to mean that anyone,
“of what estate, degree or condition soever”,
should have,
“their inheritances, lawful possessions, offices, liberties, privileges, franchises, goods … taken from them … nor that by any proclamation to be made by virtue of this act, any acts, common laws (standing at this present time in strength and force) nor yet any lawful or laudable customs of this realm … shall be infringed, broken or subverted, and specially all those acts standing this hour in force which have been made in the King’s Highness’ time”.
Occasionally one needs to reflect on the courage of the Commons to stand up to Henry VIII all those years ago. History has been unkind to it. The Speaker ended up in the Tower. It was on an almost certainly trumped-up charge of dishonesty and fraud, but that was where he ended up. Those noble Lords who think that Thomas Cromwell lost his head because Henry VIII did not find Anne of Cleves bonny and buxom in bed should think again. The reason he lost his head was that for the first time in the whole time when Henry VIII relied on him he did not get from Parliament what the King wanted. So let us remember the express qualifications in that notorious Act of Proclamations. They are magical words and we today have forgotten about them—we do not include them.
These particular Henry VIII clauses are about as pointless as they can ever have been anyway. They do not come into force before the “meaningful vote”—no further words from me on that—and they may not be exercised anyway after exit day, which is less than 12 months away. What is the point of them? The opportunity for exercising these powers, if Parliament chooses to give them to the Minister, are minimal, and such opportunity as there will be will be diminished by the requirement in Amendment 83C for the Minister to explain why it is reasonable for these powers to be exercised. I trust the Minister will accept, and indeed perhaps indicate to the House, that it is perfectly sensible, if the Minister is giving good reasons for any decision, for the Minister to explain which pieces of primary legislation it is proposed to amend, repeal, revoke or tamper with. Then at least the scrutinising process can say what it is we are looking at.
I am using a ridiculous example to make my point: the Statute forbidding Bearing of Armour 1313 says that you must not come within one mile of Parliament armed. Okay, we can get rid of that—I suppose—because we have modern Acts to deal with the problem. But I make this trivial point because we need to know what it is considered that we should interfere with before it is possible for us to say that there are good reasons for doing so. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, if Amendment 52A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 53 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 53 in this group is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Wheatcroft, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and—most recently and much to be welcomed—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. In Committee I had occasion to speak about the legislative Damascus road so I am very glad that in respect of this issue at least the Minister has added this highway to his travel plans.
I respectfully commend my noble and learned friend Lord Judge for his excoriation of Henry VIII clauses. It is a very poor rejoinder to say that the exercise of these powers is subject to the way that Parliament deals with statutory instruments, whether they be affirmative or negative, because too often that is an occasion for merely perfunctory examination. Over a period of time—and I have looked at quite close quarters at the way that the threshold between primary and secondary legislation has moved upwards over the past couple of decades and more—it is ultimately subversive of the primary legislative process.
If my noble and learned friend presses his amendment, I will of course support him, but if he chooses not to do so or fails to convince your Lordships, I will fall back on my amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has so helpfully added his name.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, which is way above my pay grade, but in answer to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—which I invite the Minister to get briefed on—about how this has been allowed to happen and when, I say that it would not have happened in David Renton’s time. He was the Member for Huntingdonshire in the other place and was still active here at 92, taking parliamentary draftsmen apart on a weekly basis, under the Government of whom I had the privilege to be a member. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, recalls this. He was meticulous. He chaired a report in the other place in the late 1970s on the drafting of legislation. It was his life’s work. He could pick apart these issues. No one is doing that these days and it is allowing slipshod work by parliamentary draftspeople to get on to the statute book, and it is about time we did more about it.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 53, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, and I want to contribute one very small thought to your Lordships. Many of us will recall that at the outset of consideration of this Bill by your Lordships’ House, there were many attacks in anticipation that we might amend it. But the very fact that the Minister has signed our amendment indicates that your Lordships’ House is doing its job. That is the whole point of our presence in the legislative process.
Ministers were egged on and convinced by the more incendiary Back-Benchers in the other House, and the tabloid media, that it would be outrageous if your Lordships’ House amended in the tiniest detail this wonderful Bill that was going to be put in front of us. The Minister has now helped us do some amending. We have already had seven changes, I think, improving the Bill, with a large majority in some cases. So I plead with the Minister to recognise in future that we are doing our job when we improve this Bill. It did not come to us perfect. It will go back to the other place a great deal better than when it came to us. I hope that there will not be so many incendiary attacks on your Lordships’ House in future by curious Back-Benchers in the other House.
Incidentally, I yield to nobody in wishing to reform your Lordships’ House, as some noble Lords will know to their cost. I was a strong supporter of the agreed Cross-Bench 2012 Bill. I now find it rather odd that the people who want to reform this House, or indeed to abolish it, are the very people who stood in our way on that occasion.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Rooker for reminding us of the work of Lord Renton. Those of us who were privileged to serve in this House with Lord Renton, and others who served in the other House with him, will well recall what my noble friend said about his work. We would do well to remember it and so I thank my noble friend for reminding us.
As for the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, not to feel the force of the logic that he so powerfully expressed. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, it is not a very strong response to say that there are protections in the way in which statutory instruments will be presented to this House and the other House. I add to that the fact that there are other protections this House has said are necessary, at least in relation to certain changes, for example those which might affect elements that require—as this House has said—special protection when it comes to the use of the delegated powers this Bill is intended to provide.
Having said all that, there remains a strong logic in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said, and I think we all hope that is carefully considered by the Government, for both this Bill and future Bills. It is fair to say—like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—that at least this Bill has some restrictions on the way these powers may be used, and I commend his requirement—his request—that when Ministers give reasons for the use of these powers, we understand just what they have in mind. This House and the other place should look carefully at that. That said, we will wait to see what the noble and learned Lord will do with his amendment.
What is being said about Amendment 53 is to be welcomed. That should not be overlooked. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has added his name to this amendment. It is one of the few occasions—I think the only occasion—when one gets five names on an amendment: when a Minister sees the error of his ways and adds his name to the amendment. That remark may be churlish of me—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is nodding vigorously—but the important point is that we welcome the Government’s acceptance of that amendment. That was the most egregious part of the Henry VIII clause: that it should be possible to use it to amend even this very Bill, which your Lordships have spent so many hours and days debating. It is, therefore, good to see that go.
I ask the Minister—I think it may be the noble Baroness—to confirm one thing. Amendment 53 omits the words “including modifying this Act”, which currently appear in the clause. My belief is that those words were there because without them it would not be possible to use the power to amend the very Act in which the power appears. I believe that is stated in parliamentary counsel’s guidelines on clauses such as this.
I very much hope the noble Baroness will confirm that when she responds to the amendment. I know that attempts were made through the usual channels to make sure that whoever responded to the debate had notice of that question. I hope, therefore, that she has been adequately briefed on it. I think, however, that your Lordships will want confirmation that that is the purpose of this amendment. It was certainly the purpose when it was tabled: that it should take away this most egregious possibility of being able to use the power to amend the very Act itself. I will give the noble Baroness time to get clarity on that, but I can assure her that attempts were made through the usual channels to ensure that she was not taken by surprise by it. I do not know quite what happened.
In any event, we would certainly want Amendment 53, when we get to it shortly, formally moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and I look forward to supporting it then. In the meantime, I wait to see how the noble and learned Lord deals with his amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, let me start on a positive note. My noble friend Lord Callanan was indeed pleased to add his signature to Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, which will remove the ability under Clause 9 to amend the Act itself. I note that this amendment is supported not just by the noble Lords in whose names it lies but by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House. It was one of that committee’s recommendations for the Bill and, given that the Government are happy to support this amendment, we are pleased to be in such illustrious and learned company. It is a heady experience, I have to say.
I am sure that noble Lords will welcome this amendment to a part of the Bill that has continued to cause concern to many throughout its passage. It is important to explain why the Government included such a measure at the time of introduction—this may partly address the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. When the Bill was first drafted, this provision was not an attempt to hold open a back door to circumventing or undoing any of the protections or constraints in the Bill. Rather, it was seen as a necessary step to provide the flexibility to respond to developments in negotiations. Indeed, the fact that aspects of the Bill may need to be amended, depending on the outcome of these negotiations, still remains. Our acceptance of this amendment does not reflect a change in that regard. Rather, the decision to introduce in due course a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will give effect to the implementation period, the citizens’ rights agreement and the financial settlement, among other provisions of the withdrawal agreement, provides another door through which the Government may make all the changes required.
Without a strong justification for retaining Clause 9’s ability to amend the EU withdrawal Bill once it becomes an Act, the Government are indeed content to remove that ability. As with our amendment to remove Clause 8, I hope this shows the Government’s commitment to working with Parliament and I reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Before the Minister moves on, can she clarify what the answer is to the question asked from the Opposition Front Bench? On the face of it, if the words “including modifying this Act” are removed, it leaves simply this sentence:
“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament”.
Do you make a substantive change by withdrawing those words? It is not clear to me that you do.
Baroness Goldie
I listened with interest to that point, but I am not sure that I entirely agree with that construction of the change to Clause 9(2). Amendment 53 means that we will not be able to amend the Bill when it is an Act. It therefore restricts the scope of the power, which seems to have met with the satisfaction of those who have put their names to it. As I have said, that is a positive and, I hope, a helpful reassurance from the Government.
Lord Goldsmith
Can we just agree that, as far as the noble Baroness and the Government Front Bench are concerned, it is the belief of the Government that removing the words as proposed in the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has put his name, would preclude the power in this clause being used to amend the Bill once it becomes an Act?
Baroness Goldie
In short, yes—with this caveat. The Government regret that we are not able to be signatories to Amendment 52A, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, because, as he has indicated, it seeks to remove Clause 9(2) completely, thereby removing the power to amend primary legislation. However, it is always a joy to listen to the noble and learned Lord’s eloquent and well-informed contributions.
Let me explain the Government’s position. Even with the introduction of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, Clause 9 residually serves as a supplementary measure to implement the more technical elements of the withdrawal agreement that will need to be legislated for in time for exit day. These technical amendments may need to be made to primary legislation in exactly the same way as in secondary legislation, so we cannot accept limiting the power in the way sought by the noble and learned Lord. However, I say to him, as he specifically raised this point, that the new transparency procedures for such regulations would require the Minister to make clear in the supporting memorandum what legislation was being amended. I hope that reassures him.
The Government believe that whether a change is made to primary or secondary legislation does not always reflect the significance of the changes being made. Equally, the level of detail involved may be better suited to secondary legislation. I hope that noble Lords will understand the Government’s reasoning on this and will welcome the Government’s compromise through the removal of the ability to amend the Act. I repeat the categorical assurance I have given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, on that point. This further demonstrates the Government’s commitment to restrict the scope of the powers sought wherever practical. I hope this amendment is enough to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judge
My Lords, we have made some progress. If the use of this extraordinary power—extraordinary in the sense of the power rather than extraordinary in the sense of the number of times it is used—will be limited to dealing with technical amendments, which will be explained by highlighting the legislation under consideration, we have made some progress and I shall not test the opinion of the House today.
However, Henry VIII clauses are unacceptable save in the most special circumstances. Although I shall not divide the House today, I shall watch as each new Bill comes before us, in connection not only with Brexit, to make sure that the Minister looking at the first draft of the Bill asks why it contains a Henry VIII clause, why it is needed and what it is for so that we do not suddenly find a whole cluster of Henry VIII clauses bursting through at the seams such that we are unable to control them. We have made some progress. It is not enough for the long term, but for tonight we have done very well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lisvane
Baroness Goldie
Baroness Goldie
“( ) establish a public authority,”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, before I call Amendment 55A I must inform noble Lords that there is an error in the Marshalled List. Amendment 55A should read:
“The condition in subsection 3(e)”,
and not 2(e).
Baroness Massey of Darwen
“(e) make any provision without giving consideration to Part I of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by the United Kingdom.(3A) The condition in subsection 2(e) is fulfilled if, and only if, a Minister of the Crown lays before both Houses of Parliament—(a) a Ministerial Statement committing to give due consideration to Part I of UNCRC ratified by the United Kingdom when carrying out duties and functions that were within the competence of the EU before exit day, or when exercising powers under this section or powers under section 7 to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies; and(b) a comprehensive audit setting out how children’s rights will continue to be protected across the United Kingdom after exit day, particularly in areas where children’s rights are not currently protected under domestic law but were, before exit day, in EU law.”
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, together with many noble Lords, I have always fought for the rights of children, to protect children, to engage children and to empower children. I have to declare an interest now that I am chair of the Council of Europe Sub-Committee on Children. I am also active in children’s issues in the UK.
The amendment explores the potential impact of Brexit on children. I thank the Minister for Children, who along with his staff met me a couple of weeks ago. I hope the Government are listening today. I do not intend to call a vote on this amendment but I want to strongly draw attention to how important it is to consider children in all aspects of our discussions on Brexit. I hope that after this debate we will have further talks with Ministers about the rights of children, and that they will guarantee that children’s issues are monitored throughout the discussions.
Despite the Government’s stated commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and their reassurances that children’s rights will not be affected by the departure of the UK from the EU, it is clear that both the foreseeable and unforeseeable impacts of the UK’s withdrawal on children’s lives have not been thoroughly considered in the Government’s proposals as contained in the withdrawal Bill. This has already been raised as a concern by MPs, Peers and children’s organisations alike, given that the legislation and protections derived from our membership of the EU affect so many aspects of children’s lives, from consumer and environmental protections to cross-border safeguarding and anti-trafficking measures.
We have already drawn attention to the need to ensure that we do not go backwards in the protection of children’s rights during and after Brexit. This is about preserving existing rights and protections for children and making sure that our exit from the EU does not erode or undermine them. We have heard many assurances from the Government that they are fully committed to children’s rights and protections and to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They maintain that their ability to safeguard children’s rights will not be affected by withdrawal from the EU and that these issues will go into domestic law. However, it is a serious matter that we know that decisions taken at central government level, which have a significant impact on children’s lives and well-being, are not taken with the principles and provisions of the UNCRC in mind. For example, assessments of the potential and expected effects on children’s rights are not yet routinely carried out, and we know that in 2016 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors the implementation of the UNCRC, recommended that the UK ensure that all the principles and provisions of the convention be directly applicable in law in the UK, which is currently not the case.
That is why I have tabled an amendment requesting a government commitment, in the form of a ministerial statement, to consider the UN convention when making legislative changes as a result of EU withdrawal. Despite assurances to the contrary, our current domestic legislation is not comprehensive enough to ensure the full protection of children’s rights after our exit from the EU. The Human Rights Act and the Children Acts of 1989 and 2004 provide important but insufficient protections. While retaining the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be extremely useful and welcome, the amendment would ensure additional protection for children and their rights.
In preparation to leave the EU, as the statute book is amended, we should be wary of any changes that affect children in a contrary way. There is a real risk that children's rights will not be considered. That could have serious implications for children in a number of areas, namely data protection; cross-border co-operation in child safeguarding and anti-trafficking efforts; paediatric clinical trials; food safety and labelling; TV and media advertising; environmental standards and protections; the rights of migrant children to access healthcare and education; and cross-border family law.
Currently, under EU law, trade in goods and services between EU members has to ensure that children’s welfare is protected. Any new trade deals that the UK embarks on after Brexit must include adequate safeguards to ensure that children are not put at risk.
As things stand, the Government’s proposed delegated powers would allow them to make important decisions on EU withdrawal, decisions that could have a significant impact on children, with little or no parliamentary scrutiny. This makes it even more imperative to have a ministerial statement of commitment that government departments will consider the UNCRC in their EU-related decision-making during and post Brexit. Such a commitment would demonstrate and guarantee a clear willingness by the Government to ensure that there will be no going backward in children’s rights protections after leaving the EU.
Current efforts by the Department for Education to develop training for officials on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and UNICEF’s child rights impact assessment template to be used as a development tool across government departments are welcome, and represent a useful resource, but they are not sufficient by themselves. I also seek from the Government a guarantee that the training of officials on the UNCRC and the impact assessment tool on child rights will be used across government departments to secure and ensure that children’s issues will not be solely the responsibility of the Department for Education. Cross-departmental working is very powerful, but how will it be ensured?
A precedent for an audit to protect children’s rights has already been set by the Scottish Government. I urge the UK Government to do likewise. I hope to continue discussion with the Government about this and to convince them that this is an important issue which cannot be overlooked. I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on having put the amendment before us. I am sure the Government will take it seriously; I cannot believe that they would do otherwise. I want to make only one point. The convention is terribly important. It is clear time and again that, in our affairs in the UK, it is not yet fully operative. If there are ways in which we have been enjoying the strengthening of its operation by our membership of the European Union, it is doubly important, following any exit from the European Union, that those issues are covered closely by our own arrangements. I am sure that an audit is a realistic and practical suggestion which also deserves attention.
Britain played a very important part, as it so often has in international affairs, in the construction and drawing up of the convention. Many distinguished Conservatives were behind the operation. Because of that commitment—it was not just a matter of getting something on paper; it is how it is actually applied—what my noble friend has proposed and the way she has emphasised it this evening shows that the Government need to give the issue serious attention and to give her the assurances she seeks.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, we discussed two key aspects of protecting children’ rights post Brexit in Committee.
The first is the need to guarantee that our present level of cross-border co-operation should not diminish. Here, my noble friend gave me an assurance, for which I am grateful, that the United Kingdom’s current security arrangements in Europe will continue; and, in particular, through the effective agencies now deployed, including Europol, the European arrest warrant, Eurojust and ECRIS.
The second matter, focused in the amendment before us, is that, post Brexit, UK domestic law and its deployment should manage to reflect and be guided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. My noble friend also gave a commitment on this in Committee: that UK domestic law would always reflect and be guided by UNCRC. Following that resolve, it should not be necessary that UNCRC be incorporated within UK law. Yet perhaps my noble friend the Minister may be able to support what this amendment implies: that a Statement to the House should be made at another time, as convenient, setting out more broadly the Government’s commitment to children’s rights, while also indicating the work that is going on across government and in the United Kingdom to promote and protect these rights.
My noble friend the Minister might possibly agree as well that such a Statement such could usefully include an undertaking to offer on certain relevant policies impact assessments on children’s rights.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. I shall speak for no more than a minute, or possibly a minute and a quarter, in view of the time. While the UK has been a significant advocate for children’s rights globally, our domestic legislative environment refers only scantily to the rights of children. The Minister must be aware that there are no legal financial sanctions in this country for non-compliance with some of the principles and provisions of the UNCRC. Ministers claim that, because we have ratified the UNCRC, we do not need the protections afforded through our EU membership—but there is no point in children having rights on paper if there is no way to enforce them.
The Minister will be aware of the case of Hughes Cousins-Chang, in which the High Court relied not only on the UNCRC but on EU laws, directives and guidance to challenge the Government when that person’s rights were inadequately protected domestically. What legal and financial sanctions and safeguards does the Minister have in mind for children in our future world? Will the Minister please respond to this point?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I simply want briefly to challenge the central plank of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in Committee that the Government remain fully committed to children’s rights in the UNCRC. He said:
“The rights and best interests of children are already, and will remain, protected in England”.—[Official Report, 5/3/18; col. 932.]
That is strongly contested by the children’s sector, which argues that that protection is piecemeal, inadequate and inferior to that in Scotland and Wales because there is no UK-wide underpinning constitutional commitment to children’s rights such as exists at EU level. In contrast to the rosy picture that the Minister painted, in its latest observations on the UK the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child,
“regrets that the rights of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration is still not reflected in all legislative and policy matters”.
It calls on the Government to,
“ensure that this right is appropriately integrated and … applied in all legislative, administrative and judicial proceedings and decisions as well as in all policies, programmes and projects that are relevant to and have an impact on children”.
Whereas the Minister claimed that incorporation of the convention is unnecessary because the UK “already meets its commitments” under it through legislation and policy, the UN committee recommended that the Government,
“expedite bringing our domestic legislation … in line with the Convention to ensure that”,
its,
“principles and provisions … are directly applicable and justiciable under domestic law”.
Far from meeting our commitments under the convention, refusal to accept this amendment would fly in the face of the letter and spirit of the UN committee’s recommendations and would be seen as a betrayal of children’s best interests by the children’s sector.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I was President of the Family Division. It is interesting that, as far as I know, in domestic family law, nothing whatever is said about rights for children up to the age of 16. There are some medical rights for children aged over 16. In the human rights convention, nothing is said about the rights of children, which makes the United Nations convention absolutely crucial.
I add just one further point. In 1988, I was the author of a report on the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. My second recommendation was that children ought to be viewed as people and not objects of concern, which is how our domestic law looks at children. It is a very serious matter. If we do not have the protection of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in its various articles, we will fall very seriously behind—and that is why I support the amendment.
Lord Storey
My Lords, on these Benches we also support this important amendment. It is easy to lose contact with this in the great issues of our time—trade, customs unions and defence—but children are really important. As has been said, and as the Minister herself will know from her Scottish experience, our devolved nations perhaps take this issue more seriously than we do in England. The Scottish Government have recently committed to undertaking a comprehensive audit, looking at ways to further embed the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government have previously said that they take children’s rights extremely seriously. It is now time to make this commitment clear, as we go through this unprecedented period of change. Let us please give our children and young people that reassurance.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and other noble Lords. I want to concentrate on the area of online child protection because, as some noble Lords may know, I have followed this subject over the years and the EU has had an important responsibility for it. Child sexual abuse online affects children of all ages and backgrounds and is now perhaps the biggest challenge to our child protection authorities. A recent report by the NSPCC revealed that, in 2015-16, the number of police-recorded offences relating to indecent images increased by 64% in England, 50% in Wales, 71% in Northern Ireland and 7% in Scotland. In 2016, the Internet Watch Foundation identified over 57,000 URLs containing child sexual abuse images and in its most recent annual report found that two-thirds of child abuse content online is hosted in Europe.
Methods of engaging illicitly with children online are ever more technically sophisticated, and are perpetrated by extensive, highly organised cross-border criminal networks. While child protection is a devolved matter and each of the four nations of the UK has its own guidelines and definitions, it is an issue that can be effectively addressed only through strong cross-national co-ordination and collaboration. The EU has developed a harmonised legal response and facilitated cross-border co-operation to tackle this. In particular, the EU sexual exploitation directive introduced clear minimum standards for sanctions and measures to prevent abuse, combat impunity and protect victims. It includes provision for co-operation with Europol, supports constructive dialogue between member states and industry, and adapts criminal law to account for technological developments.
Many of these provisions have now been incorporated into UK domestic law, but legal responses are only part of the solution. We need continued investment in educational and technical resources and to be able to gather data and other forms of intelligence from the investigative authorities abroad. Maintaining co-operation with EU policing and criminal justice agencies and mechanisms is the best way to achieve this. We must not forget that the UK has played a significant and leading role in EU cross-border agencies, sharing our expertise and learning from others. As Peers will know, the outgoing head of Europol is British. My fear is that we may lose influence in these agencies. We have a lot to contribute to make sure that those agencies and mechanisms work effectively to keep children safe, not just in the UK but across Europe. Will the Minister tell the House how she plans to ensure that the UK will continue to use our considerable expertise to help shape EU policing and criminal justice agencies?
Online abuse comes in other forms too, including the widespread manipulation of children through exploitative online advertising, and the use and abuse of children’s personal data without their knowledge or understanding. Such practices affect children in potentially more profound ways than adults, and can significantly compound their vulnerabilities as they progress into adulthood. A strong commitment to a broader framework for children’s human rights, that promotes the rights and interests of children over and above those of commercial operators, is surely the best way of addressing this and other forms of online exploitation of children.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I briefly add my support for this amendment. It seems that much of the debate about EU withdrawal has been about economics, deals and trade, and we cannot speak of children in terms of deals or trade. Some of the most vulnerable people on our continent are children. Perhaps the most important thing is that they are the future as well as the present, and they will not forget how they have been seen and how they are regarded. So I strongly endorse the statement made by the noble Baroness earlier that children are people, not a project. I support the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important short debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen on the way she introduced it and on her ongoing battle to protect the rights of our children, and I expect to hear much more from her on that many times in the future.
As we have heard today, at EU level a number of key legislative mechanisms work in conjunction with each other to ensure that children’s rights are protected when EU law and policy is being developed, applied and interpreted: the ECHR, the EU charter and, crucially, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As we have heard, the key issue is that measures enacted at EU level, whether or not they directly target children, are interpreted and applied by member states in a manner that is consistent with international children’s rights standards. It is the loss of that that so many people inside and outside Parliament are concerned about. The inadequacy of domestic legislation in doing that job has been articulated so well by my noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Lister, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. The case is compelling.
This amendment would go some way to try to rectify that by ensuring that Ministers cannot make regulations under the relevant section of the Bill without reference to the parts of the UNCRC ratified by the UK. The Government would therefore have to commit to Parliament that they would give due consideration to Part 1 of the convention before using powers transferred from the EU, and, crucially, they would have to set out an audit of how children’s rights will continue to be protected in the UK after exit day. The importance of an audit and an impact assessment—a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—cannot be understated. Or do I mean overstated?
We all share the same goal: that we should create and maintain a society in which all children are valued, safe and able to flourish. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds made that point clearly: children are people and are our future as well as our present. But as a society we have learned slowly that the risks to children’s safety are not always obvious, nor is it always obvious which are the actions that can pay positive dividends in helping them to flourish. If we do not intentionally look at the implications of generic actions for children, there will be unintended consequences. My noble friend Lady Massey gave some good and powerful examples of that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, gave a good case of how international law has to be used to defend those rights. It is crucial that we retain appropriate mechanisms for ensuring that due regard is paid to children’s rights when policy and law are being developed.
The Minister will have heard the concerns expressed from around the House and that the Government’s previous reassurances have not served to reassure Members or key people outside. I have two simple questions for the Minister. Does she understand why people are so concerned about what will happen to the status of children’s rights in the UK after Brexit? If so, what will the Government do to ensure that, as the Bill brings EU legislation into domestic law and transfers powers from the EU to Westminster, fundamental rights for children are not weakened in the process, either deliberately or accidentally? I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for raising the important issue of children’s rights through this amendment. I know that both the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Meacher, met the Children’s Minister recently to discuss these matters. I fully accept that the intention behind this amendment is clearly an honourable one. However, it would in effect add no further value to preserving current safeguards on children’s rights within the Bill. This is because the amendment implies that the EU offers additional duties or functions to safeguard children’s rights above or beyond those that exist in the UK. That concern may stem from the Government’s proposal to not retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights, subject now to further consideration when this Bill returns to the other place. However, if the charter no longer applies once we exit the EU, this would not impact on the UK’s ability to protect and safeguard children’s rights, as I shall endeavour to explain.
The amendment also states that there are some children’s rights which are not currently protected under domestic law but are under EU law. Again, however, we do not accept their construction. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the important point about what these rights are and what will happen to them on exit. Children’s rights are, and will remain, protected in England primarily through the Children Act 1989, the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and the Children Act 2004.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
As one of those who was involved in the drafting of the Children Act, my recollection is that it is entirely devoted to the welfare of children and their best interests. I cannot remember a single word about rights. Parents have rights and responsibilities, but not children.
Baroness Goldie
I defer to the noble and learned Baroness’s prowess in this area—I would not seek to usurp it for one moment. I am merely giving that Act as an example of part of the framework that currently exists in statute to protect children. If parents indeed have responsibilities under that Act, presumably that confers benefit on the children. Additionally—and I was interested that noble Lords did not refer to this—the European Convention on Human Rights as a whole offers protection of children’s rights, and this is implemented by the Human Rights Act 1998. Children are not excluded from these provisions.
I also want to make clear to the House that the overall package of children’s rights protections set out in domestic legislation can be challenged in the usual ways in the event of a breach of a specific provision of domestic legislation. This will continue to be the case following our withdrawal from the EU.
A number of contributors raised the interesting question of sanctions against breaches. I have no specific information on that but I will undertake to investigate and, if I can procure any information, I will certainly write to those who raised that specific aspect.
As has been stated during previous debate on this—and I thank those who have provided helpful contributions—the Government take very seriously the need to ensure that proper checks and balances are in place so that we continue to safeguard and promote children’s rights. The intention behind this amendment is clearly to create additional safeguards. However, I suggest that sufficient measures already exist which will not be affected by our withdrawal from the EU.
It is important to recognise that all state parties undergo rigorous periodic reporting rounds on the UNCRC, to which a number of contributors referred, consisting of intense scrutiny and challenge. The last reporting round concluded in 2016, with the United Nation’s concluding observations published in July of that year. In response, the Government reiterated their commitment through a Written Ministerial Statement in October 2016. In January 2022, the Government will submit their next UK periodic report for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to the UN. This report will primarily address the UN recommendations that came from the last reporting round, which, as I say, concluded in 2016. In addition, next year the Government will be submitting a mid-term report to the UN Human Rights Council on the 227 United Nations recommendations, many of which relate to children’s rights. This report is a voluntary commitment of the UK, aimed at keeping all UN recommendations under review in advance of the next universal periodic review’s dialogue, expected in 2021.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I will not test the opinion of the House tonight, as I said earlier on. I simply thank all those who have spoken so passionately in this short debate about the protection of the rights of children. It is a pity that we have to be speedy because it is late, but I will certainly continue my pleas—and I know others in the House will continue theirs—to the Government not to forget children or treat them as projects or objects. Children are not small adults: they are children.
I thank the Minister for her reply, but I still need proof of the Government’s commitment to support the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have noticed in debates on these issues that the Government tend to contradict themselves and sometimes indeed get things wrong. I do not know if the Minister is aware of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that was severely critical of the attitude towards children and what was happening about them. As I said, I need proof that the Government are serious about this and will indeed make a Statement on it before long.
We need to get our laws in tandem with European and global laws on children. I have heard the same arguments from the Government which keep coming up. They say that we will cover this in domestic law. I have no proof of that and we should be very careful about making such statements. The devolved nations have a much healthier respect for this issue. I have examples of very good practice which I hope will be listened to.
We heard tonight some brilliant and condensed speeches and I repeat that the Government must take this issue very seriously. I hope that they will also commit to working in a cross-departmental way and not leave everything to one department. I hope that they will come up with cross-departmental awareness and a Statement on this. Will we really, finally implement the UNCRC, which has been critical of the UK in many instances? It has criticised our standards very often and we should take it seriously.
Finally, many of us have been looking at this for a very long time. Children’s rights and children’s protection are becoming more complicated. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mention online issues. They are international problems, not just UK problems. Trafficking is an international problem. Child abuse and exploitation is an international problem. We cannot not be part of all this. We must move forward, with international bodies, to protect our children and our family laws. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
“Failure to approve or agree to terms of withdrawal
It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that—(a) in the event of Parliament not approving the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal, or(b) in the event of there being no agreement with the EU,notification of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union be revoked.”
Lord Wigley
My Lords, the first objective of the proposed new clause is to test whether the Article 50 notice is revocable. If so, its second objective is to suggest that in certain circumstances the Government might avail themselves of that option. Clearly, that could be an issue if we find ourselves with a no deal Brexit or a breakdown in negotiations at the very last moment. We touched on aspects of this in an earlier debate.
There have been no rulings on the revocability of Article 50. It is widely assumed that the interpretation of the treaty could ultimately be a matter for the Court of Justice of the European Union, although I noted the qualifications outlined earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in that context. The parties to the Gina Miller case assumed that notice of withdrawal is irrevocable. However, a preponderance of academic opinion maintains that it is revocable. One attempt to refer to the CJEU for a ruling was dropped—the Dublin case—on the basis of costs, as I understand it. Another—the Edinburgh case—is in the process of being appealed.
There is considerable opinion that an Article 50 notice could be revoked. Professor Closa has raised a number of formal and substantive objections to the assumption of Article 50’s irrevocability; the most compelling one draws on a comparative assessment of international law and practice under which a withdrawing state is bestowed a cooling-off period, allowing it to change its decision. Furthermore, Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, has asserted in his political capacity that on conclusion of the Article 50 negotiation process, the status quo could be maintained, meaning that if the UK was not happy with the agreed terms of Brexit, it could opt to continue to be a member of the EU.
The interpretation of Article 50, if one were needed, would be a matter of EU, not UK, law. The EU treaty is silent on the matter of revocability, but under Article 267 of the TFEU, there could be a role for the CJEU in determining whether an Article 50(2) notice can be withdrawn if a member state that has served notice of an intention to withdraw changes its mind. There is a general principle of international law, set out in Article 68 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that a notification of intention to withdraw from a treaty,
“may be revoked at any time before it takes effect”.
This provision does not override any specific arrangements in a treaty, but are questions about the decision to trigger Article 50 under national constitutional arrangements relevant to the CJEU? If a court of last instance has some uncertainty as to the correct interpretation of EU law, it must refer a question on the interpretation of EU law or the EU treaties to the CJEU, but not, I stress, if the national court decides that something is clear “beyond reasonable doubt”. This is known as the “acte clair doctrine” and has been established in the case law of the CJEU. The courts have not ruled on revocability. I therefore contend that the amendment is both valid and necessary and I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, for the reasons I have given before, the amendment restricts what we did on Amendment 49 so I have some queries about its wording. However, on the question of revocability, if we came to a point in Parliament where we were looking at the next steps, should the deal not be accepted, it would be important for Parliament to know as far as the Government do the advice on this.
There are examples of legal advice given to the Government being disclosed to Parliament where it has been relevant to an Act before it. Clearly, the Government will have got legal advice on the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley; can the Minister indicate whether that could be shared with Parliament?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He is concerned, as are many other noble Lords, with the consequences of failing to reach an agreement with the EU or the equally unpropitious scenario of Parliament rejecting the terms of a deal that has been reached. The noble Lord’s amendment goes even further than that tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in that it dictates, rather than leaves open, what should happen next in the event that the UK and the EU do not reach an agreement on the terms of our withdrawal; or if Parliament does not approve the terms of the withdrawal agreement, our notification under Article 50 should be revoked.
As I have explained already today, it is not constitutionally acceptable for Parliament to dictate the conduct of diplomacy in that way. Moreover, we are confident that we will reach a positive deal with the EU which Parliament will support. This is indisputably in the mutual interests of both the UK and the EU. Parliament will have a clear choice: to accept the deal we have negotiated or move forward without a deal. Ultimately, if Parliament chooses to reject the deal then we will leave the EU with no deal in March 2019.
The Government have always been clear what the outcome of failing to reach a withdrawal agreement would be. We are leaving the EU and will leave with a deal or without one. It is not a scenario that anybody relishes, least of all me, but it is also not one that should come as a surprise. The UK voted to leave the EU, Parliament voted to trigger the notification of withdrawal Act and the Government are honour bound to deliver on that instruction. We have been clear throughout that as a matter of firm policy we will not seek to revoke our notice under Article 50.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I cannot give any false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if the noble Lord—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Do I take it from that that the Minister is not going to answer my question?
Lord Callanan
You can take it from that, yes.
I cannot give any false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House he should do so now.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Will the Minister please give an answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness?
Lord Callanan
I am not in a position to share confidential government legal advice on this matter.
Lord Wigley
Well, no doubt the House has taken good note of that comment and at some time in the future perhaps that information will become available. I am struck by the Minister’s supreme confidence that this course will be followed to an inevitable conclusion, as I am sure many noble Lords are.
As we heard in earlier debates, that may not be the inevitable conclusion. It may well be that the House of Commons in its wisdom not only rejects the deal that the Government have negotiated but in the process rejects the Government themselves. At that point, whether by a general election or some other process, the question may well arise as to the irrevocability of Article 50. Noble Lords have a right to know the advice that has been given because it would be very pertinent indeed in those circumstances.
However, having said that, I believe the question may well be tested in the courts and therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Maintenance of refugee family unity within Europe
(1) A Minister of the Crown must make appropriate arrangements with the aim of preserving specified effects in the United Kingdom of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (the “Dublin Regulation”), including through negotiations with the EU.(2) “Specified effects” under subsection (1) are those provisions, and associated rights and obligations, that allow for those seeking asylum, including unaccompanied minors, adults and children, to join a family member, sibling or relative in the United Kingdom.(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act, and then every six months thereafter, a Minister of the Crown must report to Parliament on progress made in negotiations to secure the continuation of reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and member States as they relate to subsection (1).”
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very modest amendment. Its aim is to maintain after Brexit one of the main existing legal routes to safety for unaccompanied child refugees—a route that has been working fairly effectively for quite some time. Of course, we know that in the absence of legal routes to safety the people traffickers have a field day, as was mentioned in the earlier debate on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have had a number of discussions with Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—in the last few days. We have not reached full agreement, but at least we know where we differ.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, my name is joined with that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on this amendment. I think that if I was to make a lengthy speech in support of the amendment the House would not thank me. It is much better that we try to resolve the matter.
I want to thank the Minister for our meeting earlier today with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. It was very useful but also quite instructive. I think that we were agreed that we were not far apart in what we were both seeking to achieve. Where we differ fundamentally is that the noble Lord and I share the view that we should put such a provision in the Bill.
There was a lot of resistance when the noble Lord tried to do this with his original Dubs amendment. Some of the arguments then were exactly the same. They were: “This isn’t something you should try and commit to legislation”. Well, I think it is, because it sets a benchmark and a threshold, and it gives an instruction. The Government are often keen to tell us that they have been instructed on things, and we need from time to time to be clear about what we are trying to achieve in negotiations. This is one of those occasions.
We should not resile from our humanitarian commitment. This evening, by supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we will be fulfilling that commitment. I therefore hope that the House comes speedily to a conclusion in this debate, so that, if we have to, we can divide on it and give support to the noble Lord on a very important matter to which I think we all wish for a happy outcome.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I, too, have put my name to the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has pointed out, we are talking about the rights of children. This is not just a humanitarian question; it is about a number of children across Europe who have a right to come to this country at the moment because their family is here.
Having gone to Calais last summer and having with Fiona Mactaggart, the former MP, written a report on what was going on in Calais and Dunkirk, I know that the plight of children there who have not yet been processed is dire. The plight of children in the Greek and Italian camps is very poor. Therefore, the way in which Dublin III works is patchy, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said, it works to some extent. Please let me repeat: we are talking about children with rights and not advancing arguments based exclusively on humanitarian grounds.
I was lucky, with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to be at a different meeting from that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in which we met two Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Duncan. We had useful discussions. I entirely accept the genuineness of their offers to the noble Lord and me. They are trying hard to placate us. They have expressed good intentions which are, as far as they go, valuable, but they are aspirations as to what might happen at a later date. They are talking about the possibility of an immigration Bill and of another Bill later this year, or what they call in lovely general terms a vehicle into which this sort of thing can be placed. As far as it goes, that is good, but it does not go far enough.
I would like the House of Commons to have time to discuss this amendment if this House passes it, as I hope it will, so that, by that time, Ministers will perhaps have got their act together to be able to make much more concrete offers to the House of Commons. Therefore, it is important that we support this amendment at this stage so that at least the other House has the chance to consider it. I will therefore vote for the amendment if the House divides.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I shall say just a few quick words as my name is also attached to this amendment. In essence, what the amendment boils down to is that without the UK’s continued participation in Dublin III, which would be the case if Brexit were to happen, an unaccompanied orphan in Europe, among others, could no longer apply to be reunited with close family members while an asylum claim is being processed. Brexit is about many things but it is not about doing away with one of the very few safe and legal routes that exists to bring some of the most vulnerable children to the UK.
Since this amendment was debated in Committee we have witnessed the maelstrom that has raged over the inhumane treatment of the Windrush generation. Across the Commonwealth, how the Windrush scandal plays out is being watched with concern and our reputation is on the line. I say to the Government that at a time when we are trying to redefine our place in the world and looking for good will and support from friends across the globe, to be seen as a nation that is trying to isolate itself from responsibilities to people seeking sanctuary, some of them very young, will not do us any favours.
The Britain that the world knows and that the British people, by and large, recognise is the Britain that has always spoken up for values and principles that enshrine in international law the rights of vulnerable people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves destitute and place themselves at our mercy. We have a proud history of welcoming them and I should like us to continue to do so. So should the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, decide that the Government’s moves are not enough to satisfy him and wish to seek the opinion of the House, we on this side of the House will wholeheartedly support him.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dubs, in moving this amendment, described it as a modest proposal. It is modest in two respects. First, for the reason that he gave: all he seeks is to replicate the current arrangements, already approved by Parliament and in operation at the moment. That is not a great change at all from where we are. There is a second reason that it is modest: I pay tribute to his modesty in producing this amendment, having fought for the previous amendment, having persevered, and he is absolutely right to ask the House again to support it. I hope the House will.
It sounds as though the Government are entirely in agreement with the objectives. They agree on the need to protect the most vulnerable children and to provide this way of safety for them to claim asylum where appropriate. It sounds as if the only difference may be over the way to deal with it. Everybody, including my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Bassam, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, whose names are on the amendment, recognises that this will require negotiation with other countries, because we cannot do it entirely on our own. Does the Minister agree that if this House were to say in a clear vote tonight what it thinks the Government should do, and put it in the Bill, that will actually strengthen the hand of the Government when they come to negotiate with other countries and others? They will be able to say, “This is what our Parliament wants”—assuming that the other place agrees. Those circumstances will make it much easier to negotiate; that may be the only point.
I am not going to take any more of your Lordships’ time: I think it is time either for the Government to accept the amendment, as I hope they will, or, if they fail to do so, for my noble friend Lord Dubs to divide the House, in which case we will strongly support him through the Lobby.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for moving his amendment and giving us an opportunity to speak about this further. We sometimes attach additional epithets to noble Lords in this House, such as “gallant” and “learned”. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, should be the “noble and compassionate” Lord. I appreciate what he is doing. It is for that reason that my noble friend Lady Williams and I have met the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on a number of occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that we must be clear about what we are trying to achieve. That has been the purpose of those meetings.
I will state very clearly what we are trying to achieve in the negotiations. The Government have been clear that when we leave the EU we will seek to maintain a close and effective arrangement, including practical co-operation with the EU and the member states on illegal migration and asylum. Combating illegal migration and having efficient and effective asylum systems will continue to be a priority on which we will work closely with our EU partners. As part of that arrangement, and subject to the negotiations, the UK will seek to agree with the EU a series of measures to enable unaccompanied children in the EU to join close family members in the UK or another EU member state, whichever is in their best interests. However, it is important to remember that any such agreement will require agreement and implementation by individual member states.
After the outcome of the negotiations is known, we will bring forward the appropriate legislation as necessary. At that stage this House and the other place will have an opportunity to be clear in their engagement with, and any desire to amend, that piece of legislation. The Government are very clear about what they are trying to achieve in the negotiations. We share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that family reunification rights for the purposes of considering claims for asylum and the systems to deliver them should remain in place once we have left the EU. There can be no dropped ball, diminution or loss—there needs to be continuity, seamless in its effect. It can be nothing other than that.
In my discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we spoke about the Dublin III approach. The sad fact is that in many cases Dublin III is simply not fit for purpose. That is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all. Across the EU we look to that as though it sets a benchmark when in truth it is doing nothing of the sort—indeed, quite the reverse. In some instances there is opposition within member states to the functioning of Dublin III. Of course, Dublin III will evolve into Dublin IV, but Dublin IV will not come before the next European elections. That is unlikely simply because of the timetable. It is not for me to draw your Lordships’ attention to what we might expect in those elections but we must be cognisant of them. We have seen in election after election a growth in parties whose views about the wider issues of migration are perhaps not to be applauded and which are quite the reverse of the welcoming approach that we in this Chamber might believe needs to be stressed.
The danger is that we are recognising a benchmark inside the EU that even the EU itself does not believe is fit for purpose. We need to go beyond that. That is why I like to think that we are not seeking to measure ourselves against Dublin III but rather setting in place very clear measures which are safe and sure and address the very matters that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has raised. If we seek to use the EU as a benchmark, we will do a disservice to the very people who would need to draw on these elements. That might seem an odd thing to say, but noble Lords who have spent any time attending to how the Dublin III measure are evolving will recognise that that is one of the central problems.
I am aware that there are challenges ahead as we enter into the negotiations. A number of noble Lords have asked why this is not therefore placed in the Bill. What we are saying is that at the appropriate point these elements will be front and centre of a Bill before the other place and this House, offering exactly the opportunities that your Lordships would wish to have—at the right time. To bring them forward and try to put them into the Bill now—into what is, in effect, a pre-negotiation settlement—will cause us difficulties. That is why we have sought to be as forthright as we can about our intention, our ambition and our method. We do not wish to see these rights undermined or lost; we wish them to be sure and safe. It is for that reason that we have moved in this way. I appreciate that there is a desire to return this to the House of Commons, perhaps with the idea that we can again emphasise how exactly we will take these matters forward. That is your Lordships’ prerogative. I would argue that in the other place the same discussions may lead to a very different result, and that might send a message that this House might prefer not to be sent.
It is a difficult issue, because we are sending, I hope, a very clear message: the UK remains committed to the very elements that the noble and compassionate Lord has brought before us on this and a number of other occasions. We remain committed to them. They will be front and centre in our negotiations, and we have engaged directly with the noble Lord on this matter.
We have also recognised that when that point comes—when legislation or appropriate vehicles are required—there will be an opportunity, in both this House and the other place, to address the very matters that the noble Lord has raised today. On that note, I hope and wish the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, recognising that there will be further opportunities for the noble Lord to fight with the same passion on this matter, as I do not doubt he will continue to do in the future. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of Members of the House for this amendment. In a curious way I also thank the Minister for his support for the principle that I am trying to establish.
It seems to me that the clearest message of support for the amendment would be to pass it tonight. Anything else would look as if we were hesitating and not totally certain. I am sure the Minister and his noble friend Lady Williams are quite sincere in wishing to support the principle of the amendment. The signal we send, however, will be a different one. I do not see putting this in the Bill causing any difficulty. We ask only that the Government should have a basis for negotiating to achieve the end that we are talking about. If Dublin III gives way to Dublin IV, the Government will have the flexibility to negotiate on that basis. The proposition is clear, and I ask for the support of the House. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Rights and opportunities of young people
It is an objective of the Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement, to ensure that the rights and opportunities of British citizens aged under 25 and resident in the United Kingdom are maintained on existing terms including—(a) retaining the ability to work and travel visa-free in the EU, and(b) retaining the ability to study in other EU member States, including through participation in the Erasmus+ programme, on existing terms.”
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 60 seeks to maintain opportunities for young people to travel, work and study freely within Europe and to ensure that these opportunities are not diminished. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for adding his name to this amendment. I should say now that I am not going to divide the House on this because of the late hour.
Consideration for the young people of this country should be a major—perhaps even, it could be argued, the major—consideration of the negotiations, because young people are the future of the country, a point that was made in a different context this evening. This amendment is fundamentally about equal opportunities for young people. If the Government cannot guarantee, or at least pledge to try to achieve as far as Europe is concerned, opportunities for our young people which are at the very least equal to those of the majority of young people in the rest of Europe, our withdrawal from Europe will be worthless on that count alone.
I was struck by the forcefulness of some of the comments that were made in Committee, and it is worth repeating a couple. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is in his place, said:
“The feeling of dismay and disappointment among young people is hard to overestimate”,
while the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about her eldest grandson being,
“incandescent with anger that he is about to be deprived of the right to look for a job anywhere across Europe”.—[Official Report, 14/3/18; cols. 1741-42.]
I find those observations, which are representative of how young people feel—the huge uncertainty and, yes, the anger—difficult to square with the lack of urgency in the Minister’s reply in Committee in which he tried to conflate the wishes, as he put it, of young and older people. Those needs, rather than wishes, are not necessarily the same. For many young people, travel, work and study are bound up together as part of the experience of broadening horizons, of exploration as well as career development. It needs to be understood that, while the young have energy, they will very likely have neither the financial resources nor, as yet, the standing of established professionals. Of course professional people have their concerns as well, but if opportunities are diminished, including those afforded by Erasmus+, it will be young people from less privileged backgrounds who will be the first to suffer from increased costs, restrictions, bureaucracy and indeed the loss of those opportunities themselves. It has to be added that changing attitudes and expectations will invariably be reduced and narrowed if these opportunities are diminished.
I will not repeat the detailed and passionate arguments that we heard from many Peers in Committee about Erasmus+. I will say simply that we absolutely need to remain a member of a programme that is of benefit not just academically but for sport, apprenticeships, schools and even budding entrepreneurs—and, significantly perhaps, for the intercultural skills that all study, work and travel abroad at their best develop. I hope that the Minister will agree that we should continue to be involved in the development of Erasmus+ and not act as though this is something that we may be withdrawing from.
I have two questions on this for the Minister. If he cannot answer them today, perhaps he could put his answers in writing. First, universities, including in the Russell Group, are worried that the message that we are fully involved at least until the end of the 2020 programme, which the Government have said we will be, is not getting through to everyone, students at home and abroad included. The Government can be more proactive in spreading that message. Accordingly, will the DfE put out a document outlining its position on Erasmus+ akin to that put out in March by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on Horizon 2020? That would be extremely helpful.
Secondly, in reply to this amendment in Committee, the Minister said on participation:
“We will take a decision when we see what the successor programme is”.—[Official Report, 14/3/18; col. 1747.]
That was a very worrying answer. The Government should be helping to influence the shape of the programme to make it even better than the current one already is. Frankly, surely we know already that what it will have to offer will be well worth our participation. The universities know this, as does every expert in this House who spoke in the Erasmus debate in Committee. So will the Government now indicate when they will negotiate our participation to ensure the smoothest transition between the current programme and the next?
I repeat that travel, work and study for young people within Europe is a question of equal opportunities. I remind the Government that, despite the result of the referendum, 75% of under-24 year-olds voted to remain across every section of society. If Brexit is to be successful, we should realise that a Brexit that ignores the needs and demands of young people will be a failure and the Government ignore those needs at their peril. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am very glad to support the amendment. The world is totally interdependent. Any future for Britain will depend on working out a relationship and practical participating role for Britain within that international, global reality. The young understand this, and this is why there is so much disillusion and disaffection among the young in particular with the whole process of Brexit. The young want to belong to the world and they want Britain to be part of the world.
If we are to have a future as a nation, our educational system depends—it is not an add-on—on the international dimension in which, from the youngest age through to postgraduate degrees, people understand that they are part of a world community and see the world dimension of the study that they are undertaking. The presence of students from other countries and their sharing of experience and perspectives is part of the educational process. It is not just a matter of whether there is more income for universities, it is a matter of the educational process itself and the quality of education. That matters.
Travel is terrifically important, because people want to form relationships. That must start with our immediate neighbours in Europe, and we want people in Britain who will understand and instinctively see the implications of what may be happening in Europe and how Britain can play a part in meeting the challenges that arise.
The amendment is vital in bringing home that reality about the young. The young have a great sense of betrayal—that is the word that has been used to me—by having their futures put, as they see it, in jeopardy as a result of what we are doing with the Brexit legislation. Here is a chance for the Government to redeem the situation, to redeem their reputation and to show that they will take second place to no one in their international commitment.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I was pleased to speak to a similar amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in Committee, and I am equally pleased to support the amendment now. At this point in the evening, I do not intend to detain your Lordships longer than necessary, so my intervention will be short.
All that the amendment asks is that the Government, as part of the withdrawal process, negotiate a continuation of the EU rights that my generation has enjoyed for those under 25. The vital point at the basis of this issue is that the EU passport that we all hold is not just a passport, it is a visa. It is a right to live, work and study in any of the current 28 countries in the EU and to move between those countries at will.
The Government underestimate the frustration and anger that some young people feel at the removal of their rights to freedom of movement and, under Erasmus, to study abroad. On more than one occasion during debate today, Members of your Lordships’ House have referred to the divisions caused by the Brexit vote, but there is no greater potential division than that between the conflicting visions of our country’s future: our young people seeking to move forward in the openness of the EU and some older people seeking the comfort of the past.
Is it not time that the Government showed young people that they understand their concerns? The Government have recently been accused of institutionalised indifference on many issues. Perhaps the amendment affords them the opportunity to disprove that description.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Clancarty on Amendment 60, and speak specifically on the Erasmus programme. I speak as a university chancellor and chair of the advisory board of the Cambridge Judge Business School. The Erasmus programme is 30 years old, and I ask the Minister whether we are to throw away 30 years of that wonderful initiative. Employers—I speak as one—value the Erasmus brand. Hundreds of thousands of British students have benefited from it.
Are we committing to staying in the Erasmus programme well beyond the transition period? Are we committing to it permanently? Otherwise, what happened in Switzerland could happen to us. When Switzerland voted to restrict EU migration, it was taken out of the Erasmus programme. It had to spend extra money to put a new programme in place. Do we want to go through all that?
The most important thing about the Erasmus programme is that it is for everybody. It covers a wide variety of subjects and involves 725,000 European students—a huge number—and Britain is one of the most attractive destinations. Will the Government keep their promise to maintain and protect all funding streams for EU projects in the UK? Most importantly, it enables students who would not otherwise be able to afford it to go and travel and study abroad.
I reiterate what has been said. This is about our youths—and when I speak to students around the country in schools and universities, 100% of them want to remain in the European Union. The least that we can do is to ensure that the Erasmus programme is open to them and not take their future away from them.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, having not pressed my amendment on a very similar subject in Committee, I would like to speak briefly in making one point. The word “overwhelming” has tortured this House over the past many months—the notion that somehow or other the 52:48 majority was overwhelming. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, overwhelming equates to massive; it is not massive—it is narrow and marginal. What is overwhelming is the overwhelming support for remain from young people generally in this country, amounting to around 70% of all young people and 80% in the case of young people with graduate degrees.
The point that I would like to make to the Minister—and I hope very much that he might agree with this—is that those 80% of young people are the ones we will absolutely rely on to drive this country post Brexit to any form of economic success. We are going to absolutely rely on them, so do not diminish their feelings, emotions and belief in Europe by pretending that in any way, shape or form that the narrow victory in the referendum represents the views or wishes of the overwhelming majority of young people in this country.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl has done a great service in bringing this amendment back after a very good debate in Committee. Although much of the focus tonight has been on Erasmus, his amendment actually goes wider. However young people voted in the referendum, and whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, the Government have said that post Brexit they want a closer partnership with the EU. Given that, there is a mutual interest in ensuring that young people enhance the opportunities that they have to work, enjoy, travel and get experience between ourselves and countries of the EU. The Erasmus programme is, of course, vitally important in that regard. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, can speak with great experience, and he will know that since its start 600,000 young people, mainly, from the UK have taken advantage of it.
The Minister was sympathetic in Committee; he made it clear that the Government would expect that opportunities that arise for mainly young people will continue in future. But I want to bring him back to the point that the noble Earl raised, which was that he said that the Government would need to see what the successor programme was to Erasmus before committing on whether to support it or not. Tonight’s debate is really about encouraging the Minister to say that, of course, first of all, we should be talking to the EU about the successor programme. Secondly, whatever the technical details, it would be inconceivable that this country, one way or another, would not wish fully to embrace the successor to the Erasmus programme. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to signify that because he took a constructive approach in Committee, he will go just that little bit further and give us that kind of commitment.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues yet again. However, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a functioning statute book on exit day, regardless of the outcome of negotiations. It is our intention that the planned withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will implement the major elements of the withdrawal agreement, which will include the agreement on citizens’ rights. This amendment seeks to make it an objective of the Government to achieve a particular outcome in the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU, effectively tying the Government’s hands. It is focused on the withdrawal agreement, but these matters are for our future relationship with the EU, which this Bill does not seek to address.
We have been clear that, after our exit from the European Union, there will continue to be migration and mobility between the EU and the UK. We have agreed an implementation period based on the current structure of rules and regulations. This will mean that UK nationals will be able to live and work in the EU as they do now until 31 December 2020. Looking to the future, the Prime Minister has set out her vision for our deep and special future partnership with the EU. She acknowledged that UK nationals will still want to work and study in EU countries, just as EU citizens will want to do the same here, helping to shape and drive growth, innovation and enterprise. She made it clear that businesses across the EU and the UK must still be able to attract and employ the people they need, and that the Government are open to discussing how to facilitate these valuable links.
Our science and innovation policy paper, published in September, said that we will discuss with the EU future arrangements to facilitate the mobility of researchers, academics and students engaged in cross-border collaboration. It remains in our best interest to ensure that businesses across the EU and the UK continue to be able to attract and employ the people they need. As has been said many times in this Chamber, and in the other place, we recognise the value of international exchange and collaboration through both work and study placements abroad. That applies to students from the EU and from many other parts of the world as well. Increasing language skills and cultural awareness aligns with our vision for the UK as a global nation. We will continue to take part in the specific policies and programmes which are to the UK’s and the EU’s joint advantage, such as those that promote science, education and culture.
As the House will now be well aware, no decisions have yet been taken on UK participation in the successor Erasmus+ programme after 2020. As I said in Committee, this is simply because the scope of the future programme has not yet been agreed. In response to the specific questions from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, we have made clear to Parliament our commitment to 2020 and this is detailed on the Erasmus website. I will write to the noble Earl with more detail on his other question. Future UK participation in such programmes will form part of the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU. The Government have been clear that there are some specific European programmes that we may want to continue to participate in as we leave the EU. This will be considered as part of the negotiations. Once again, I also reassure noble Lords that, whatever the outcome of those negotiations, we will underwrite successful bids for Erasmus+ submitted while the UK is still a member state, even if payments continue beyond the point of exit. Therefore, applications for funding from UK institutions should continue as normal—and they are.
For these reasons, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment, as I think he indicated he would do. However, I am unable to give him any hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading so, although he said he is not going to, if he really wishes to test the opinion of the House he should do so now.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate and the Minister for his reply. He gave the same reply on Erasmus as he has given previously and it is not good enough. We need to be in discussions now about shaping the new Erasmus programme; otherwise, I am worried that it is going to drift. I am sure that universities up and down the country are extremely worried about this. One thing the Government need to understand is that if opportunities for young people are diminished, we diminish the country as a whole. That is a major reason why we need to maintain these opportunities. These experiences, then, are not only for the sake of young people, important as that is, but society as a whole, because those experiences are brought back and reinvigorate us. We need to keep this going, and indeed expand it, not risk the possibility that we will shut these opportunities down. Young people need to have every opportunity in Europe to develop their future, and we need to allow them to do that. The Government cannot give that assurance. However, with regret, because of the late hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“Single market: frontier controls
If no agreement is reached with the EU on frontier controls, taxes and charges, the free movement of goods and services, the Digital Single Market, standardisation and the full involvement of the United Kingdom in European Agencies by the day on which this Act is passed, then the Government's negotiating objectives under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union shall be on the basis that the United Kingdom will seek to remain fully in the Single Market.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who could not be here tonight, but the amendment is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria It is slightly different from some of the previous ones we have debated today. It suggests that, if no agreement is reached with the European Union on frontier controls and all the other things in the amendment, the Government’s negotiating objectives should be on the basis that the UK will seek to remain fully in the single market, which I and many other noble Lords see as an alternative to the hard or cliff-edge Brexit, or whatever we like to call it. The first Division that we won a few days ago on Report was on the customs union. That was a good start, but I invite the House to go a little further. Although the customs union is good, quite a lot of problems would still be attached to it, particularly on the jobs and frontier control issues.
On the economy, we read every day of fears of job losses, the economy going down, and of worries from many companies, large and small, about the effect of Brexit. I suppose that the motor car manufacturers are some of the most frightened. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders believes that that there will be a £4.5 billion additional cost in tariffs, let alone all the other bureaucracy I shall come on to, and the RICS reckons that there will be the loss of 200,000 construction jobs if we are not in the single market.
Many noble Lords will have read the recent leaked government analysis of the drop in the economy if we go for a hard Brexit—in the north-east a 16% drop, and in the West Midlands a 13% drop—whereas in the UK overall there would be a 1.5% drop if we remained in the single market and an 8% drop if we ended up on WTO terms. It is worth my saying before the Minister does that the Government do not recognise these figures, but we all get used to the Government not recognising the figures they do not like. We will see what happens.
On the issue of frontier controls, 38 cross-border agencies are involved. With some of them the checks have to be done at frontiers—I include the Northern Ireland-Republic land frontiers in these remarks—and the paperwork, even with a customs union, can be pretty horrendous. We could spend hours debating customs, food standards, food legislation, and the need for pallets to be disinfected when they come into the European Union. Seed potatoes cannot be taken from inside to outside, so I do not know what will happen if a farm straddles the border in Ireland and the seed potatoes in one half cannot be taken into the other half, which sounds interesting. Other issues, among many, include animal and plant health, rabies, foot and mouth and pharmaceuticals.
Just to give one example, there is a transporter that moves goods for Morrisons from here to Gibraltar. Every lorry has to be checked for the point of origin of the goods, each having its own document, before the Spanish authorities will permit the vehicle to leave the UK on its route to Gibraltar. Heaven only knows how that will improve when we have left.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment and back up what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said. In today’s economy, business is integrated and transactions are global, with goods moving across borders every minute of the day. Our biggest customers are right on our doorstep in the EU—27 countries and half our trade. It is not just finished goods, but ingredients and components. In food and drink, my industry, I can give an example. Bailey’s Original Irish Cream is made in Dublin and goes across the border into Northern Ireland. It is bottled there, comes back into Dublin and is exported to the EU and around the world absolutely seamlessly.
Some 2.5 million lorries pass through Dover. How will we cope if there is any disruption over there? Some 70% of the UK’s food imports by value are from the EU, and 60% to 65% of agricultural exports are to other member states. Any delays on these goods, many of which are perishable, would raise food prices. Some 1.5 million trucks go through the Channel Tunnel. The list of border operations is so complex. What preparations have been made if there is to be a hard Brexit to put up all the infrastructure required, prevent any delays and have a frictionless border?
Some 69% of freight transport goes to the EU as lorry traffic. The FTA has spoken out very clearly for the whole industry. It represents 50% of the UK’s lorries and 90% of rail. It has warned very clearly of 15-mile queues at Calais if border checks are introduced. We need to remember what happened in 2015 with the French ferry workers’ strike. If trucks coming from the EU are treated like non-EU trucks, the ports will be in permanent gridlock. Does the Minister agree? The other aspect is Ireland. From Ireland, goods go to Europe across the UK. It takes trucks 10 hours from leaving Dublin to get to Europe. If they had to go around, it would take them 40 hours, with considerable disruption.
I conclude with a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Yesterday, in the Sunday Times there was an article in which a company boss said:
“We suddenly caught Brexit blight”.
The article says that:
“A wrinkle in international trade rules is scaring away companies in Europe from British suppliers”.
It talks about a Bristol-based company where the customers which used to give orders well in advance—in Germany and Scandinavia—are suddenly stopping the orders because of rules of origin. The supply chain is worried about this. The local content will not be of 50% value. With many industries such as the car industry, components that are made in the UK are well below 50%. There are companies here that just do not have the capability to move from under 50% to 50% or 60%. It will take many years to be able to have that capability domestically, and we will not be able to do it competitively.
The article concludes by saying that companies like this one in Bristol,
“will gradually be ‘evolved’ out of the supply chains of EU manufacturers that do not want the hassle of providing paperwork for components bought outside the bloc”.
It will, says the company,
“be death by a thousand cuts”.
That is what we are facing. We had a vote on the customs union in this Bill and it is critical because it marks the frontier between hard Brexit and a soft Brexit.
In the Financial Times recently, one leading British political analyst was asked to predict what would happen. He said that Brexit will not happen because there is no version of Brexit that can get a parliamentary majority. There will be no parliamentary majority if we cannot handle this particular situation in this amendment.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on their remarks. We know that the Government do not have a policy on this issue. We can read in the Financial Times that there will be a great debate tomorrow. The Minister smiles, but he knows perfectly well that it is true that the Government have not resolved the question of what customs model they will go for. This is an extraordinary situation. It is now 22 months since the Brexit vote and yet the Government have not got a policy on the fundamental point of how we will make Brexit work. It is a failure of massive proportions on the Government’s part. I want to hear an apology to business from the Minister for the fact that the Government’s political divisions have basically led to a situation in which business is facing a serious cliff edge. They call themselves the “party of business”. What serious claim have the Benches opposite to be the party of business, given the way they have behaved since the EU referendum?
I also say to my own side that I fully support the amendment we passed on the customs union. I was greatly cheered up by it. It is a breach in this wall of stupidity that the Government have erected, but it is not a complete solution to the business problems that people have talked about. It does not solve entirely the problem of customs checks because of rules of origin and issues with agricultural produce and all the rest. It certainly does not solve the Northern Irish border problem on its own. It does not address the fundamental economic point that it completely neglects services—the dynamic part of our economy where our exports are growing, where we have a strong surplus and which is our economic future. This is a terrible, woeful neglect on the part of the Government of the key, dynamic, entrepreneurial sectors of the British economy. How can they claim to be the party of business?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the issue raised by the amendment is key to how we depart the EU. Indeed, the urgency of sorting out the logistics, costs and procedures of being outside our current trading arrangements has already been made clear. It should not need repeating that 44% of our goods exports go to the EU, with more than 50% of imports coming from the EU, making the mutual case for continued tariff-free trade unanswerable.
As the CBI says, should the current arrangements—a simple single form for our exporters—change to,
“a 12-page form for each batch of goods”,
where,
“Every consignment will also need a VAT registration and certificates of origin, declaring how much of each product has been made where”,
costs will rise disproportionally. Indeed, one major retailer foresees,
“a five- to ten-fold increase in border documentation”,
should Britain leave the customs union, with a possible extra 200,000 UK businesses having to make customs declarations for the first time.
As we have said, the high degree of integration between UK and EU supply chains means that any new friction—bound to be slow and costly—would force businesses to adapt the way they do business, including over choice of supplier and extra storage space for just-in-time models and such issues. We have already heard of the food and drink industry: 90% of imports and exports of food and non-alcoholic drink are with the EU or those countries with whom the EU has trade arrangements. For manufacturing, according to the EEF, agreeing a preferential set of rules of origin with the EU will be crucial given the complexity of the supply chain and the origin of component parts.
We know all that; we have heard about it in this House before and have heard it again this evening. What I did not know until last week—maybe the Minister can correct what is being said—is that not one single Minister from his department has been down to the Port of Dover to see the problems that will arise there. Lorries coming from outside the customs union are currently subject to about 45 minutes of checks and the same would happen if we were outside the customs union. We understand that neither he nor any of his colleagues has been down there to witness that. Perhaps he could put us right.
The concentration on solving the issues highlighted by the agreement are real ones which we support. Clearly, as I think those behind me know, we might have a little difficulty with some of the words in this amendment but the issues raised by it, which the Government must solve, are ones to which we clearly would add our support.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but moved by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to maintain the UK’s participation in the single market if agreement is not reached in the areas of frontier controls, taxes and charges, free movement of goods and services, the digital single market, standardisation and UK involvement in European agencies. As a result of the significant progress made in negotiations, we are increasingly confident that we will secure a deal with the EU and that the prospect of leaving negotiations without a positive agreement has receded significantly.
I will say a little more about our objectives in the areas mentioned in the noble Lord’s amendment. First, on frontier controls, we have thought seriously about how our commitment to a frictionless border can best be delivered. Noble Lords will recall the Government’s clear position on this, which I touched on in my earlier remarks. On taxes and payments, the Government are committed to making cross-border trade as frictionless as possible after the UK leaves the EU and will take the necessary steps to ensure the UK economy remains strong in the future. On goods, a fundamental negotiation objective is to ensure that trade at the UK-EU border is as frictionless as possible. That means we do not want to see the introduction of any tariffs or quotas. To achieve this, we will need a comprehensive system of mutual recognition and the UK will need to make a strong commitment that its regulatory standards will remain as high as the EU’s. That commitment, in practice, will mean that UK and EU regulatory standards relating to industrial goods will remain substantially similar in the future.
As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, the UK’s services sector is a global success story. The Prime Minister has set out the Government’s objective of breaking new ground with a broader services agreement than ever before, with new barriers to trade permitted only if absolutely necessary. We want to agree an appropriate labour mobility framework that enables UK and EU businesses and self-employed professionals to travel to provide services to clients in person. We are open to discussing how to facilitate these valuable links. Given that UK qualifications are already recognised across the EU, and vice versa, it would make sense to continue to recognise each other’s qualifications in the future. An agreement that delivered these objectives would be consistent with the mutually expressed interest in an ambitious services agreement.
We have also been clear that, by virtue of leaving the single market, the UK will not be part of the EU’s digital single market strategy, which will continue to develop after our withdrawal from the EU. This is a fast-evolving, innovative sector, in which the UK is a world leader so it will be particularly important to have domestic flexibility to ensure the regulatory environment can always respond nimbly and ambitiously to new developments.
We will want to explore with the EU the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies, such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries—the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency. We are confident that a deep and special partnership is in the interests of both sides, so we approach these negotiations anticipating success.
In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about Dover, Ministers have met representatives from the Port of Dover on a number of occasions, most recently on Monday 23 April. Furthermore, DExEU civil servants have an ongoing dialogue with the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel.
With that information, I hope I have provided a clear picture of the Government’s objectives for negotiating a deal with the EU in these areas and that the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment. I reiterate that I cannot give any false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House, he should do so now.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. Apart from the Minister they all expressed concern about the state of the negotiations and where they are going. The Minister gave us a very positive view on how the negotiations were going, to such an extent that one is tempted to believe that by the time the Bill receives Royal Assent they will all be agreed. There is the slight problem that it takes two to agree. As we have heard on many occasions, it is not just the European Commission but the many other European agencies there. If the Minister is that positive and hopeful about all these agreements, it is tempting to argue that he should accept my amendment because it will not be necessary.
However, he did not say anything about the rules of origin, which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, also spoke to at length—we both read the same paper at the weekend. It is a very serious issue, as he said. Without agreement on the rules of origin I do not think there will be much free movement of goods across the frontier. I do not think we will be able to agree rules of origin in a couple of months. It is a very long drawn-out issue.
I was also concerned when the Minister said that we are having nothing to do with the single market and the digital agenda. If we are outside the digital agenda, we shall have very serious problems in many sectors of trade with the European Union. I rather hope the Government will look at this again. The Minister mentioned the agencies. He did not mention the railways agency this time, but I am sure he mentioned it in previous debates.
I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I will not divide the House at this late hour because we will all fall asleep before we finish, but I know we shall come back to this. Talking to the people of Dover, the harbour board, Eurotunnel and everyone else is one thing; it is probably almost too late to make it work with the massive changes that could happen. I leave noble Lords with a thought: if you live in Kent, near Ashford, and you have continuous traffic jams of trucks on the motorway during Operation Stack, usually caused by either a strike in France or the weather, I cannot see that there will be many people voting for Brexit in Kent by the time this is all over. With that aside, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Replication of EU law: consultation on impact and equivalence
(1) This section applies to regulations (whether or not under this Act) which—(a) are designed to replicate a provision of EU legislation (with or without modifications), or(b) amend or replace legislation which was made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 or which was otherwise made for the purpose of giving effect to EU obligations.(2) Before making the regulations a Minister of the Crown must publish a statement that the Minister is satisfied that a draft has been published in such a manner, and for such a period, as to give persons representing interests affected by the regulations a reasonable opportunity to consider and make representations about—(a) the environmental, social and other impacts of the regulations, and(b) equivalence with EU legislation. (3) The period referred to in subsection (2) must not be less than 3 months, except where the Minister includes a statement that—(a) the Minister is satisfied that 3 months’ notice could not reasonably be given in the circumstances, and(b) as much notice was given as the Minister considers reasonably practicable.(4) This section ceases to have effect on 31st December 2021 unless the Secretary of State by regulation continues it.”
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Lisvane, have also put their names to this amendment. It is a variation on a similar amendment debated in Committee, but it now includes a sunset clause to restrict the scale of its application, which the Minister expressed concern about at that stage. It is, of course, put forward in a spirit of helpfulness to the Government, although I find that a bit difficult to say at this time of night. It encourages the Government to seek wider advice and assistance in spotting any errors in the large number of statutory instruments—between 800 and 1,000 in addition to the normal numbers—that will need to come forward as a consequence of the EU withdrawal Act. I am concerned about possible flaws in the statutory instruments because of the large number of them, the pace at which they will have to come forward, the lack of staff with sufficient experience in some government departments and the overall pressure of Brexit-related legislation.
It is important that the statutory instruments are available for scrutiny before being formally laid, as once they are laid they cannot be amended under either the affirmative or negative procedure. The only option then would be to seek to annul any flawed statutory instrument. That is the nuclear option which would run the risk of leaving gaps in the legislation on exit, which I am sure the Government would not wish.
I thank the Minister and his team for meeting me and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was quite rightly keen that consultation should not mean three months for all subjects great and small. The Government have now laid amendments and given formal assurances on this issue, as have some individual government departments. I welcome the pre-scrutiny proposed for the negative procedure statutory instruments, which would mean that they were published as “negatives in draft” and would give a 10-day window for commentators to express concerns about their substance before they were formally laid.
I understand that Defra, which is likely to have about 10% of the statutory instruments, is putting in place a high-level group of external commentators who will advise on the adequacy of the consultation process—a sort of consultation on consultation. It would be good if Defra and any other departments planning this mechanism could press forward so that we might see how this would work.
In their response to the Lords Constitution Committee’s report, the Government have undertaken to lay requirements on Ministers to make statements in explanation of statutory instruments in certain circumstances—for example, where a criminal offence is created or where an urgent statutory instrument is brought forward—but it is likely that such statements will be published only when the SI is laid formally and it is therefore too late, as I have outlined.
I am sure that the Government are committed to preparing this torrent of statutory instruments in as open a way as possible to make sure that the process of transfer of the snapshot of EU legislation into UK law is as uncontentious as possible. The amendment gives the Minister a real opportunity to flesh out this commitment and would place on the parliamentary record the full range of formal and less formal means of consultation and debugging planned by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 64, which has been ably explained by my noble friend Lady Young. She has attempted to address one of the many practical challenges which will face us in the run-up to Brexit day. We know that we will have to process a large number of statutory instruments in a very short timescale, so how can we be assured that mistakes and oversights do not slip through the net in the rush to meet the deadlines?
We have a particular interest in this issue from an environmental perspective, especially as so many of the regulations will transfer environmental protections—but, obviously, the challenge spans all sectors. We know that civil servants in Defra are already under intense pressure. They are already working on a number of EU-related Bills, including on agriculture, fisheries, environmental standards, and animal welfare and sentience. They also face other pressures from the Secretary of State to modernise other animal welfare and environmental policies. Their number and expertise have been significantly cut and, although new staff have now been taken on to help with Brexit, they do not have the wealth of experience that previously existed. Without safeguards of the kind proposed by the amendment, mistakes in drafting will occur without any means to correct them.
In Committee and subsequently, the Minister took steps to reassure us that pre-scrutiny and sifting processes will be put in place, but the proposals to date have only a partial impact and do not address the more fundamental challenge of delivering proper scrutiny and ensuring that regulations are fit for purpose. So we very much welcome the proposals in Amendment 64. They would give space to allow those affected by the regulations, NGOs and parliamentarians to see the draft wording and have an input before the final version. This is about driving up quality and delivering good governance and I hope that the Minister will welcome the proposals in this spirit.
The amendment focuses on those issues that have a wider environmental and social purpose, where errors and omissions would be more keenly felt. As my noble friend has explained, a new sunset clause of 2021 has now been inserted so that this does not inadvertently become the new norm. I hope the Minister will take this proposal in the positive and constructive form that my noble friend has intended and that she will feel able to support it.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, let me say that the Bill does not in any way alter the Government’s long-standing commitment to proper consultation, a concern articulated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
Amendment 64 would effectively place a statutory requirement to consult, for a period of three months, on all legislation which will affect EU-derived domestic legislation, whether from the Bill or elsewhere. This would effectively reduce the time available to prepare the regulation by three months. I suggest that that could be profoundly undesirable. As we have previously detailed in this House, departments are keen to engage with stakeholders on current matters and on the progress of the negotiations, and will continue to do so where this is possible and where it does not negatively impact on the negotiations in any way. To be fair, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did acknowledge that.
The consultation process requires resources and time from government and stakeholders. To be frank, we want to focus the energies of those inside and outside government on the most important measures, rather than having them occluded by the sheer volume of consultations on minor matters that could arise under these amendments. I appreciate the concerns that we have heard throughout this debate, but I hope the House will accept at the least that a great many instruments will be technical and minor and designed to ensure continuity. A specific legal requirement to consult, as the amendment envisages, could affect our negotiations with the EU by forcing our legislative plans to pre-empt those discussions. It also risks consulting on a legislative proposal that does not accurately take account of ongoing negotiations.
The noble Baroness’s amendment focuses on the legislation we have made in the UK to implement our EU obligations and the changes that might be made to that legislation in the period immediately after our exit from the EU. This is a point I know many are concerned by and I know that some noble Lords have not yet been completely satisfied by the Government’s commitments on the protections that will apply to that legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the government amendments: the amendments to Schedules 7 and 8 will ensure that the exercise of the powers under the Bill are transparent to Parliament and to the wider world. Indeed, our provision in Schedule 8 will also go further than the 2021 deadline in the noble Baroness’s amendment and will require, for all time, Ministers making amendments by powers in other Bills to explain any changes they make to regulations made under Section 2(2) of the ECA and set out the good reasons for them. These statements will have to be laid before Parliament and will have to explain the impact of the amendments and any relevant law, including EU law.
It is clear from this that there will be no evading transparency when future Governments divert or update the legislation they will inherit from our EU obligations. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that I think that that is a formula for very robust parliamentary scrutiny. I hope the noble Baroness understands why the Government cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Judd
My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to the fact that many matters will be minor and technical. This is exactly the point. What may seem minor and technical to administrators and government may be very big issues indeed for some of those who will be affected, particularly in the environmental sphere, and whose co-operation in making a success of whatever is being done is vital.
I also ask the Minister: is it not true that the whole point about so many environmental issues is that they cannot be resolved within the context of the UK alone, but have an international dimension? Fisheries is a very good example. It is for that reason, which plays right into the community here, that we have to be very careful about referring to things as “minor” or “technical”. Sometimes they are life-and-death matters to people who really are on the front line.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point, with which I have some sympathy, but I am endeavouring to deal with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in the context of her amendment. I am pointing out that it is not that there will not be consultation or robust parliamentary scrutiny. There will be an opportunity for parliamentarians in both Houses to identify the very sorts of concerns to which the noble Lord has referred.
I have set out the Government’s position. I hope the noble Baroness understands why the Government are unable to accept this amendment, and I urge her to withdraw it. I confirm that the Government do not propose to reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if she wishes to test the opinion of the House, it would be appropriate to do that now.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who have had the stamina to stay this late to speak to this amendment. The Minister’s response was disappointing. The undertaking that departments will engage with stakeholders where possible does not give me a lot of confidence. I understand that consultation takes up time and resources and that it needs to be focused on the important rather than the minor. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said, many technical and minor amendments can have major impacts.
I am not convinced that the statements and the transparency promised by the government amendments to the later schedules will fit the bill because, if I understand correctly, they are very much about statements made at the time when the statutory instrument is laid, by which time it is too late to make further amendments. It really is into the nuclear option situation, where only an annulment can then happen.
I had hoped that the Minister would use this opportunity to reassure the House generally and the wider audience about the real commitment the Government have to trying to make sure that we get all these statutory instruments right first time. I only hope that the debates we have had on this proposition and the continuing discussions we have with government departments will reveal that that intention does exist, even if it has not been laid out in the parliamentary domain tonight. In view of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
“Rights of EU citizens
(1) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision to maintain, preserve and protect the rights of any citizen of an EU member State who was lawfully resident in the United Kingdom immediately before exit day, and in particular to continue their right to be lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the hour is late and many of our noble colleagues have already left. Your Lordships might therefore hope that I will finish quickly—but I am rather keen to raise certain issues and reiterate them yet again in your Lordships’ House for the sake of the millions of EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom whose rights and concerns over the past two years have not been met. They have not been reassured.
Immediately after the referendum, questions were raised in your Lordships’ House about the rights of EU citizens legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day of the referendum. Amendment 65, in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, raises again the rights of EU citizens.
When the matter was first raised there was cross-party agreement that the rights of EU citizens needed to be guaranteed. The only people who disagreed were, initially, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who was speaking on behalf of the Government, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, then Leader of the Lords. The reasons they spoke against guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens immediately were associated with the fact that the then Home Secretary felt that the rights of EU citizens could not be immediately guaranteed. The then Home Secretary is now the Prime Minister, and it would appear that her views have not changed. The rights of EU citizens, then as now, are seen as bargaining chips in the wider negotiations.
Over the past two years we have heard again and again that there is not going to be a problem—that the rights of EU citizens will be assured. Once we have the withdrawal agreement, life will be fine. For many millions of people, however, that does not seem a likely scenario. As it is late, I will not quote at length from a book that I received last week, but it is worth reminding your Lordships of the sort of testimonies included the book, which is called In Limbo. In it, one German national says that she is one of the people inadvertently caught up in a problem. She came to the United Kingdom, married and had children. Then, however, she stayed at home as a homemaker—twice during the past decade. Nobody told her that a requirement for permanent residency was that she should have comprehensive sickness insurance—so she does not now know whether she will have a right to remain.
So far we have heard from Ministers in your Lordships’ House and the other place that the rights of citizens can be guaranteed. The assumption is that there will be a withdrawal agreement and that the rights will be guaranteed. As we have been told on so many occasions, however, the EU withdrawal Bill is meant to assume that we leave the European Union on 29 March 2019, and it will be fit for purpose whether or not there is an agreement—deal or no deal. The rights of EU citizens will, however, not be guaranteed in the absence of a deal. So far, the agreement that in December 2017 started to look at the rights of EU nationals is predicated on the idea that there will be a withdrawal deal.
I would be most grateful, therefore, if the Minister could further enlighten the House, the 3.6 million EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom, and their families: spouses, partners, children and parents. Altogether there are far more than 3.6 million EU citizens, all of whom are wondering what will happen in the event of no deal. Even if there is a deal, how will people demonstrate that they have the right to be here? What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to give security to those citizens? In particular, in the light of the Windrush debacle, what certainty can the Minister give to those EU citizens who have come to live and work here, thinking that they were wanted, just as those on the “Empire Windrush” thought that they were wanted? Unless we have an amendment like Amendment 65 on the face of the Bill, millions of people will continue to live in insecurity and uncertainty.
In summing up, I raise the question of the rights not just of EU citizens but of EEA nationals from Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. They also have rights of free movement that are essentially consequent on the rights of EU citizenship. What thinking have the Government done about the rights of those citizens? Further, what are the Government doing about the rights of Turkish nationals, who also have rights associated with the Ankara agreement, which of course we are linked to as a member state of the European Union? Once we leave, what rights will those citizens have?
Finally, it has been brought to my attention that a Bulgarian MEP will be coming to the UK next week. He is in the process of trying to help Bulgarian citizens, because Bulgarian and Romanian citizens resident in the UK are less likely than their fellow EU citizens from other member states to have met the five-year residency criterion by the time we leave the European Union. They have had free movement rights only since the start of 2014, so there is a lot more insecurity for Bulgarians and Romanians. This MEP has tried to put together a portal to explain to Bulgarian citizens what rights they have. I am hoping that that portal will be rather more effective than the Government’s software and that it might even be readable on an iPhone.
What sort of information are the Government giving alongside their reassurance to these citizens? If those assurances cannot be given, can we be assured that some sort of amendment can be made to the Bill so that citizens’ rights will be guaranteed in the event of a deal or no deal?
Lord Judd
My Lords, the issues raised and, if I may say so, powerfully argued in her speech by the noble Baroness are grave. People came to live here in the expectation that they would be welcome, of course, and that they would contribute to our economy, which would be appreciated. But most importantly they came here in the context of European citizenship, understanding that as part of being a European citizen they had every right to move here and establish their lives here. We, by our moves to leave the European Union, have circumscribed the rights of citizenship. This is in history a dramatic and grave event. We really have a responsibility to ensure that what people did in good faith—and in terms of citizenship—is preserved. If we have any claim at all to being a responsible nation in the global community, citizenship must be regarded as one of the most precious elements in human life. The need to be certain beyond doubt about what the position of these people will be is therefore essential.
The other point is that we are already seeing the consequences of not having settled the issues. The health service is having still more problems because people feel unable to commit their families to living here. I am involved in several universities and there is evidence that people who wanted to come and make a contribution in our universities as academics are thinking twice about it because they are not sure what their status will be. That applies also and not infrequently to people who are already here and considering promotion or some other job within the university environment. These are just examples, but these matters are urgent.
I remember absolutely clearly that when we had just had the referendum, the response from the Government was quite encouraging because it was said by the Prime Minister and others that, without any doubt, this matter would be given priority above all others. Where is the evidence of this priority above all others? We really need some convincing answers from the Minister this evening.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I spent this weekend with a couple whom I have known for a long time. She is German and he is British. They have children and she taught at a European school for 20 years. She said, “You know, ever since the vote two years ago I’ve been looking for an answer. I haven’t had one and I’m just fed up”. She has lived in the UK for 20 or 30 years and her conclusion was that the Government are now so untrustworthy, so devious and so unwelcoming that she is thinking of taking her family back to Germany, or perhaps Holland or somewhere. That is a common message that we have heard from many noble Lords and it is disgraceful that these citizens have been used as bargaining chips for the last two years. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort that this period of real worry for their families will soon come to an end.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as has just been said, the price of the Government’s failure to accept the advice of this House and its EU Committee to offer a unilateral guarantee to the 5 million affected citizens is being paid by those citizens in anxiety, distress and distrust. As a result of taking the bargaining chip approach mentioned by several noble Lords, rather than a simple, light-touch, declaratory procedure, there are mounting concerns about the process, not least in the light of the Windrush scandal. There may be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in that group, but there are 3.5 million EU and EEA citizens here and 1.5 million UK citizens in the EU 27, so altogether that is 5 million people. What assurances can the Government give about the staffing and capacity of the relevant section of the Home Office that will deal with the settled status application process and about the testing plans? Those of us affected by the TSB fiasco are very conscious of the need for good testing and communication plans for customers.
My noble friend mentioned what is apparently the current plan, which means that people will not be able to apply online from Apple devices, such as iPhones, only from Android devices. Apparently Home Office officials told MEPs last week that people could borrow their friends’ Android devices to complete the process. That seems a little bizarre. Will an offline process be available for people without digital skills or access to computers? What are the plans for communications, appeal and redress? We know that the draft withdrawal agreement requires independent oversight of the process, but can the Government give us more of an idea of the practicalities and of how they plan to make sure that vulnerable people are not excluded? A report last week from the Migration Observatory expressed concern about people potentially being excluded. The Government have been ruled to be acting illegally in trying to deport rough sleepers, who are not necessarily in breach of EU free movement law. Is everybody to be included? Have the Government set a cost? Today’s letter from the representative of the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, to the incoming Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, says that the European Parliament expects there to be a cost-free process for applicants and raises other systems issues. He also raises the crucial issue of the need for full rights under the new EU data protection law—the GDPR—to apply, not the Government’s planned exemption. Without these rights, if something goes wrong, people will not be able to find out and get their data corrected. That is a cause that these Benches have championed, and we look forward to others coming on board with that demand.
Can the Government clear up something that has been bothering me? What exactly are they saying about comprehensive sickness insurance? We have had evidence, and this has been said by Ministers in public, that there will be no need to demonstrate the holding of comprehensive sickness insurance as part of the application process for settled status, but the draft withdrawal agreement seems to imply that there will still be a requirement to hold it. So is there a difference between having to hold comprehensive sickness insurance and having to demonstrate it as an evidential requirement? Could the Government clarify exactly what will happen to people who in the past were told they needed CSI? What happens in the application process?
Could the Government clarify the omission from the draft withdrawal agreement of free-movement rights among the EU 27 for Brits who are settled in one of the member states? There is huge concern, particularly among people whose job requires them to move around. I see the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his place. He and I have depended in the past, as Members of the European Parliament, on the skills of freelance interpreters and translators. Not only do they move around between Brussels and Strasbourg but they might work for other international organisations or businesses, so they live in one member state but travel all over the EU. They need the right to work across borders within the EU 27. What exactly accounts for the gap in the withdrawal agreement?
We do not know what will happen about post-Brexit immigration but it looks as though it will be very similar to EU free movement, except with a lot more red tape, bureaucracy and cost, and less freedom. That is not a terribly good bargain. We are suffering a lot in the process of the Government’s Brexit demands on citizens, and I ask for some answers.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I would have hoped that the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady D’Souza, and my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Judd would not have needed to table this amendment. It should have been self-evident that those living here who arrived with the reasonable expectation of their right to remain on the same terms would have had that guaranteed by the Government.
Sadly, though, it has proved essential that the movers table the amendment since EU residents retain a level of anxiety born not just of the referendum result but of the Government’s subsequent actions. First, at the time of the Article 50 Bill, the Government refused to guarantee their existing rights and chose instead to use them as bargaining chips, as we have heard, using their majority in the Commons to overturn your Lordships’ amendment. Secondly, more than a year later, there is still no cast-iron guarantee, despite Ministers promising early agreement on this. Indeed, the Government have failed to implement what the Prime Minister said in December would be on offer to EU citizens, and we therefore need to put it into law. That is a priority for the Bill. We cannot wait until December to give these people certainty. They have decisions to make—on schooling, jobs and homes, and perhaps on marriages and children—and need to know where they stand.
Thirdly, in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who is not in his place now, insisted that,
“you can only have the domestic law once you have the international treaty, because it is from the international treaty rights and obligations that you allow the domestic rights and obligations to be brought into our domestic law”.—[Official Report, 7/3/18; cols. 1078-79.]
I do not know if he was deliberately misunderstanding what we were asking but, in effect, he was saying that the withdrawal agreement must come first and that without it the Government would refuse to guarantee existing residents their existing rights. That is not necessary in the treaty. It may be a decision by the Government but it is certainly not the case in law. We are not asking that the Government wait until we hear from the EU 27 how they will react to our citizens living there. We are asking the Government to affirm now something it is in the UK Parliament’s gift to decide: what rights we will give to EU citizens currently living here legally.
Lastly, we need this because of the disastrous mishandling, which has just been mentioned, of another group of people also living here quite lawfully: the Windrush generation. Given their overwhelming right to be here, the length of time of their residency and the contribution they have made to the economy, is it any wonder that more recent—albeit equally legal—residents, EU citizens, question whether vague promises of concern will harden into legal guarantees?
The amendment is necessary, morally right and legally justified, so I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will accept it.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, let me make clear that the rights of EU citizens living in the UK are extremely important. I will address my remarks to the context of the amendment. Some broader questions outwith the amendment were asked; I do not propose to deal with them.
The amendment would do little to protect the rights of EU citizens lawfully resident here in the United Kingdom, and is actually less than what we have already agreed with the European Union.
We are in negotiation, we want a deal and we are straining every sinew to work towards a deal. There is now manifestation of progress on that front, because, following the March European Council, the EU and the UK have agreed to protect a broad range of rights that EU citizens and their family members who are resident in the UK on exit day currently enjoy, but also to extend that protection to those who arrive until the end of the implementation period. This agreement, which was published in draft on 19 March, provides them with certainty about their future rights and allows them to carry on with their lives much as they do now.
The Government have already committed that the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will directly implement the withdrawal agreement—including the agreement on citizens’ rights—in UK law by primary legislation. To implement the citizens’ rights agreement, we are introducing a new settled status scheme in UK law for EU citizens and their family members covered by the agreement. We plan to open the application process on a voluntary basis in late 2018, so that people can get their new status at their earliest convenience. This does not require regulations to be made under this power, as the necessary provision can be made through Immigration Rules made under the Immigration Act 1971.
The UK settled status scheme will fulfil the part of our agreement with the EU under which member states can require people to apply to obtain a status conferring the rights of residence, as provided for by the withdrawal agreement, and be issued with a residence document conferring that right.
These individuals will have until June 2021 to make an application to obtain their new UK status. During this time, they will enjoy the rights to live and work freely in the UK as conferred by the withdrawal agreement. After that period, if no successful application has been made, no status will be held and they will not enjoy those rights. However, we have agreed with the EU that where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, they will be allowed to submit an application within a reasonable further period. Any application that is made, but not decided, before the end of June 2021 will still be within scope of the withdrawal agreement protections.
As the House will be aware, we have now agreed with the EU a time-limited implementation period. The purpose of this is to avoid a cliff edge and give people, business and public services in the UK and across the EU the time they need to put in place the new arrangements that will be required to adjust to our future partnership.
It will take time to implement a new immigration framework, and the Government have been clear that there should be only one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU, so it makes sense that the framework during this time-limited implementation period should be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations. During this implementation period, individuals will still be fully covered by the EU acquis. EU citizens and their family members will be able to come to the UK to live and work as they do now, but those who wish to stay here for longer than three months will be required to register. That registration will enable them to evidence their right to reside in the UK during the implementation period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, specifically raised the point about Turkish citizens. I understand that DExEU is leading cross-government work to assess international agreements we have with Turkey, which may be affected by EU exit. I cannot be more specific about that at this point, but the matter is within consideration.
The proposed new clause, therefore, would do nothing to further or protect EU citizens’ interests. It would interfere with our ability to implement the withdrawal agreement and do nothing to improve on the Government’s policy that all EU citizens and their family members, resident in the UK before the end of the implementation period, will be protected under the terms of the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement.
I hope that I have been clear in setting out how this amendment would actually do little to protect the rights of EU citizens lawfully resident here in the United Kingdom. For that reason, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it. I have to say that the Government do not propose to reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if she wishes to test the opinion of the House it would be appropriate to do so now.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a fairly thorough answer, but I find it a little difficult to accept some of what she has just said. As a Liberal Democrat, I am supposed to be somebody with an optimistic turn of mind, so I should possibly hope that there will be an agreement—there will be a deal and it will be so wonderful that we can all live with it. There will be an implementation period, which maybe we would call a transition period, the rights of EU citizens resident here and UK citizens elsewhere in Europe will all be guaranteed, and life will be wonderful. But I am afraid that I was brought up to be a little bit cynical, and I am slightly concerned that what the Minister has said does not quite ring true. She has talked about a whole set of rights being guaranteed through the withdrawal agreement, but we have no guarantee that there will be a withdrawal agreement.
On several occasions this evening we have talked about the possibility of there not being a deal. If there were no deal, the discussion being put forward in the draft withdrawal agreement would lapse. In that event, the rights of the 3.6 million citizens would appear to vanish. On previous days at Report and, in particular, in Committee, we were told repeatedly that the Bill was to ensure legal certainty on the day we leave the European Union—not after some implementation period. I remain deeply concerned about the rights of EU citizens.
If it were not seven minutes to midnight, I would test the opinion of the House but, in the absence of any trigger from the Labour Chief Whip or, to my left, my own Chief Whip, it would be prudent not to do so. I understand that I cannot bring the amendment back at Third Reading, but we might expect an immigration Bill at some point, and many of these issues will be brought back again in that legislation. I am not satisfied that what the Government suggest really will guarantee the rights of EU citizens. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“Co-operation with the European Union on child maintenance claims
Within one month of the passing of this Act, and then once in every subsequent calendar year, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing an assessment of how, following exit day, co-operation between the United Kingdom and the EU will replicate mechanisms which exist within the EU to enforce cross-border child maintenance claims, and will enable data sharing in relation to such matters.”
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, Amendment 68 is in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and myself. The amendment proposes a new, short clause which is similar in its intention to that proposed by Amendments 67 and 69, to which we also added our names and which have already been debated.
The clause relates to ensuring co-operation within the EU on child maintenance claims. The importance of cross-border co-operation between the EU and the UK on enforcing child maintenance claims is clear, and I will not detain the House at this hour by going into it. However, in post-Brexit times we need a mechanism to ensure that this cross-border co-operation is maintained.
The clause is very modest in its intention. It does not tell the Government how to do this; it merely requests a report showing how it is working, or not, as the case may be. This does not seem unreasonable to me, so I hope that the Minister will undertake at least to consider this modest request. Children and families who have already suffered the challenges of family break-up across the EU are depending on it. That is all I wish to say on this proposed new clause.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, EU family law provisions are tried and tested. There is a broad consensus that they work well, and with the advent of the Brussels II recast—as it is known in the trade—they will become more effective still. At earlier stages of the Bill, I set out in some detail the challenges for international family law post Brexit, so I will not rehearse those again. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has said, this amendment is focused on what happens to child maintenance when we leave the EU.
Child maintenance matters because parents can separate or divorce but they do not cease being responsible for their children. Children have a right to support from both parents, even if one lives abroad. Maintenance plays a key role in lifting single-parent families out of poverty. Receipt of child support is also positively associated with single parents taking up work and with children maintaining contact with a non-resident parent.
This may be private law, but the need for it to work well and be enforceable is a matter of public policy importance. Even the UNCRC mandates, at Article 27, contracting states to take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of child maintenance and, when a parent lives abroad, to promote accession to international agreements. So there are compelling reasons for Parliament to want to be assured that we will have a well-functioning system to enable the assessment and enforcement of child maintenance owed by a parent living in one of the EU 27. The Minister told the House that, during the implementation or transition period, the current reciprocal rules, including the key EU family law instruments and Hague conventions, will continue to apply as now. Beyond that, we do not yet know what the landscape will look like.
Ministers have signalled that they would like to continue to participate in the Lugano convention, but that is nothing like a substitute for the maintenance regulation, as that part of the EU family law provisions are known. The 2007 Hague convention would go some way towards assisting with the recognition and enforcement of maintenance obligations, but it too falls well short of the maintenance regulation. It has no general system of jurisdictional rules, and you cannot enforce spousal maintenance orders via the central authorities unless they are linked to enforcement of a child maintenance order. We are left hoping that the Government will be successful in negotiating a reciprocal deal that will serve our people well. Given the significant number of international divorces, these issues cannot be ignored.
Ministers are confident that comparable reciprocal arrangements can be achieved to replace the EU family law provisions. This amendment would simply require Ministers to tell us how. If Ministers do not smile on this amendment, perhaps they could tell the House how and when the Government will update us on progress. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for raising the important issue of child maintenance, which we recognise is of particular importance to many families across the UK. As the Government outlined in their position paper published in August last year, we are seeking a comprehensive future agreement with the EU on civil judicial co-operation that is based on the substance of the current EU regulations, including the maintenance regulation. I stress again that the precise nature of this relationship will be a matter for negotiation.
However, I assure the House that the Government are committed to working with our EU partners to agree the most effective rules in this area which reflect our close existing relationship on this important issue. This approach will provide confidence and certainty to families and individuals, ensuring they can continue to enforce cross-border maintenance orders efficiently and effectively in the future. As both noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Sherlock, rightly said, these orders are hugely important to the families involved.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments, particularly what she said about the ongoing work with our European partners to achieve a cross-border arrangement. It is hoped that the spirit of what she is saying and the desire to form these arrangements will be satisfactory to families. Although the Government may consider this not to be a huge issue in the great context of Brexit and everything that is going on, it is a big issue to those families who are similarly affected. The Minister is nodding, and I take comfort from that. With that, and given the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lisvane
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, as this amendment is consequential on Amendment 31, which was agreed by your Lordships on 25 April, I beg to move it formally.
Lord Callanan
“( ) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) after the end of the period of 10 years beginning with exit day.”
Lord Callanan
My Lords, in Committee many noble Lords raised valuable concerns regarding the use of the consequential power, or, I should say, the misuse of this power. In response to these concerns, and being conscious of restricting the scope of the powers wherever practical, the Government have tabled an amendment to sunset the power to make consequential amendments from 10 years after exit.
I would like to point out that it is unusual for such powers to be sunset. However, given the unique nature of this Bill and the concerns about future Governments abusing the power to make consequential amendments, the Government have taken the decision that it is right in this exceptional case to apply a sunset to the power. The Government arrived at the figure of 10 years as the consequences of the Bill may only come to light long after our exit from the EU. The fact that this period is longer than that afforded to the other powers in the Bill reflects this fact. While 10 years should ensure that the majority of consequential amendments can be made, there is still a risk that some amendments that it may prove appropriate to make could not be made if they were only discovered after this time. The Government believe, however, that the value of sunsetting the power outweighs those risks.
I know that there are other concerns about Clause 17, and the Government have tabled amendments to address those, in particular arranging for negative SIs proposed under it to be sifted. I look forward to debating these on a later day.
I hope that this amendment demonstrates yet again the Government’s commitment to satisfying the concerns of this House, and I hope that noble Lords will welcome this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that the Government have moved on this issue, even though 10 years is the longest sunset that I think I have ever heard of in any Bill—it has the quality of a north Norwegian, Arctic sunset, which pleasantly never comes. However, in this case, some date by which to end these rather wide powers is welcome. Of course, the Bill also has the limitation in Clause 17(2). It was the breadth of the powers that led us to table Amendment 85, which was not moved, and it was the Government’s willingness to move on this and some other amendments that made us feel that we ought not to press it. I hope the Minister recognises that any use of these consequential powers that appeared to go beyond what is genuinely consequential would raise the spectre that we had let through excessive powers. He will be well aware by now that this House has become increasingly vigilant about the breadth of powers granted to Ministers. In recognising that the Government have moved on this issue, we have not pursued other amendments.
Lord Lisvane
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, this amendment is also consequential to Amendment 31. I beg to move.