House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)
Welfare reforms in Wales are working. Since 2015, 54,000 more people have been employed; 25,000 fewer people are unemployed; and 25,000 fewer people are economically inactive. This demonstrates that welfare reforms are transforming lives across the country. As research shows, universal credit claimants spend more time looking and applying for work than those on previous benefits.
Wayne David
In January, the Wales Audit Office produced a report saying that the Government’s welfare reform policies were contributing to homelessness in Wales. What does the Minister think is causing homelessness in Wales?
Stuart Andrew
We have been taking time to roll out universal credit and have responded to some of the needs and suggestions put forward, which is why people now get two weeks’ extra housing benefit, but I would add that not every council has used its discretionary payments for housing.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
If universal credit is such a good thing, why is the Minister’s Government denying some Welsh-speaking people the right to apply for it?
Stuart Andrew
I have already written to my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about this because I recognise the importance of claimants being able to access the service in the Welsh language. That is exactly why the roll-out has been delayed in areas with a high proportion of people who speak Welsh. In addition, Welsh speakers can access some services via a freephone line.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Some 13% of adults in Wales received treatment for their mental health in 2015, and one in four of the wider Welsh population are thought to live with a mental health condition. Many suffering with mental illness are too ill to work. Last year, I was told by the Government in a response to a parliamentary question:
“No psychologists or psychiatrists are currently employed by Centre for Health and Disability Assessments to conduct work capability assessments.”
Will the Minister join me in requesting a meeting with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to discuss reviewing this policy and ensuring that those suffering from mental illness are properly assessed by professionals and not denied the welfare to which they are entitled?
Stuart Andrew
We have been very careful to consult a wide range of experts—people working for disability charities and medical professionals—to make sure we get these assessments right. The hon. Gentleman is right that mental health needs to be looked at very carefully, and I will take up his invitation: I will meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
Network Rail’s budget for investment in the Wales route is more than £1.3 billion—record investment in Wales’ railway infrastructure. Passengers in south Wales are also directly benefiting from our £5.7 billion of investment in the new intercity express trains operating from west Wales through Swansea to London.
Geraint Davies
The Secretary of State knows that Wales has 5% of the population and 6% of the railways yet less than 2% of the investment. Network Rail has just cut £1 billion from its projects, and £700 million has been cut from rail electrification. Will he now promise to support the Swansea bay electrified city metro scheme, alongside alignment, which would reduce the time between Cardiff and Swansea and result in faster, greener connectivity for Swansea bay?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman well knows that Wales does not operate in isolation. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas), for example, has been campaigning for the Halton curve, which is in England but of course would serve north Wales and link it better with Merseyside, demonstrating how the rail network in Wales does not operate in isolation. I have met Mark Barry, the proponent of the Swansea bay metro. He is undertaking a host of work on it, and we will happily look closely at it, but I point the hon. Gentleman to the need for a decent cost-benefit ratio.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On the subject of electrification of the line to Swansea, is my right hon. Friend aware that the South Wales chamber of commerce, in Swansea, is a darned sight more concerned about there being an old Labour Government in this country destroying industry than about shaving two minutes off a journey time?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The political grandstanding by some Opposition Members does nothing other than undermine potential investment in Swansea. Nor will we take any lectures from a party that left Wales in the same league as Moldova and Albania in not having a single track of electrified railway line.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
There is considerable disagreement about the total amount saved by the cancellation of electrification to south Wales—the figures range from £430 million to £700 million—but, irrespective of the total amount saved, does the Secretary of State not agree that there is a compelling case for reinvesting any funds saved by the cancellation in the Welsh network?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. There are opportunities for new railway investment in Wales. The Department for Transport’s strategic outline business case includes a range of options, one of which is improving access to west Wales; that would be transformed by a Swansea parkway railway station, for which there is a growing demand. We are well aware of the Welsh Government’s interest in linking Aberystwyth and Carmarthen, and I think that those schemes would be complementary.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
Before I ask my question, Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to mention Tecwyn Thomas, a stalwart of Welsh Labour for many years, who has sadly passed away. He was my agent, and the agent of many Labour candidates in Wales. My colleagues and I send our condolences to Tecwyn’s widow Iris, and to his family.
According to a report from the National Audit Office, the Transport Secretary knew that bimodal trains would not provide the equivalent of electrification and that no trains exist that could deliver the timetable. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Transport Secretary acted against the advice that he was given when he cancelled electrification to Swansea, and that that has resulted in poor execution of Network Rail’s electrification work in south Wales?
Alun Cairns
Let me also pay tribute to the late member of the Labour party whom the hon. Lady mentioned.
A report from the Public Accounts Committee, to which I refer the hon. Lady, said that the plan for electrification between south Wales and Paddington should be reassessed on a stage-by-stage basis, and that is exactly what we did. Electrification would provide no practical journey time saving between Cardiff and Swansea; passengers would sit on the same train. I think we need to get over that issue. I am seeking to attract investment to Swansea, and constantly criticising the cancellation of a plan that would deliver no practical benefits to passengers does nothing to help that.
Christina Rees
In the Transport Secretary’s statement of 20 July 2017, which cancelled the electrification of the line of Swansea, it was proposed that a new pipeline service be established for rail enhancement schemes. However, details of the process, and mechanisms for the development and delivery of the schemes, have not been forthcoming, and no Welsh scheme has yet entered the pipeline. Will the Secretary of State explain what the Transport Secretary is doing to prioritise the funds that Welsh projects so desperately need through that pipeline service?
Alun Cairns
As I have said, there are a number of options in the strategic outline business case, and it is important for us to use that to assess the merits of the study. The increase in the costs of electrification projects throughout the United Kingdom has naturally caused alarm—I mentioned the report of the Public Accounts Committee earlier—but I am excited by the proposals in the business case. I have already mentioned the potential, and the growing demand, for a Swansea parkway station, as well as a new station at St Mellons. There is a host of opportunities.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I was always optimistic that discussions with the Welsh Government would result in agreement on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The agreement that has been reached is testimony to the close intergovernmental working that has taken place and to the spirit of co-operation, and I am still hopeful that the Scottish Government will sign up to it as well.
Stephen Kerr
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the agreement—announced last week—between the Welsh Government and the UK Government in respect of clause 11 of the Bill shows what can be achieved when Governments work together constructively for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom and all its peoples?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. I think the agreement demonstrates the maturity of the relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. The Welsh Government recognised the merits of providing certainty and security for businesses and communities. I am still hopeful that we can underline the benefits of the scheme to Scottish businesses and communities, and that we can attract the support of the Scottish Government.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The heavy hand of the Treasury is still delaying investment in north Wales. Will the Secretary of State commit to real devolution, as we in north Wales want the freedom to invest and attract investment ourselves, to improve our infrastructure?
Alun Cairns
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the north Wales growth deal that we are currently negotiating between the authorities and businesses in north Wales. I met Ken Skates, the Economy Minister, just last week to discuss it. We are anxious to see greater devolution, but some Assembly Members do not want that, because some areas of north Wales have traditionally felt as isolated from Cardiff Bay as from Westminster.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend extend to the Welsh Government the thanks of many hon. Members of this House for accepting the UK Government’s sensible and pragmatic proposals for resolving the issue of the repatriation of powers, thereby reflecting the fact that Wales voted to leave the European Union in 2016?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question, because he rightly focuses on the practical benefits and the outcomes. I believe that so long as we are focusing on an environment in which business can continue to invest, employ and represent communities in the way we have negotiated with the Welsh Government, that will put us in the strongest position to get the best benefits for every part of the UK.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am sure that, in the interests of co-operation, the Government would not want to do anything that undermines the devolution settlement. Do they not recognise that the Conservatives are isolated in the Scottish Parliament, where there is a cross-party consensus that the EU withdrawal Bill is not fit for purpose? Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that the House of Lords is not asked to consider the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill on Third Reading until all the devolved Assemblies have had a chance to pass a legislative consent motion?
Alun Cairns
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) highlighted, so long as we focus on outcomes—and the Scottish Government focus on outcomes and delivering for Scottish businesses—I am confident we can reach an agreement. The Welsh Government clearly would not undermine the devolution settlement as far as Wales is concerned, and I hope the Scottish Government will see the merits of the certainty and security that we can offer Scottish industry and Scottish business with this agreement.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)
The Government understand that police demand is changing and becoming increasingly complex. That is why, after speaking to all forces in England and Wales, we have provided a comprehensive funding settlement which will increase total investment in the police system by over £460 million in 2018-19.
Jo Stevens
Cardiff hosts more than 400 major events a year—civic, political and royal—as a UK capital city, and on top of the Government’s police funding cuts, my constituents are having to find money to pay an extra £3 million for the annual cost of policing those events, which is the equivalent of 60 police officers. When are the Government going to recognise South Wales police as a capital city force, with proper funding to match?
Stuart Andrew
As I said earlier, we have consulted all the police and crime commissioners and chief constables, as they are ultimately best placed to understand their local needs. Following the police funding settlement, most PCCs have set out plans either to protect or to increase frontline policing this year. I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point on Cardiff; that is part of a national formula, but I will be happy to meet her if she wants to discuss it further.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that policing is not just about budgets and money, although they do matter, but about leadership, strategy and organisation?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I saw an interesting statistic recently: if we increase productivity through the better use of digital technology, we could save each police officer an hour a day, when they could be on the frontline. That would be the equivalent of 11,000 extra police officers a year on the streets of the country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I, too, extend my condolences to the family of Tecwyn Thomas. He was well known, and was ready to work with other parties, including mine, to the benefit of his area.
Police forces in Wales pay £2 million a year towards the Government apprenticeship levy, yet get virtually no financial support towards training. Skills and education are devolved competences, but this levy was imposed by Westminster—cue entirely predictable confusion and buck-passing. Where was the consent decision to impose a 0.5% tax on major Welsh employers?
Stuart Andrew
In the conversations I have had with many businesses around north Wales, they have welcomed the apprenticeship levy—
Stuart Andrew
Well, I have been round a number of businesses, and they welcome the levy. The fact is that training in Wales is devolved, as the hon. Lady has said, and the amount of money that the UK Government have given to the Welsh Government exceeds the amount that the Welsh Government are spending on training.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am sure the Minister shares my concern that the word “Orwellian” is overused in contemporary politics, but does he also share my concern that the Orwellian concept of doublespeak is epitomised in what now constitutes devolved consent agreement—namely, consent as agreeing to consent, consent as disagreeing to consent and consent as refusing to consent? How can Wales possibly say no?
Stuart Andrew
There have been extensive discussions with the Welsh Government, and they have recognised that the UK Government have come a long way and that the levy is beneficial to the whole United Kingdom. I hope that other Governments will follow suit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) wants to come in briefly on this question, he can, but he is not obliged to do so.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Stuart Andrew
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the responsibility for overseeing NPAS lies with its strategic board, which is made up of police and crime commissioners and chief constables, including the Dyfed-Powys PCC. Both NPAS and the National Police Chiefs Council have already announced that they are undertaking work to address the issues that he has raised, and Mark Burns-Williamson has said that many of the areas identified in the report have already been recognised and they are doing work to address them.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)
The Secretary of State and I hold regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and the Welsh Government on modernising cross-border rail connectivity. Improving connectivity drives economic growth and spreads prosperity to our communities on both sides of the border.
Mr Dhesi
The western rail link to Heathrow—a 4-mile track between Slough and Heathrow—could mean a two-hour journey from Heathrow to Cardiff and Newport and a journey of around three hours to Swansea, not to mention huge economic and environmental benefits. The Welsh Government are in favour of this, the UK Government themselves committed to it in 2012, and yesterday an all-party parliamentary group on the western rail link to Heathrow—co-chaired by the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and myself—was launched to remind the Government of their commitment. Will the Minister tell us when the link will finally be built, or are we to be subjected to further sluggish studies and Government procrastination?
Stuart Andrew
I was about to be very complimentary and say that the hon. Gentleman had been a doughty campaigner on this issue, as have many people across the House. The western rail link to Heathrow would significantly improve rail journey times, and it is named in Network Rail’s enhancement pipeline. Network Rail is progressing the design and development of the link, and a final consultation on the proposed alignment is expected to commence this month.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Since the Secretary of State for Transport has agreed to give the power to award the next Cardiff to Manchester rail franchise to the Welsh Assembly, will my hon. Friend give the English MPs through whose constituencies—which include the beautiful towns of Church Stretton, Craven Arms and Ludlow—this line passes some indication of how we can hold the Welsh Government to account on this matter?
Stuart Andrew
It is a line that I have used many times myself, and my hon. Friend is right to say that parts of his constituency are very beautiful. We have ensured that there is an agency agreement between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, so that English passengers—and Members of this House—can go to the Secretary of State for Transport and he can raise their questions directly with the Welsh Government.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
There are significant opportunities for Wales from the industrial strategy, particularly in relation to innovation, where there is a commitment to raise the total research and development spend to 2.4% of the economy. This is already benefiting Wales, with almost £6 million committed to 17 Welsh partner projects.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but will he outline how he is ensuring that research and innovation, which is a key part of the industrial strategy in Wales, is recognised across the world?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend is a key campaigner for the steel industry, and I draw his attention to the Swansea bay city deal and the industrial strategy, which has established a new national Steel and Metals Institute, not only offering long-term viability to the industry in Wales, but complementing his constituency’s interests.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answers so far. Does he agree that the combination of scrapping the Severn tolls and the cross-border commitment to the industrial strategy represents a significant boost for south Wales, mid-Wales and even south-west England?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to our commitment to scrap the Severn tolls by the end of this year, which will benefit south-west England and his constituency, as well as the south Wales economy. We are developing a new economic region and the industrial strategy commits to cross-border growth corridors. There is a great deal of excitement in south Wales and the south-west.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
In view of the lack of news about a sector deal for steel—[Interruption]—coupled with looming trade disruption caused by US steel tariffs, what is the Secretary of State doing in Cabinet to press for action to get the UK—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady has been overwhelmed by just how popular she is. We will just have to hear the question again from start to finish.
Jessica Morden
In the light of the lack of news about a sector deal for steel, coupled with the looming trade disruption caused by US steel tariffs, what is the Secretary of State doing in Cabinet to press for action to get the UK steel sector a more sustainable future? When is the next Steel Council?
Alun Cairns
I have already referred to the national Steel and Metals Institute at Swansea University, which is important for the sustainability of the steel sector. On the US trading arrangements on steel, the UK and European exemption was extended last week, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has travelled to the US specifically to discuss the matter. I have also raised the matter with the US ambassador here, and we are optimistic.
Mr Speaker
It is not possible to be more grateful to the Secretary of State.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
At the heart of the industrial strategy is a commitment to 5G connectivity for businesses in Wales. Most businesses across Wales, including in my constituency, have little or no connectivity and slow connections. The Secretary of State has been warned by the CBI that the industrial strategy must be achievable. Is all this not just pie in the sky for businesses that are not connected at the moment?
Alun Cairns
I point to the commitment to the Swansea bay city deal and to our ambition for Cardiff to be a 5G testbed, and we are excited for the opportunities that they will bring. As for connectivity, the Welsh Government have a significant responsibility and, although they have recently committed more money, I ask them to look at their planning rules. The highest that a mast can be in Wales is 15 metres, whereas masts can go to 25 metres in England.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I have regular discussions with Ministers at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on energy matters pertaining to Wales, including the potential role that tidal could play in our energy mix. As I have said previously, it is an untried technology, so it is quite right that we take time to consider both the opportunities and challenges that it presents.
Alun Cairns
I have regular discussions with my colleagues in BEIS and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the project. We would like it to go forward, but it must provide value for money, so it is right that we take time to consider the matter. Data has been shared with the Welsh Government, demonstrating the partnership approach that we are determined to take, but no one should want the project to go ahead if it does not represent good value for money for the taxpayer.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
The agreement reached between the UK Government and the Welsh Government on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will ensure that we exit from the EU with the certainty and continuity that businesses and communities across Wales have called for.
Bambos Charalambous
Will the Minister reassure the House, and businesses across Wales, by confirming that arrangements will be put in place to ensure that new trade deals negotiated after we leave the European Union do not undermine devolved policies?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is looking at the opportunities that leaving the European Union provides. Obviously, exports from Wales to the rest of the world are expanding at a much quicker rate than exports to the European Union, which demonstrates that businesses are already looking to those new opportunities, and more Members are looking to those opportunities as we have them.
Anna McMorrin
My constituent Damian Harris owns a cycle shop in Cardiff North but is struggling because of the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Twenty-nine of the 30 bikes he stocks come from the EU and, at the very least, he needs a customs union to have any sort of viable future. We are now hearing that 60 Tory MPs are plotting to sink their own Government to force the Prime Minister to abandon any form of customs arrangement. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will work with the Welsh Government and speak up against that decision? A low-skilled workforce and—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are grateful for the hon. Lady’s thoughts but, unfortunately, one has to take account of the situation in the Chamber. The question needed to be a bit shorter.
Alun Cairns
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely clear that we will be leaving the customs union but, of course, we are keen to negotiate to allow for the most frictionless trade possible with the European Union. We are also keen to take the new opportunities that leaving the European Union provides. We are keen to strike trade agreements right around the world, and to strike free trade agreements in due course.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that Labour’s economic development spokesman in the Welsh Government, Ken Skates, has spoken of the fact that Wales is receiving record amounts of inward investment. He said that Wales is “punching above its weight” at the moment. Is it not time that Labour Members started to listen to their own economic development Minister in Wales and stopped talking down the Welsh economy, which is booming under this Government?
Alun Cairns
Having met international investors from Japan, Qatar, the US and elsewhere over recent months, I am excited and optimistic about our prospects outside the European Union. Yesterday it was a privilege to be part of the inaugural flight from Qatar to Cardiff, which demonstrates that the industrial strategy, and the wider approach taken by the UK Government in seeking new markets, is already working.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)
Continuing the success of the “Wales reducing reoffending strategy”, the Prison Service in Wales, working with the Welsh Government, recently launched a joint framework to support those at risk of offending in Wales by focusing on early intervention to reduce the number of people entering the criminal justice system.
Bob Blackman
Does my hon. Friend agree it is vital that prison governors prepare offenders for life outside prison? For that purpose, will he therefore draw on the lessons from the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which has already been implemented in England?
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend knows more about the Homelessness Reduction Act than anyone, and I congratulate him on the hard work he did to introduce the Act. He will be pleased to hear that the Ministry of Justice recently reached its target early to recruit 2,500 additional prison officers so that prisons can start to introduce a key worker model. This new model will mean prisoners have a dedicated officer to help them access services, many of which are devolved in Wales.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I know that Members across the whole House will wish to join me in offering our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Michael Martin, latterly Lord Martin of Springburn, who died earlier this week. He served as Speaker for nearly nine years, and I am sure Members will remember his sense of public service, his commitment to his constituency in Glasgow and his good humour. I particularly remember him for the courtesy he always showed me.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Wera Hobhouse
Upskirting is the vile practice of taking a photo under a woman’s skirt without her consent. It is neither a specific nor a sexual offence under the current law in England and Wales. I have been working closely with Gina Martin, who has been campaigning for months to change that, and her lawyer to produce a private Member’s Bill to make upskirting a specific crime under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. They have both joined us here today.
Does the Prime Minister agree with us that the law in England and Wales should be reformed so that, in all circumstances, women like Gina and, indeed, the Prime Minister herself will be protected from upskirt images being taken without their consent?
The Prime Minister
May I first say to the hon. Lady that I share the outrage at this intrusive behaviour that she has referred to and the distress it can cause to victims? We are determined to ensure that victims do have confidence that their complaints will be taken seriously. It is possible currently to bring prosecutions, but my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is examining the state of the law at the moment to make sure it is fit for purpose and, as part of that work, he is considering her Bill in detail.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern about ensuring that we are supporting local communities, and that we are delivering better infrastructure in those communities and maximising the potential of our country. The housing infrastructure fund is an important part of that. We need to build more homes across this country, but we also need to ensure that the infrastructure is there to support those homes and help those local communities. That is exactly what we are doing.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Michael Martin, the former Labour MP for Glasgow, Springburn and later Speaker of the House. He worked in the engineering industry in Glasgow and was active in the then Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. He and I first met when we were fellow organisers in the National Union of Public Employees in the 1970s, campaigning for decent public sector pay and a national minimum wage. Michael loved the community he represented and loved his family, and our deepest thoughts and sympathies go to his family at this time.
Did the Prime Minister feel the slightest pang of guilt when the Home Secretary was forced to resign due to the failures of her predecessor?
The Prime Minister
I think it might be helpful if I first update the House on the actions the Government have taken and are continuing to take in relation to the Windrush generation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be addressing the House on this later today. We all share the ambition to make sure we do right by members of the Windrush generation, which is why he will be announcing a package of measures to bring transparency on the issue, to make sure that the House is informed, and to reassure Members of this House but, more importantly, to reassure those people who have been directly affected. Speed is of the essence and my right hon. Friend will be commissioning a full review of lessons learned, independent oversight and external challenge, with the intention of reporting back to this House before we rise for the summer. The review will have full access to all relevant information in the Home Office, including policy papers and casework decisions.
Jeremy Corbyn
This was a crisis made in the Home Office by successive Home Secretaries. Only a week ago today, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), then Home Secretary, was denying there were any targets, in front of the Home Affairs Committee. On Monday, the Prime Minister told the media:
“When I was Home Secretary, yes, there were targets”.
One wonders why the Prime Minister didn’t tell her Home Secretary about that. The pain that has been caused to the Windrush generation needs to be resolved very rapidly, with full compensation paid as quickly as it can possibly be done and an understanding of the hurt that they feel. But this is not the only failure of this Government or of their policies. The Government used to talk about a “long-term economic plan”, but now we have the slowest growing economy in the G7. The Chancellor, sitting two places along from the Prime Minister, told the House that he had a “positively Tiggerish” view of the British economy, yet it has the worst economic growth figures for five years. What plans do the Government have to change course to ensure we do get economic growth?
The Prime Minister
First, may I say to the right hon. Gentleman, on the Windrush generation, I was Home Secretary when some of these decisions were taken and mistakes were made about individual cases, and I have apologised for that. The former Home Secretary also apologised for that. The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that these are decisions that have been taken under successive Home Secretaries, including under the last Labour Government, and if he wants to talk about the economy, let’s just look at what we have seen in our economy in recent weeks: day-to-day spending in surplus for the first time in 16 years; the lowest net borrowing in over a decade; exports of goods and services at a record high; employment at a record high; and real wages up. That is a Conservative Government delivering an economy fit for the future.
Jeremy Corbyn
Four facts about the economy: more people in debt, more people using food banks, more people sleeping on our streets, and more children in poverty. The consequences of decisions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are that the NHS is suffering the longest funding squeeze in history. It has sent our health service into an all-year-round crisis. Will the Prime Minister apologise to NHS patients waiting longer than ever for the worst A&E waiting times on record?
The Prime Minister
I gave the right hon. Gentleman some facts about the economy; I can give him some others: more people in work, and actually fewer children in absolute poverty under this Government. When it comes to the national health service, since November my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced £10 billion extra for the national health service. I have also said that we want to ensure that the national health service is able to operate on a long-term plan. That is why we are conducting a review to produce that long-term plan, with sustainable multi-year funding. That is the sensible approach to take—not just to say that this is all about money, but to say, “How can we ensure that the NHS is the NHS that will deliver for people in the future?” That is about funding. It is also about reforming the NHS to make sure that patients get the right treatment.
Jeremy Corbyn
Not only was March the worst month on record in A&E departments; it was also the worst month for cancelled operations. There are 100,000 vacancies for NHS staff—and the Prime Minister personally intervened to overrule the Health Secretary and the previous Home Secretary when they asked for a relaxation of visa rules in order to recruit staff to work in our NHS.
But it is not just the NHS where the Government are damaging our public services. In January, the Education Secretary promised that no school would see a cut in its funding. Last week, he was invited to repeat that pledge, and refused. I wonder why. Will the Prime Minister now tell parents, teachers and students the truth—that the schools budget is in fact being cut in real terms all over the country?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. What we are doing is ensuring that there is more money available to schools. We are ensuring that we are protecting that core budget, because we want to ensure that every child, regardless of their background, gets the education that they need and the education that fulfils their potential. That is why, once again, it is not just a question of the money you put in; it is about how you spend the money you are spending. That is why I am pleased to say that 1.9 million more children are in good or outstanding schools under this Government and education standards are going up under this Government. That means more opportunities for our young people.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is quite astonishing that the Education Secretary has been corrected by the UK Statistics Authority. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that schools budgets are being cut, and the Prime Minister still appears to be in denial. It is not just in the NHS and education that this Government are damaging our public services; it is also about police budgets. The previous Home Secretary claimed there was no link between police numbers and serious violent crime; yet Home Office civil servants said there is a link. Who does the Prime Minister think is right?
The Prime Minister
First, on crime and police budgets, we are of course this year making available £450 million more for police forces across the country. We have been protecting police budgets, which is in direct contrast to what it was suggested to me I should do by the former shadow Home Secretary and Labour Member who is now Mayor of Manchester. He suggested 5% to 10% cuts could be made in police budgets.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the relationship between police numbers and crime. His own shadow Police Minister has said in terms that there is not that relationship between police funding and the number of crimes that take place. Once again, it is about how we ensure we are dealing with these issues. It is about ensuring about that the police are able to deal with the challenges and crimes of today, and that is what we are doing with our serious violence strategy and our National Crime Agency—taking action across the board to ensure that our police are able to keep people safe.
Jeremy Corbyn
Our shadow Police Minister was pointing out that there has been a £2.3 billion cut in police budgets in the last Parliament, and it is the Prime Minister’s Government who are underfunding our police force: 21,000 police officers have lost their jobs since 2010, and 6,700 police community support officers lost their jobs. Meantime, violent crime is rising and, sadly, there are deaths from knife crime on the streets of most cities, particularly in London.
The economy is slowing, homelessness is rising, more children are living in poverty, the Home Office is in chaos and the Government are making a complete shambles of the Brexit negotiations. They are damaging our NHS, damaging our children’s schools and cutting police as crime soars, and they claim to be “strong and stable”! With council tax rising by more than 5% all over the country, is not the truth facing voters tomorrow that with the Tories you pay more and you get less?
The Prime Minister
More funding going into the NHS, more funding going into our schools, more funding going into social care, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about council tax and its impact on local residents, I suggest he go to Hazelbourne Road in Clapham. On one side of the road in a typical home someone will pay nearly £1,400 in council tax. Now that, of course, is in Labour-run Lambeth. On the other side of the road, someone in a typical home will pay just over £700 in council tax. That is in Conservative-run Wandsworth. No clearer example can there be that Conservative councils cost you less.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think we are in any danger of not hearing the question, but we must hear the answer.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we will be leaving the European Union. I am tempted to say to his request, how can I refuse?
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
A young mother in Coatbridge; a grandmother who has lived here for 50 years; a former cook in this Parliament—just three examples of people who have been wrongly told to leave the United Kingdom. Then there are numerous people wrongly detained or deported, lives turned upside down and irreparable damage to families. The Prime Minister said in this Chamber on 22 October 2013,
“deport first and hear appeals later.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 158.]
Will she now withdraw those remarks?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is referring to changes to the legislation that later became the Immigration Act 2014. He is right; and I have apologised not just for the anxiety that has been caused to people in the Windrush generation, but to those who have found that the wrong decisions have been taken about their situation. The Windrush generation are British and they are part of us, which is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making sure that the taskforce that has been put in place is dealing with cases expeditiously and is giving people reassurance about their status here. We need to ensure that we are a welcoming country for people who want to come here and contribute, but that we take action against those who are here illegally, who break the rules and try to play the system.
Ian Blackford
Interestingly, the Prime Minister failed to remove these insulting remarks. It is easy for her to change her Secretary of State—she does it frequently —but she needs to change her policies. An estimated 120,000 undocumented children are currently entitled to UK citizenship by law, but only if they register at the cost of £1,000. This is a new Windrush generation, who will be unable to secure jobs and rent properties. These children, who are entitled to citizenship, should not be charged to exercise their rights. How can she possibly justify these policies?
The Prime Minister
Members of the public want to ensure that we have a fair immigration system and that we have rules that people abide by, and that is why we make a very clear distinction. I want people who come here legally, who do the right thing and contribute to our society, to feel that this is one of the most welcoming countries in the world. On the other side, we need to ensure that we have a system that deals with those who break the rules, play the system and try to jump ahead of others. That is what people expect from us. They want us to have a system that is fair and sets out rules, and for us to ensure that people are abiding by those rules.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We very much value the work done by the explosive ordnance disposal units of 33 and 101 Engineer Regiments. The veterans strategy recently launched by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is groundbreaking. There will be a Government taskforce from Departments across the whole of Whitehall that will focus on exactly the sorts of issues that my hon. Friend raised. It will be assessing how we can help veterans to meet the financial demands of civilian life, crucially ensuring that mental and physical wellbeing is maximised and offering the best possible advice to veterans on housing. These are key issues for veterans and they are exactly what we will be focusing on in the strategy.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbarton- shire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We have been rolling out universal credit at a pace that ensures we have been able to hear from those who have been affected by it and to make changes—and changes have been made in the way that universal credit is introduced in this country. We have ensured that we have reduced the seven days’ waiting time, for example. But what lies behind universal credit is the belief that the important thing to help to sustain families is to get people into work. The evidence on universal credit is that it is doing just that: it is helping people into work. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman should welcome a policy that helps people to get into the workplace.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The Prime Minister
First of all, I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the return of commercial flights to Carlisle airport, which will allow more people to access the borderlands region. He talks about support for the borderlands. Of course, the borderlands growth deal that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor committed to is an important part of that. I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment as borderlands growth deal champion. I am sure that he will be doing all he can to ensure that that Government support is there and that the borderlands continue to thrive.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Prime Minister
We have been very clear that we will not see a border down the Irish sea. We have been clear about that in the joint report that was issued by us and the European Commission and adopted by the European Council in December. When the European Commission made a proposal for dealing with the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland that would have meant a border down the Irish sea, I was clear that neither I nor any British Prime Minister could accept that.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he is asking for. He is right that we are supporting the NHS in Boston and Skegness. Any decision taken by the trust about the services available will of course be made to ensure that the provision of services is safe for patients. The trust is continuing to try to recruit paediatricians to support the service. It wants to continue to provide paediatric services at Boston, and every effort will be made to ensure that that can continue.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. and learned Lady might have listened to the answer that I gave earlier in Prime Minister’s Question Time. She might also have listened to the answers that I gave last week, and I was very clear in my apology to those of the Windrush generation who have been caught up in this issue. She talks about what has happened here. What has happened is that people who are here legally and who are British have found themselves caught up in this, and as I said, I apologise for that. What has also happened is that over the years, Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments have successively been taking action to deal with illegal immigrants, which is a different issue. This is an issue that has been dealt with by Governments of all colours.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) on his appointment to the Home Office, which is such an important Department in terms of not only security but ensuring we have a safe and fair immigration policy? The UK threat level remains at severe. Last year we had five terrorist attacks that got through, and 36 innocent people were killed. May I invite the Prime Minister to share our admiration for the extraordinary work and bravery of our counter-terrorism police, our emergency services and our security services, for which I know we are all grateful?
The Prime Minister
First, I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and the work she did as Home Secretary. She did valuable work across all elements of the Home Office, including on issues like modern slavery and domestic violence. The work that she did with the internet companies to keep people safe on the internet was groundbreaking. I share her support and admiration for the work that all in our emergency services, our police, our counter-terrorism police and our security and intelligence agencies do to keep us safe, and I commend her for the work she did following the terrorist attacks last year to set in train action to ensure that we continue to give those services the support they need to continue to keep us safe.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
What my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said was that he absolutely shares the need to differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. He also said that there was a certain phrase he was not going to use—a phrase that was first used by Labour Ministers in government. Across Government, we are clear that we are working hard to support and help those of the Windrush generation who have been caught up in this issue recently and across time, but we are also ensuring that we have a fair immigration policy which ensures that people who break the rules, play the system and try to jump ahead of others are not able to carry on being here in this country in the same way as those who play by the rules, are hard-working taxpayers and contribute to our society. That is only fair.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is only under the Conservatives that you get decision and vision? That is why Maidstone Borough Council needs to turn blue on 3 May.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If those who are taking part in council elections tomorrow and making those decisions look up and down the country, they will see that it is Conservative councils that support local communities, provide good local services and keep council tax low. The message is very clear: if that is what you want, vote Conservative tomorrow.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are very clear that we are going to leave the European Union on 29 March 2019. We will be leaving the customs union, and we want to ensure that we can have an independent trade policy. We also want to ensure that we deliver—we are committed to delivering—on our commitment to having no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and that we have as frictionless trade as possible with the European Union. There are a number of ways in which that can be delivered—[Interruption.] There are a number of ways in which that can be delivered, and if the hon. Lady is so interested in the whole question of a customs border, she might like to ask her Front Benchers to come to a decision on what the Labour party policy actually is on this.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The European Scrutiny Committee, which I have the honour to chair, has invited Mr Olly Robbins to appear before the Committee on several occasions since February, but so far this has not been arranged. Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to use her charm to ensure that Mr Robbins does appear, as have already the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Sir Tim Barrow?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend will know, it is not normally the case that any request to a civil servant to appear before a Committee is automatically accepted; decisions are taken about the levels at which civil servants should appear before Committees. As he said, he has had a number of my right hon. Friends appear before his Committee—I remember, I am not sure I can say with fond memory, the time when I appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee when I was Home Secretary—but I will certainly look at the request that he has made.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It was precisely to identify this sort of disparity in public services that I launched the race disparity audit when I became Prime Minister. In some areas that does make for uncomfortable reading for our society, but it is absolutely right that we have done it and it is absolutely right that we then address the issues that it has raised.
The hon. Lady talks about the interaction of people with mental health problems and the police. This is not something that I waited to do something about until the race disparity audit; I did something about it when I was Home Secretary. We have significantly reduced the number of people with mental health problems who are being taken to a cell in a police station as a place of refuge, and we have ensured that there is health support available for the police. As a result, people who are in a mental health crisis are getting better treatment than they did previously. There is more to do, but we have already started to take action.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hopes of the 464 survivors of thalidomide in the United Kingdom, the Thalidomide Trust and the all-party group on thalidomide, which I chair, were significantly depressed at the weekend when we saw the media coverage, particularly in The Sunday Times, suggesting that the German Government are seeking to resile from their verbal pledge to make good the promise to compensate the UK survivors whose mothers were prescribed and took the German-manufactured drug thalidomide. Their lives are shortening, and they need support. Will my right hon. Friend use her good offices to augment the work of the Foreign Office in making the case for UK thalidomide survivors to the German Government so that they can finally get the justice they have for too long been denied?
The Prime Minister
I fully recognise why the survivors of thalidomide were so concerned at the reports that they saw because, although back in 2012 the Department of Health announced an £80 million grant for thalidomide survivors, they of course have been able and are able to apply to the German Contergan Foundation for Disabled Persons for funds. In relation to the particular point my hon. Friend has raised, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas met representatives of the Thalidomide Trust towards the end of last year to discuss this. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is remaining in contact with the trust, and it is pursuing its discussions with the German Government on this point.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady sets out what is obviously a very sad and tragic case in relation to her constituent. I am happy to look at the background of what led to that particular outcome. We all want to make sure that patients are able to be treated in the NHS when they need that treatment, and get the appropriate treatment. That is why we have been putting extra money into the NHS, but, as I say, it is a very sad case that she has outlined, and I am happy to look at the details of it.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
As voters go to the polls tomorrow, could the Prime Minister confirm that a green future is at the heart of our local government policies? Would she agree to meet me and others to look at our aspiration for the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty to become a national park so that we can increase the opportunities afforded for open-air recreation on London’s doorstep?
The Prime Minister
We are protecting our natural environment. We want to leave a cleaner, greener Britain for our children. That is not just something that Conservatives in national Government want to do; it is what Conservatives in local government want to do as well. That is why we launched our 25-year environment plan. I know the beauty of the Chilterns; I enjoy walking in the Chilterns, and I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend and others to discuss her proposal.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been very clear that the blanket 1% cap that has taken place over recent years on public sector pay is not an approach that we are taking in the future. Obviously, Departments are funded at a certain level, and it is for Departments then to come forward with their proposals in relation to pay within their Department.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Today, council tax, on average, costs less in real terms than it did in 2010. Under 13 years of Labour in government, council tax doubled. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the council tax referendum principles that this Government have put in place have been a resounding success?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the facts that he has set out in relation to council tax. That is a result of decisions that have been taken by the Government to have that council tax referendum in place and of Conservative councils actually making decisions to freeze or to lower council tax, or to ensure that it is kept lower than in Labour councils. Conservative councils, on average, cost a typical family £100 less in council tax than councils run by other parties. That is important, and the Government have played their part with the council tax referendum.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has raised an issue I have not seen the details of, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions look at the issue he has raised.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
This afternoon, the Treasury Committee will take evidence from TSB about the recent IT failures, which have left thousands of customers unable to access their accounts and unable to pay their bills, with some very severe consequences. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a robust and reliable banking IT infrastructure is essential in the modern economy? These failures are unfair to businesses that cannot pay in their takings, they are unfair to vulnerable customers, and they are particularly unfair when many banks are still closing branches.
The Prime Minister
I agree that a robust, safe and reliable IT system is essential to underpinning today’s world of modern banking. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the Treasury Committee will ensure, through the evidence they take, that they get to the bottom of what happened in TSB.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Last Saturday night, an 83-year-old woman had a fall at home and was bleeding from a head wound. She waited for an ambulance for nearly three hours. Will the Prime Minister apologise to my constituent and promise the rest of the country that no one else’s elderly mum will suffer like that?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady would like to provide more expansive details, I know the Secretary of State for Health will look very closely into the case that she identifies. I am sorry to hear of the circumstances of her constituent, but we will look into the case.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Last night at 9.08 pm, two men were shot outside Queensbury station on the edge of my constituency. One is dead and the other is in a critical condition. Queensbury station is an important transport hub for the people of Harrow East and Brent North. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the police for their prompt action in securing the area and for the messages of reassurance they are giving to the community today? Will she also take every necessary step to remove guns and knives from society to prevent reoccurrence?
The Prime Minister
I recognise the importance that is attached to Queensbury station, and I join my hon. Friend in commending the actions of the police and emergency services in response to this and other such incidents. He is right on the importance of dealing with offensive weapons, which is why we announced, under my right hon. Friend the previous Home Secretary and taken forward by the current Home Secretary, plans to introduce an offensive weapons Bill. It is why we launched the serious violence strategy and the serious violence taskforce, which brings Ministers and representatives from across this House together with police and others to deal with this issue. It has met for the first time and it will continue to meet to address this important issue.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Order. Points of order come after statements, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows. He has been in the House for quite a while now. We look forward to hearing from him later.
Breast Cancer Screening
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I wish to inform the House of a serious failure that has come to light in the national breast screening programme in England.
The NHS breast screening programme is overseen by Public Health England and is one of the most comprehensive in the world. It screens 2 million people every year, with women between the ages of 50 and 70 receiving a screen every three years up to their 71st birthday. However, earlier this year PHE analysis of trial data from the service found that there was a computer algorithm failure dating back to 2009. The latest estimates I have received from PHE is that, as a result, between 2009 and the start of 2018, an estimated 450,000 women aged between 68 and 71 were not invited to their final breast screening.
At this stage, it is unclear whether any delay in diagnosis will have resulted in any avoidable harm or death, and that is one of the reasons I am ordering an independent review to establish the clinical impact. Our current best estimate—which comes with caveats, as it is based on statistical modelling rather than on patient reviews, and because there is currently no clinical consensus about the benefits of screening for this age group—is that there may be between 135 and 270 women who have had their lives shortened as a result. I am advised that it is unlikely to be more than this range and may be considerably less. However, tragically, there are likely to be some people in this group who would have been alive today if the failure had not happened.
The issue came to light because an upgrade to the breast screening invitation IT system provided improved data to local services on the actual ages of the women receiving screening invitations. This highlighted that some women on the AgeX trial, set up to examine whether women up to the age of 73 could benefit from screening, were not receiving an invitation to their final screen as a 70-year-old. Further analysis of the data quantified the problem and has found a number of linked causes, including issues with the system’s IT and how age parameters are programmed into it. The investigation also found variations in how local services send out invitations to women in different parts of the country.
The existence of a potential issue was brought to the attention of the Department of Health and Social Care by Public Health England in January, although at that stage, its advice was that the risk to patients was limited. Following that, an urgent clinical evaluation took place to determine the extent of harm and the remedial measures necessary. Public Health England escalated the matter to Ministers in March, with clear clinical advice that the matter should not be made public. This was to ensure that a plan could be put in place that ensured any remedies did not overwhelm the existing screening programme and was able to offer proper support for affected patients.
I am now taking the earliest opportunity to update the House on all the remedial measures that have been put in place, which are as follows. First, urgent remedial work to stop the failure continuing has now been completed according to the chief executive of Public Health England. This was finished by 1 April and PHE is clear that the issue is not now affecting any women going forward.
Of the estimated 450,000 women who missed invitations to a scan, 309,000 are estimated to still be alive. Our intention is to contact all those living within the United Kingdom who are registered with a GP before the end of May, with the first 65,000 letters going out this week. Following independent expert clinical advice, the letters will inform all those under 72 that they will automatically be sent an invitation to a catch-up screening. Those aged 72 and over will be given access to a helpline through which they can get clinical advice to help them decide whether a screening is appropriate for their particular situation. This is because for older women, there is a significant risk that screening will pick up non-threatening cancers that may lead to unnecessary and harmful tests and treatment. However, this is an individual choice and in all cases, the wishes of the patients affected will be followed. By sending all the letters to UK residents registered with a GP by the end of May, we hope to reassure anyone who does not receive a letter this month that they are not likely to have been affected.
It is a major priority to do our very best to make sure that the additional scans do not cause any delays in the regular breast screening programme for those under 71, so NHS England has taken major steps to expand the capacity of screening services, and has today confirmed that all women affected who wish to be screened will receive an appointment within the next six months. Of course, we intend the vast majority to be much sooner than that.
We have held helpful discussions with the devolved Administrations to alert them to the issue. Scotland uses a different IT system, and while the systems in Wales and Northern Ireland are similar, neither believe they are affected. However, we are discussing with each of them the best way to reach women who have moved to another part of the UK during this period. This is obviously more complicated, but we are confident that those affected will still be contacted by the end of May.
In addition, and as soon as possible, we will make our best endeavours to contact the appropriate next of kin of those we believe missed a scan and have subsequently died of breast cancer. As well as apologising to the families affected, we would wish to offer any further advice they might find helpful, including the process by which we can establish whether the missed scan is a likely cause of death and compensation is therefore payable. We recognise that this will be incredibly distressing for some families, and we will approach the issue as sensitively as possible.
Irrespective of when the incident started, the fact is that for many years, oversight of our screening programme has not been good enough. Many families will be deeply disturbed by these revelations, not least because there will be some people who receive a letter having had a recent diagnosis of breast cancer. We must also recognise that there may be some who receive a letter having had a recent terminal diagnosis. For them and others, it is incredibly upsetting to know that you did not receive an invitation for screening at the correct time, and totally devastating to hear you may have lost or be about to lose a loved one because of administrative incompetence. So on behalf of the Government, Public Health England and the NHS, I apologise wholeheartedly and unreservedly for the suffering caused. But words alone are not enough. We also need to get to the bottom of precisely how many people were affected, why it actually happened and most importantly, how we can prevent it ever happening again.
Many in this House will also have legitimate questions that need answering: why did the algorithm failure occur in the first place, and how can we guarantee it does not happen again? Why did quality assurance processes not pick up the problem over a decade or more? Were there any warnings, written or otherwise, which should have been heeded earlier? Was the issue escalated to Ministers at the appropriate time? What are the broader patient safety lessons for screening IT systems?
I am therefore commissioning an independent review of the NHS breast screening programme to look at these and other issues, including its processes, IT systems and further changes and improvements that can be made to the system to minimise the risk of any repetition. The review will be chaired by Lynda Thomas, chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Support, and Professor Martin Gore, consultant medical oncologist and professor of cancer medicine at the Royal Mardsen, and is expected to report in six months.
The NHS has made huge progress under Governments of both sides of this House on improving cancer survival rates, which are now at their highest ever. Seven thousand people are alive today who would not have been if mortality rates had remained unchanged from 2010, but this progress makes system failures even more heartbreaking when they happen. Today, everyone in this House will be thinking of families up and down the country who are worried that they may have been affected by this failure. We cannot give all the answers today, but we can commit to take all the necessary steps to give people the information that they need as quickly as possible. Most of all, we want to be able to promise that this will not happen again, so today, the whole House will be united in our resolve to be transparent about what went wrong and to take the necessary actions to learn from the mistakes made. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his personal courtesy in directly briefing me as well. The thoughts of the whole House are with those whose screening was missed and who sadly lost their lives from breast cancer, or who have subsequently developed cancer. Anyone who has had a loved one taken by breast cancer, or indeed any cancer, will know of the great pain and anguish of that loss. I understand that the Secretary of State has referred to estimates, but when the facts are established, will he assure us that each and every case will be looked into sensitively and in a timely manner? Our thoughts also turn to the 450,000 women who were not offered the screening that they should have had, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to contact the 309,000 women who are estimated to be still alive.
Early detection and treatment are vital to reducing breast cancer mortality rates, which was why the AgeX pilots were established in 2009 and rolled out nationally from late 2010, when the Government expanded the screening programme. Given the problems that Public Health England has identified with its randomisation algorithm for those trials, will the Secretary of State tell us whether any evaluations and assessments of those pilots had been done by the Department before the national roll-out of the programme?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s candour in questioning why this problem was not picked up—eight years is a long time for an error of this magnitude to go undetected. Did the Department receive any warnings in that time? Is there any record of how many women raised concerns that they had not received the appropriate screening? Were there any missed opportunities to correct this mistake? He said graciously that oversight of the screening programme was not good enough. How does he intend to improve that oversight? What other trials are in place across the NHS and is he satisfied with their oversight?
We welcome the establishment of the national inquiry. Will it be hosted and staffed by the Department of Health or another Department? In the interests of transparency, will the Secretary of State place in the Library the Public Health England analysis from this year that identified the problem with the algorithm? Although the parallels are not exact, where the NHS offers bowel cancer screenings for women between the ages of 60 and 74 and cervical cancer screenings for women up to 64, what assurances can he give that the systems supporting those services are running properly, and what checks are being carried out to make sure that nobody misses out on screenings for other cancers?
The Secretary of State says that NHS England will take steps to expand the capacity of screening services. Will he say a little more about that? What extra resources will be made available to help the NHS provide the extra screening now needed? He will know that the NHS faces huge workforce pressures—according to Macmillan, there are more than 400 vacancies in cancer nursing, the Royal College of Radiologists has found that 25% of NHS breast screening programme units are understaffed, and there are vacancies for radiographers too. Will he assure us that the NHS will have the staff to carry out this extra work, and may I gently suggest that, if it needs extra international cancer staff, he ensures that the Home Office does not block their visas?
More broadly, does the Secretary of State share my concerns that screening rates are falling generally? The proportion of women aged 50 to 70 taking up routine breast screening invitations fell to 71.1% last year—the lowest rate in the last decade. There is also a wide regional variation in screening rates. The number of women attending breast screening in England is as low as 55.4% in some areas, and, as the all-party group on breast cancer found, there are stark inequalities in NHS services in England, with women in the worst-affected areas more than twice as likely to die from breast cancer under the age of 75. Beyond the problems identified today, what more are the Government doing to make sure that screening rates rise again so that cancer care for patients is the best it can be?
Finally, many of our constituents over whom breast cancer has cast a shadow will feel anxious and worried tonight. Members on both sides of the House want to see cancer prevented and those who have it fully supported. Transparency and clarity are vital. Will the Secretary of State undertake to keep the House fully informed of developments to offer our constituents the peace of mind they deserve?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone, and I want to reassure him that each and every case will be looked at in detail. The sad truth is that we cannot establish whether not being invited to a screen might have been critical for someone without looking at their individual case notes, and in some cases, sadly, establishing a link will mean looking at the medical case notes of someone who has died.
It is important to explain that the reason for these estimates, which are much broader than we would like, is that there is no clinical consensus about the efficacy of breast screening for older women. As I understand it, that is because the incidences of cancers among older women are higher, but a higher proportion of them are not malignant or life-threatening, which makes it particularly difficult. It is also the case that breast cancer treatment has improved dramatically in recent years and so it is less important than it was to pick up breast cancer early. None the less, we believe it will have made a difference to some women, which is why it is such a serious issue.
The evaluations of the AgeX trial, which brought this to light at the start of the year, have been continued by Oxford University throughout the trial period. I am not aware of any evaluations shared with the Department that could have brought this problem to light, but obviously the inquiry will look into that. We need to find ways to improve oversight, and modern IT systems can greatly improve safety and reliability—in fact it was during the upgrading of the IT system that this problem was brought to light.
I will share with the hon. Gentleman the advice the Department received from Public Health England in January, which was the first time we were alerted to the issue, and we will certainly provide any extra resources the NHS needs to undertake additional cancer screening. One of our biggest priorities is that women between the ages of 50 and 70, when the screens are of their highest clinical value, do not find their regular screens delayed by the extra screening we do to put this problem right. He is right that one thing that has come to light is the regional variation in how the programme is operated. It was previously operated by the old primary care trusts, under the supervision of strategic health authorities, and then brought under the remit of Public Health England, but the regional variations have continued for a long time, so this problem will be worse in some parts of the country than in others. I undertake to keep the House fully informed.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the commitments and actions he has set out. Colleagues across the House will be thinking of the hundreds of thousands of women not called for their final screening test. They now need consistent, high-quality, evidence-based guidance so that they can make an informed choice about whether to take up the offer of screening. There is much material available setting out pictorially and clearly how they can weigh up the risks and benefits. Will he assure the House not only that a helpline will be in place but that it will be backed up with high-quality material available directly to patients and their GPs, many of whom will be directly counselling women following this news?
Mr Hunt
Yes, and I can reassure my hon. Friend that GPs will be briefed and that people will be referred for additional support to clinically trained staff at Macmillan Cancer Support and Breast Cancer Care. We have to be transparent with patients, however, about the absence of a clear clinical consensus on the efficacy of scanning for women in their 70s. The fairest thing is to explain that different people have different views and allow them to come to an individual choice, and that is what we are doing. It will of course cause considerable distress to those given that dilemma, but if anyone wants a scan, we will do that scan.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for my advance briefing, but, as a breast surgeon and co-chair of the all-party group on breast cancer, I gently take issue with his comment that we do not need to diagnose breast cancer early because of the changes in treatment. I would not like that message to stand: diagnosing early is still crucial.
Obviously this is horrendous for the women involved, but it will also create anxiety for women who are not aware whether they are involved and who might not have been part of the trial. Reassuring them will be a challenge. I welcome the independent review into how it happened and how it went so long without being picked up, and I am interested to know what will happen with the trial now—the loss of almost 500,000 women from it might have a major impact.
Given the normal pick-up rate of breast screening, approximately 2,500 cancers would have been picked up across England in the last round. As the Secretary of State says, this issue did not apply in Scotland, but some of the women affected might have moved and settled in Scotland, so when did he inform the Scottish Government?
The Secretary of State said that the Department knew in January. As far as I can establish, officers in Scotland were informed of a minor issue in March, were told only last week that it was actually more major, and were not told that it might affect women who now live in Scotland. There has clearly been preparation and talk about funding in England, but how many women who live in Scotland have been identified, and what efforts have been made to track them down? What preparations for funding or the expansion of services have been made for Scotland and, indeed, for the other devolved nations?
As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), radiology, and particularly breast radiology, is a huge shortage specialty. What funds will be provided to ensure that it can be delivered without messing up the normal system?
Will women who do not receive a letter in the next few weeks be able to telephone, or can the Secretary of State really guarantee that if they have not heard by the end of the month, they are clear? As a doctor, I find that a bit scary.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady has asked some important questions. I am sorry if what I said was not clear, but I do not think I said that there was no need to diagnose early. It is obviously incredibly important for cancer to be diagnosed as early as possible. What I said was that I had been advised that in many cases, because of advances in breast cancer treatment, it would not make a difference to the particular women affected in this case. I fully accept that in some cases it will, and of course it is very important to diagnose all cancers as early as possible.
I will find out from Oxford University the dates on which it expects to report the full outcome of the AgeX trial. Obviously we all want to hear the results as soon as possible. I will also inform the hon. Lady of the exact date on which Scottish Government officials were informed. Let me reassure her that if there are any additional costs to the Scottish health system, it will of course be recompensed.
We do not think that major pressures will be created in the Scottish screening programme, and we are confident that we will be able to contact everyone in the UK who is registered with a GP—whether in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England—by the end of May. We have had very productive discussions with Scottish officials about the IT exchange that will be necessary to ensure that women living in Scotland also receive their letters by the end of May. We cannot guarantee that every single one of them will have been contacted by then—some will have moved abroad, and some will not be registered with a GP for whatever reason—but we think that we can contact the vast majority, and the helpline will be open for anyone to call if they think they may have been affected.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I think that Members on both sides of the House have appreciated the measured way in which my right hon. Friend has come to the House and revealed detailed commitments to helping the women who have suffered as a result of this terrible, unfortunate IT event. I also think that the measured response from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) properly reflected the concern that everyone shares.
My right hon. Friend referred to additional screening capacity to ensure that there is no impact on other, younger women. What undertakings can he give to any women who have been affected, and who find that they are suffering from a malignant growth in their breast, that they will be able to receive the appropriate treatment as rapidly as possible?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he did on cancer when he was working at the Department of Health, and for his broader work in supporting the hospital sector. He is absolutely right: additional people will come forward for treatment, so one of the other matters that we have been looking into is our treatment capacity. We certainly intend to ensure that people are treated within the normal short period if a cancer is detected, and the first step in that process is to ensure that everyone has a scan in the next six months. During that period, we will make certain that they are able to look forward to the same rapid treatment that all other people whose cancers are detected can be confident of receiving.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
We have an ethical duty to get screening right, because we are inviting well people into our health service and offering them an intervention. May I ask the Secretary of State whether the uptake of screening by 68 to 71-year-olds during the period concerned was any lower than expected? If it was less than expected, why was that not properly analysed?
Mr Hunt
I do not know the answer to that question, but I will look into it. If we find that the uptake was lower than expected in that age group, it will be a very important clue about something that may have gone wrong, and I am sure that the review panel will want to examine it. The overall uptake rate is about 80%, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should look into what the rates were in specific age cohorts.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his measured statement, and for all he is doing to ensure that the women affected are given the treatment and support that they need. I particularly welcome his independent review of the NHS screening programme. Will he also be looking at quality assurance programmes more widely within the NHS in relation to screening programmes? It is deeply worrying that the NHS did not identify this error for more than a decade, and there may be a need to review those programmes.
Mr Hunt
I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The truth is that we do have a quality assurance programme, and it failed to pick up this problem for far too long. We need to understand why that happened. We think that a single IT mistake was made at the very start of the programme, and we understand that sometimes such mistakes are devilishly difficult to identify. None the less, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams), there must have been clues that could have been picked up—or so one would think—and we need to get to the bottom of that.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I think that anyone who listened to the statement will be devastated and appalled to learn about this fatal failure, especially given that the UK’s breast cancer survival rate is below the EU average. The Secretary of State talked about the advice line that might be available to people who had been affected, but has he given any consideration to any emotional or mental health support that should be extended to those people and their families?
Mr Hunt
We are indeed talking to the charities operating in this sector about how we can best provide all kinds of support, including mental health support, as well as clinical guidance. We often talk in the House about the challenges facing the NHS, but it is important to note that breast cancer is an area in which survival rates have been improving, and have actually been catching up with those in other European countries. The NHS deserves great credit for that, despite today’s very serious failing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the way in which he brought this very bad news to the House, and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) for the way in which he responded to it.
As my right hon. Friend will know, breast cancer is not just about survival nowadays; it is also about quality of life after treatment. Will his contact with those who have been affected extend to those who have been treated, but who may have had to be treated in a more radical way than might have been the case had their cancers been picked up earlier?
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the work he is doing to ensure that women who are affected are supported and treated promptly, but what is he doing to ensure that people who are due for cervical and other NHS screening programmes are being properly called, and can he tell women who are affected—and, no doubt, very worried today—what they should do now? Whom should they call, should they be waiting for a letter, and how soon can they expect a scan if they wish to have one?
Mr Hunt
According to the advice that I have received so far, there is no read-across to other screening programmes, but obviously the independent review panel will look into that as it seeks to examine all aspects of the issue. We have made the commitment today that we will invite for scans all those who either should be scanned or should consider whether they wish to have a scan, and will offer them a date before the end of October, although we hope that in the vast majority of cases it will be much sooner than that.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Secretary? Having long since passed the ages he mentioned, I certainly was never invited for a screening; I had to ask for one, and I eventually got the screening in England.
Mr Hunt
We have not had conversations at ministerial level, but we have had conversations at official level. The Welsh Administration do not believe this problem has affected them, even though Wales was using the same IT system we were using in England. Our concern is about people living in England who are registered with a Welsh GP or people living in Wales registered with an English GP. That is why we are having constructive discussions to share IT information and make sure everyone in England or Wales registered with a GP will get that letter.
To respond to the earlier question about what people should do now, anyone is free to call the helpline number, which will be made public today, but we are hoping to get the letters out as quickly as possible over the next four weeks, during the month of May, so that everyone can be pretty confident that they are okay if they have not received one of those letters.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today that there will be an independent review; it is important that women have confidence in the screening programme. As someone who worked in breast cancer for over 10 years before being elected, I gently say to women that the screening mammogram is just one tool in the early detection of breast cancer and that if they notice a change in the interval of three years between mammograms they must seek medical advice. Also, not all mammograms pick up breast cancers, so they must not just rely on screening mammograms.
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent advice, which gives me the opportunity to repeat that the advice for women about looking after their breasts and making sure they are alert to potential breast cancer remains unchanged. All women should take great care over this and should always come forward to see their GP or local cancer service if they have any concerns or doubts.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. There is no other way to describe what has happened than utterly, utterly heart-breaking, and it is hard to imagine what some of the worst affected families will be going through over the next few weeks.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his assurance that capacity will be expanded to ensure that women can now access screening, but unless he puts further resources into the system, other people will go to the back of the queue as a consequence. In my region of the north-west, one in five posts are currently vacant, and for far too many women in this country where they live currently determines whether they live or die. So will the Secretary of State put in the additional resources needed to make sure all women can get the screening they need when they need it?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. We have many other occasions to have a broader discussion about resourcing of the NHS, but I recognise what she says: in the specific situation we are in now, with the people who will need additional scans and additional treatments over and above what the NHS would have otherwise done, we will need to find additional resources to make sure others are not disadvantaged.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I add my words of support to the Secretary of State for the way he has approached this issue, and to Opposition Members for their approach too?
On the scope of the independent review, will it look at other screening programmes? It might be the case that this particular issue is not replicated, but I think people will want assurances about other screening programmes. Also, as the NHS looks to use IT as a powerful way to combat illness and disease, will the Secretary of State make sure that appropriate checks are in place so that there are proper assurances in the system and these kinds of problems do not arise in the future?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I assure him that the review being done by Lynda Thomas, one of the most senior cancer campaigners in the country, and Professor Gore, one of the most senior oncologists in the country, will look at what lessons can be learned for the entire cancer programme, and not just at the specific issue of why this particular IT problem occurred.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The statement the Secretary of State has made today is truly shocking, and many women and their families will be very worried this afternoon. The Secretary of State said that it is estimated that 309,000 women in this group are still alive and that the first 65,000 letters are going out this week. Why are the letters not going out this afternoon to all 309,000 women? Why are we having to wait until the end of May to put at rest the minds of these women and their families?
Mr Hunt
That is a reasonable question, and I assure the hon. Lady that we are sending these letters out as quickly as we possibly can, but we felt that, even though we are not able to send them all out this afternoon—for example, because we have to reconcile with the clinical databases in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for women who have moved to those areas and that is going to take place later this month—it was important to come to the House as soon as possible, without delay, to inform Members that this was happening. There will be a period of a few weeks during which people will have to wait to see if they get one of the letters, and we fully appreciate that that will cause a lot of worry to the women involved.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
This is a good time to pay tribute to all the excellent cancer support charities, counselling services, Maggie’s centres and so forth up and down the country. I am reassured that the Secretary of State has said he will be working with them, but will he commit this afternoon to contacting all these charities proactively and providing them with the resources they need to meet what will obviously be an increased demand over the coming weeks and months?
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
When did the Secretary of State or the Minister with direct responsibility for screening last ask their officials about the accuracy of the screening programme and the robustness of the checks and assurances in place to ensure it was working properly and efficiently? When, before January this year, did he last ask his officials that?
Mr Hunt
I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman with a detailed answer to that question. Ministers were informed of this issue in March, and we are responsible, as Ministers, for the effective functioning of that system—in the way all Ministers have responsibility for their various areas—so one of the questions we need to ask is whether the right escalation procedures and checks and balances were in place so that Ministers could be informed if there was likely to be a problem.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
My constituency has many breast cancer sufferers who were victims of the rogue surgeon Mr Paterson, so I thank my right hon. Friend for setting up an inquiry chaired by the Bishop of Norwich, in which victims feel properly listened to, and, most importantly, are being compensated. Will any of the women caught up in this current situation who might have been harmed be eligible for compensation?
Mr Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for suggesting the Bishop of Norwich as a good person to help in the Paterson review, and the answer to her question is yes: if, because of a failing by the NHS, harm has happened, people will be eligible for compensation, and we will do all the necessary work to establish whether that is the case.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Breast cancer screening makes a real difference to outcomes for breast cancer patients by diagnosing early, so I applaud the Secretary of State for saying he will look at ways of improving performance in this area across the country, but what is he going to do to try to make women who have moved out of the UK who might be affected aware of what has happened?
Mr Hunt
We will look at whether we are able to get in contact with people and will get in contact whenever we can, but there is of course a helpline through which anyone can contact us. It is also important to say that, according to the advice I have received, missing the final screening will in many cases not make a difference to a patient’s cancer or the treatment they receive, but we will do everything we can to support everyone who thinks they might have been affected.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
While it will be for the review to investigate and report on why the fault with the algorithm was not discovered earlier, can the Secretary of State throw any more light on the circumstances in which it eventually came to be discovered? He said, for example, that it was in the course of a computer upgrade. Obviously, the circumstances that led to its discovery could be a pointer towards greater safeguards for the future.
Mr Hunt
That is a very good point. The original issue—or the original potential issue—was identified by people working on the AgeX trial for Oxford University, who then brought it to the attention of Public Health England in early January. One of the issues seems to have been the confusion about whether the scans stopped when someone turned 70 or whether they should carry on until their 71st birthday. That is why we think the original coding error happened, but obviously this is a matter for the review, and we need to learn everything from it.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
This is a hugely upsetting and serious issue, and I commend the Secretary of State for the great compassion and sensitivity with which he has delivered this very bad news for women throughout the United Kingdom. He mentioned the fact that the Northern Ireland breast screening scheme was slightly different, but he will appreciate that he absolutely must say more to reassure women in Northern Ireland at this time because we have no Health Minister. May we please have more reassurance for women in Northern Ireland?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for making that fair and important point. I will make a special effort in the case of Northern Ireland to understand what the situation is and to ensure that it is publicised to the people of Northern Ireland. Absent politicians are able to do that.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I also thank the Secretary of State for his measured and sensitive tone in delivering this afternoon’s statement. He mentioned that the figures of 450,000 and 309,000 were estimates. What is not an estimate, however, is that 65,000 letters will be going out at the end of this month. Will he assure us that his team in the Department will write to Members of Parliament to indicate the number of women affected in each constituency, so that we can prepare for the inevitable contacts that constituents will make with us?
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I hope that the independent review will investigate this, but is the Secretary of State aware of any instances of GPs inquiring why patients who should have had a final breast screen were not invited to have one?
Mr Hunt
That is a very good question. I am not aware of any such instances, but that is exactly what we want to look at in the review. It does seem strange that people who were expecting to be invited did not come forward, and that their not receiving an invitation did not set any hares running. That is one of the things that we need to look at.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How many cancers are detected for every 10,000 screenings, and what is the clinical consensus on the effectiveness of that?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend is testing my clinical knowledge here; there will be other people in the Chamber who are better able to answer that question. I am ready to be corrected by eminent experts on this, but my understanding is that, in relation to women in their 70s, for every 1,000 women there are around 12 cancers, and of those 12 cancers, around three are potentially life-threatening.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Let us be clear that this is an utterly desperate situation. We know that some women may well have died who might not have done had they been identified. However, I would like to pay tribute to the Secretary of State’s statement. It was transparent, it ’fessed up and it made clear what the Department of Health and Social Care will be doing to remedy the situation. I appreciate that. What will the Department do to raise awareness of breast cancer screening among women who are not currently registered with a GP?
Mr Hunt
That is an important question. We have the Be Clear on Cancer campaign, which is a national advertising campaign but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) said, it is important for people to recognise that, if we are going to protect them from cancer, they will have to take an active and proactive role in detecting any cancers they might have. Important though the screening service might be, they cannot rely on the screening service, because their own experience of how their own body is functioning is the most important detection method of all.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and for the urgency and sensitivity with which he is treating this issue. Women all over the country will be very anxious at hearing this news. Will he guarantee that all women who did not get invited for their scan will now be guaranteed their screening?
Mr Hunt
We are absolutely guaranteeing that all women affected who are still alive will be invited to have a screening if they want it. Only those under 72 will automatically be sent a date and time for their screening. Those over 72 will be invited to talk to the helpline so that they can form a judgment as to whether a screening is appropriate, but anyone who wants one will get one.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I should like to thank the Secretary of State for his comprehensive response. Can he advise me how many women who have moved to Scotland might be affected? If not, will he work double time to ensure that those who have been affected and who have moved to Scotland will get their letters timeously within the correct period?
Mr Hunt
I believe that the IT work, which is a collaboration between the Scottish NHS and the English NHS, will be completed in the week of 15 May. That is why we are confident that we will be able to get the letters out to people registered with Scottish GPs who have moved from England by the end of May, which is the same timescale as for getting the letters out to people living in England. We will then know that number, and I will of course let the hon. Lady know.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
My grandmother died of breast cancer a few years ago, and my heart goes out to all women affected by this fatal IT malfunction. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s assurance that he is going to do everything he possibly can to ensure that this does not happen again. Has any consideration been given to the impact of this on GP surgeries? I expect that, during the next few days while women wait for their letters, they might make appointments with their GPs in anticipation, and in fear.
Mr Hunt
Yes, we are briefing all GP surgeries and all GPs about what the appropriate response is, because we recognise that that might happen. Of course, GPs are there for people to talk to at any time if they have concerns, and some people may choose to do that. We have also set up a specialist helpline that will be open seven days a week from 8 am to 8 pm, where people will be able to get advice straightaway by picking up the phone. We think that that will be the most practical option for most people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. As colleagues know, I like to call everyone on statements, and I do not wish to make an exception today, but I remind the House that we also have a ten-minute rule motion and a very heavily subscribed Opposition day debate. In pledging to try to get all remaining colleagues in, I ask them to do us all the great favour of being extremely brief. I am sure that Mr Shannon has in mind just a short sentence without any preamble or subordinate clauses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his compassion and care. Is he aware of any discussions on the continued alignment with the European Medicines Agency’s drug licensing process to ensure that our breast cancer patients, and indeed all cancer patients, have access to the benefits of the European trials and UK citizens are able to participate in clinical trials? This is very important.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) will be a master of the pithy question because he was educated magnificently in my own constituency.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
And I am very proud to have been.
The Secretary of State knows well and cares deeply about safety matters. As he also knows, I have spent too much of my time with the clinicians in the cancer centres of Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells. Will the review perhaps look at administrative and back-office resources and at whether they play any part in improving survival rates?
Mr Hunt
The whole House is thinking of my hon. Friend who, like many people in this country, is going through a huge amount of personal pressure as cancer strikes close to home. He is right that back-office systems are often poor when it comes to contacting patients, which is in contrast to the superb clinical care that we are usually able to offer, so we will absolutely consider that as part of the review.
Mr Speaker
I wish the hon. Gentleman well in the period ahead. I was not aware of those personal circumstances, but the whole House will wish his nearest and dearest all the best.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As I understand it, Public Health England, which is of course operationally independent of Ministers, runs the screening programme, so what assurances have the chair and chief executive of that important organisation given my right hon. Friend that the actions that he has usefully set out today will be completed within the required deadlines to meet the obvious and legitimate demands of patients?
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, I know that his Department takes breast cancer seriously, so the Secretary of State and the ministerial team will no doubt be as disappointed as I am that the statement was necessary today. However, will he set out what the women affected need to do and, importantly, what additional steps can be taken to reassure and support those women?
Mr Hunt
Anyone who has concerns as of today is welcome to call the helpline, but the women whom we know have been affected will be contacted by the end of the month. The first thing that many people will do is take action on receipt of a letter. If they are under 72, the letter will tell them that they will shortly be sent a date for a catch-up scan. If they are over 72, it will tell them how they can get advice as to whether that is appropriate for them.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the tone of the Secretary of State’s statement, even though its contents will be devastating for many people and families across my constituency. Will he confirm what engagement there will be with groups such as local health watches and support networks to ensure that the information that he has given is relayed to them and their users?
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on blood cancer, I am pleased that the Secretary of State talked about the lessons that will be learned from this breast screening error. Will he assure me that what is picked up will inform future diagnostic programmes?
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Tragically, it seems that the flaws were of long standing—I think the Secretary of State referred to a decade or more. Notwithstanding the length of time that has passed, will he assure the House that lessons will be learned that relate back to the procurement and design decisions that were made at the outset?
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I welcome the compassionate tone of the Opposition spokesman and the Secretary of State, and I particularly welcome the fact that he personally said sorry. Will he do all that he can to ensure that faith is restored in such technologies, because they do an awful lot of good when they work?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most important ways of getting that change in mindset is by giving patients more control. Later this year, we will be offering all NHS patients an app through which they can access their medical record, and that should start to become a way in which people take control of their healthcare destiny, including such things as invitations to screenings for all cancers and many other public health measures.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
While Stockport is one of the best areas for cancer identification, there will be concern that some people may have missed a routine call for screening. Last year, my constituents in Heald Green were particularly affected when their local breast cancer screening provision was relocated to Macclesfield District Hospital, which is over an hour away. As we address the screening issue, does my right hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that breast cancer screening is local and accessible?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
My friend Emma Agnew, a woman in her own right but also known as “Mrs Aggers” because she is married to the cricket commentator Jonathan Agnew, is one of a remarkable group of women who have faced breast cancer and beaten it, but it must be said that she had huge support from her husband, and our thoughts are also with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). Emma had mammography last February and thought all was good, but she kept on checking her breasts. Screening is wonderful, but she checked her breasts, which was why she knew something was wrong in July. She was immediately diagnosed, she received fantastic treatment on the NHS and she is a survivor. Will the Secretary of State reiterate that we must all keep an eye out for cancer, whatever age we are?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his tone. This was clearly a failure not only of IT, but of quality assurance, so will he commission a review of quality assurance right across the health service to ensure that it is as effective as it should be?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend may well be right that we need to do that, but what I would like to do first is to see the outcome of this review, what the lessons are and what precisely it says about the quality assurance that applied in this case, and then make a judgment about the implications for the rest of the NHS.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the genuine personal concern that he has shown today and for his determination to get to the bottom of the matter. Will he continue to keep the House and, more importantly, the public and any women affected informed as further information comes to light?
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
An additional 200,000 to 300,000 women could be seeking breast cancer screening within the next six months, which works out roughly at an additional 2,000 women a day. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to the women who were due a screening anyway that their treatment will not be delayed as a result of the additional need?
Mr Hunt
That is an important question. One of our top priorities has been to construct a resolution to the problem that will not have an impact on the regular screening programme for women between the ages of 50 and 70, which is so important. All I can say is that a huge amount of trouble has been taken to try to ensure that we are putting additional capacity into the system to deal with the extra work.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I also welcome the compassionate tone used by hon. Members on both sides of the House today, and my thoughts are with all those affected. Will the Secretary of State reassure those in west Oxfordshire and beyond who will be concerned that this IT failure may be present in other critical systems that he will do everything possible to ensure that that is not the case?
Points of Order
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is clear from media coverage that a former senior member of staff in this place has felt unable to speak out about serious alleged wrongdoing because of an agreement signed with the House of Commons when they left. The Women and Equalities Committee is currently investigating the way agreements can affect individuals’ ability to speak out, or their perceived ability to speak out.
Mr Speaker, I understand that, as Chair of the House of Commons Commission, you are the ultimate employer of House of Commons staff. What steps will you be taking to make it clear to staff, both current and former, that they can speak out about wrongdoing experienced while working in this place? Can I ask whether you will be making a personal statement, given your involvement in these further allegations that potentially have the effect of undermining the reputation of this House?
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving notice of this point of order—I am conscious of her and her Committee’s interest in the subject of non-disclosure agreements—and for giving me the opportunity to reassure her and current and former staff of the House.
Let me be clear: current and former staff are not constrained by any agreements from talking freely and confidentially to the independent inquiry into bullying and harassment, which is being conducted by Dame Laura Cox, QC, and I hope that they will do so.
I also understand that the Clerk of the House has this morning provided the right hon. Lady with a note on the standard terms of compromise agreements, now called settlement agreements, between the House and staff who leave under individual arrangements—matters in which, I should emphasise, I am not myself involved and never have been. He, that is to say the Clerk of the House, has explained that these are not non-disclosure agreements, in the sense generally used, and do not in any way seek to prevent disclosure of wrongdoing on public interest grounds—i.e. whistleblowing. I am asking the Clerk to make this note more widely available.
As for myself, I say to the right hon. Lady and to the House that I have made a public statement, to which I have nothing to add.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the risk of pushing my luck, are you prepared, at least in the context of the personal statement you have already made, to confirm that the great majority of members of staff in your office have served you for a substantial period of years and that the great majority of those who have left your service during your speakership have left on perfectly amicable terms?
Mr Speaker
I am very happy to confirm both. I have a superb team of dedicated, effective and long-serving staff, five of whom have served me for a collective total of over 40 years. I am also happy to confirm that the great majority of people who have left my service have done so on perfectly amicable terms.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a strange point of order. Can you confirm that, unless a complaint has actually been made and a process has actually begun, it would be quite invidious for you to have to comment on matters or allegations that are reported in the press and elsewhere? It would not be fair on the person being alleged against, and it certainly would not be fair to any complainants, which is why I think it is right that we are talking about future processes. Until such complaints come forward, it is very difficult for all of us as hon. Members, and especially for you, to engage with this, beyond the limited statement you have already made.
Mr Speaker
In the two cases to which public reference has been made, there has been nonesuch. It is absolutely right, of course, that work should be taken forward under the auspices of the Leader of the House with a view to presenting policies for the approval of the House, including, very importantly, an independent grievance procedure. I am on record on that matter on a number of occasions, and I gave evidence to the cross-party inquiry. My support for thoroughgoing change is very well known and has been oft-repeated. I am happy to take the opportunity to repeat that support today.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on how to secure the correction of a statement made by the Government. In September 2017, the Cabinet Office wrote that
“alleged electoral fraud through voter impersonation more than doubled between 2014 and 2016”.
That statement was later used to justify the Government’s voter identity trials, which are taking place at the local elections in some parts of the country tomorrow.
The UK Statistics Authority stated yesterday that the Government have misled the public to believe that voter fraud by impersonation has risen. Although the number of alleged cases of impersonation rose from 21 to 44 between 2014 and 2016, the total number of votes cast in those years rose from 29 million to 64 million, and the number of cases subsequently dropped off to 27 in 2017.
Mr Speaker, can you advise me on what I can do to ensure the Government correct their misleading statement?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, whom I thank for giving me notice that she wished to raise the matter. She has raised it, and she has put her concern very forcefully on the record. That concern will have been heard on the Treasury Bench, and a Minister is welcome to respond if they wish to do so.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I will be brief. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for her courtesy in also letting me know of her letter in advance of this point of order. I am also grateful for the letter itself, which highlights the importance of the pilots that are taking place tomorrow to safeguard the security of our electoral system. I am happy to commit to answering her letter in due course.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Minister for that clear reply. It is, of course, the case that what Members say in this place—this applies equally to Ministers and to non-Ministers—is a matter of their individual responsibility, rather than something upon which I can adjudicate. If there is error, it is the responsibility of the Member to correct the record. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her courtesy and speed in coming to the Dispatch Box.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I submitted three named day questions on 18 April for answer on 24 April, some of which covered the Opposition day motion that is to follow, including asking when Ministers were involved in the destruction of Windrush landing cards. What is your view and expectation, and this House’s view and expectation, of Ministers meeting the timetable for named day questions, given that I have not yet received an answer? When can I expect any Home Secretary to come forward with an answer to those written questions?
Mr Speaker
I am not psychic, but my response to the hon. Gentleman is to say that, under successive recent Governments, a greater premium has started to be placed upon the timeliness and substantive content of answers to colleagues’ parliamentary questions. Ordinarily, the Leader of the House would tend to see it as part of his or her responsibility—currently her responsibility—to chase errant Ministers who fail timeously to reply to questions, and there is, at best, a healthy competition between Government Departments as to which can do so to maximum satisfaction.
Certainly if there is a named day question, that question should be answered on time. I am frankly disappointed if the hon. Gentleman has not had that service. What I would say to him is, first, it is quite possible—I think he knows this—that, as a result of airing the matter in the Chamber today, a reply might be more speedily forthcoming than would otherwise have been the case.
Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman wished to follow the practice of the late Sir Gerald Kaufman, he might be minded to table a written question asking a Minister when they intended to reply to his earlier named day question. In Sir Gerald’s experience, publicly reminding a Minister that an answer had not been received tended to elicit the said answer.
I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, more widely to colleagues, perhaps particularly to new Members across the House.
Bill Presented
Tenant Fees Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary James Brokenshire, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr David Lidington, Secretary Sajid Javid, Secretary David Gauke, Secretary Greg Clark and Mrs Heather Wheeler, presented a Bill to make provision prohibiting landlords and letting agents from requiring certain payments to be made or certain other steps to be taken; to make provision about the payment of holding deposits; to make provision about enforcement and about the lead enforcement authority; to amend the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 about information to be provided by letting agents and the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 about client money protection schemes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 203) with explanatory notes (Bill 203-EN).
Victims of Terrorism (Pensions and Other Support)
Wednesday 2nd May 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Victims of Terrorism (Pensions and Other Support) Bill 2017-19 View all Victims of Terrorism (Pensions and Other Support) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about support for victims who have been severely injured or bereaved as a result of acts of terrorism by an unconnected person or organisation in the United Kingdom; to establish a review of pension support for such victims; to require that review to make proposals for additional support taking account of the effects on occupational pension provision for such victims; and for connected purposes.
It is an absolute privilege to present this ten-minute rule Bill on an issue that I, and my colleagues, care very deeply about and that I have been involved with for many years. It is particularly poignant that this month marks the first anniversary of the Manchester Arena bombing, an appalling act of terrorism that has touched, and continues to touch, so many hundreds of people in its brutal impact.
When a terrorist attack happens, it rightly unites our nation in shared revulsion and condemnation. The headlines show the appalling and shocking events. The voices of those hurt, the pictures of chaos and distress from the scene, and the stories of those lost are rightly given prominence across our media platforms. We stand united in grief, as the images of horror and destruction are shown on television screens, computers and newspapers. Thoughts, prayers and best wishes are sent. People post and change their social media profiles to images of solidarity. Yet how quickly after the headlines have faded the acuteness of the shock and horror dissipates for many; the rest of the world, it seems, moves on. But for those most deeply impacted, it is often the end of their world as they knew it. Their lives have been shattered. They continue to suffer the loss of a loved one, with a huge human-shaped gap in their lives: a loving child, spouse, sister or brother, mother or father, friend, gone in the most brutal of ways. Tears continue to fall long after the media frenzy has passed.
There are those whose journey begins only once the headlines change and the profile pictures revert—that long painful process of recovery from severe physical injuries. For others, the mental health pressures of the trauma they experienced or witnessed may take many years to manifest, blighting lives, relationships and hope. In Northern Ireland, we have been disproportionately impacted by terrorism. Those violent attacks and atrocities made victims from all religions, races, faiths and creeds. Compassion for their needs should be something that unites us all, regardless of political opinion and view, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with my colleagues in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and with colleagues from across this House.
We have seen at first hand in Northern Ireland that the needs of victims often last a lifetime. I believe the United Kingdom should aspire to be the global leader in how we treat our victims of terrorism, which is why, in this Bill, I am calling for a comprehensive review of the support we give to all our victims of terrorism across the UK. The terrorism that impacted so significantly in Northern Ireland also destroyed lives across the United Kingdom, from London to Warrington, Birmingham and beyond. Nor is the issue of the victims of terrorism simply one of legacy; sadly, this is a continuing threat and reality. How we remember the wrongs of the past and support those who were hurt the most should be the very hallmark of what we are as a society. This is about compassion. Victims must not be forgotten. It is right and proper that their needs are addressed, and this work should be led from the very top, from our Government. A comprehensive review leading to enhanced support and clear actions can make us a world leader in the care and support that we give.
There are a number of distinct issues that I want to touch on briefly, many of which are based on our experience in Northern Ireland, the first of which is the needs of the bereaved. In any atrocity, the families and loved ones should be treated with compassion and care. Timely information and support services should be provided as quickly as possible. The trauma and distress of losing a loved one in such a sudden and violent way brings about particular challenges. Counselling and bereavement services must be available where and when they are needed. Such a loss can also create a sudden change of family circumstances and financial hardship.
I have also had the opportunity to speak to those victims bereaved and injured as a result of Libyan-supplied Semtex. Much work has been done to try to secure support and compensation for victims. I strongly urge the Government to look afresh and urgently at the proposals seeking to support victims in need. I welcome the engagements so far, but now is the time for action. A review should look into not only the options of how to secure moneys from the Libyan Government, but how support can happen now, while those negotiations are ongoing.
Secondly, a review must examine the mental health legacy of terrorism and violent trauma. Over recent years, a number of key studies, particularly in Northern Ireland, have examined the profound impact of terrorism and violent trauma on mental health, which often does not manifest itself until many, many years later. Rates of self-harm, suicidal ideation, rates of suicide, substance abuse and family break-up are all considerably higher among those who suffered the trauma of terrorism. The review must look at how mental health supports can be put in place, both at community and NHS level, to identify and address trauma in victims, and build on the incredible work that organisations already do across the UK in this field.
Thirdly, the review should examine the impact of dealing with a terrorist attack—usually its aftermath—on our emergency services and first responders to the scene. Over recent decades, we have all become much more aware of the impacts of trauma on mental health. In Northern Ireland, during the worst of the terrorist campaign, there was limited support and help for the police officers, Army personnel, ambulance staff, firemen, nurses and doctors—those who are on the frontline in dealing with horrific injuries and multiple casualties. Many were left deeply traumatised, and for many post-traumatic stress disorder was not identified or did not manifest itself until many years later. I know that across this House we would all want to pay tribute to those brave men and women who work so valiantly, in incredibly difficult circumstances, to help and support the dying and injured. A review should examine how we can have a comprehensive and timely support service for our emergency services.
Lastly, I want to speak briefly about the particular needs of the physically disabled. In the Manchester Arena attack, more than 100 people were injured, some of those very severely. The headline figures are often about those who tragically lose their lives, but I believe we all underestimate the gravity of the injuries caused by these types of attacks. Over the years, tens of thousands of people across the United Kingdom have been left with serious traumatic injuries as a result of terrorism, and these victims are living with those injuries every day. The availability of severe pain management, rehabilitation support, prosthetics and other aids is critical throughout the decades that they have to live with the injuries. The review must also examine the proposal for the introduction of a special pension for the severely disabled across the United Kingdom.
Many victims of terrorism suffered traumatic injury to limbs, particularly lower limbs. Although I welcome the fact that workplaces have increasingly become more accessible for those with mobility challenges, particularly wheelchair users, we should also recognise that that was not always the case. Many victims sustained these horrific lower-limb and other injuries relatively early in their working life. Most workplaces were not suitable for wheelchair access during those decades, and many had to leave work. That has created a very particular wrong, as those victims, who continue to suffer these terrible severe injuries, are dealing with the impact of ageing on those injuries, and they face older age without any occupational or work-related pension.
I pay tribute to the many victims who have worked so hard on this issue, raising its profile and meeting politicians across the various political parties to raise awareness about it.
I do not wish to dwell for long on the definition of a victim, save to say that to me this is very straightforward. The terrorist who drives a van into crowds of people, who wields the knife, who shoots to kill or who plants the bomb is not a victim, even if he is killed in doing so. To me, that is absolutely clear and right. That is why I have clearly referenced in the long title of this Bill,
“acts of terrorism by an unconnected person or organisation”.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will listen and respond to the calls for a comprehensive review of support for victims of terrorism across the United Kingdom, and that there is continued wide support for my call for compassion and action to support all those brave victims from across this country, and for them to get the help they need and deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Emma Little Pengelly, Kate Hoey, Andrew Bowie, Andrew Bridgen, Colin Clark, Faisal Rashid, Andrew Rosindell, Mr Laurence Robertson, Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Nigel Dodds, Ian Paisley and Gavin Robinson present the Bill.
Emma Little Pengelly accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed (Bill 204).
Opposition Day
Windrush
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be provided to the Home Affairs Committee: all papers, correspondence and advice including emails and text messages, from 11 May 2010 up to and including 1 May 2018, to and between Ministers, senior officials and Special Advisers relating to policy decisions including on the Immigration Acts 2014 and 2016 with regard the Windrush generation cases, including deportations, detentions and refusal of re-entry, the setting of deportation and removal targets and their effect on the Windrush generation, and action taken within Government following the concerns raised by Caribbean Governments with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office including the original decision by the Prime Minister not to meet Caribbean Heads of Government and officials, and all copies of minutes and papers relating to the Cabinet’s Immigration Implementation Taskforce.
First, I congratulate the Home Secretary on his appointment and welcome him to his first full-scale parliamentary debate as Home Secretary.
On 22 June 1948 the Empire Windrush sailed into history, arriving at Tilbury docks, bringing workers from the Caribbean to respond to post-war labour shortages. There were 492 passengers in all, many of them children. Some of the men had served as soldiers in the British Army during the war, but many of the passengers had never travelled before, and many others were from deep rural Jamaica and had never been to a city approaching the size of London.
That ship gave its name to a whole generation, who came to this country from 1948 to 1973, and this debate is about them—patriotic, courageous men and women who helped to rebuild this country after the war.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The history that my right hon. Friend tells is one that we should, of course, all be proud of. I was wondering whether she knew why Brixton and the area that I and the other hon. Members here represent became a hub for so many in the black community. First, we had deep bomb shelters, which were provided as the temporary accommodation for those who first arrived on Windrush, and, secondly, they settled in Brixton to be near the job centre because they wanted to work.
Ms Abbott
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of why Brixton was a focus for the Windrush generation. West London—Paddington, Notting Hill—was also a focus, largely because people got off at Paddington and looked for somewhere to live.
The Home Secretary has said that he “will do what it takes” to sort out the Windrush scandal, and I hope this afternoon’s debate will help him to understand the entirety of what it will take to revolve the scandal. This is not an issue that will go away.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the work that she has done on this issue for many, many years. This of course goes well beyond the Windrush generation, extending to many people from across the Commonwealth and former empire. The history of the Cardiff docks communities is very much one of strong Caribbean, African, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Somali and Yemeni communities, all of whom paid a huge contribution over hundreds of years. Does she agree that this goes much wider than Windrush?
Ms Abbott
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I was going to make that point in the course of my remarks.
The Windrush generation were the first cohort to come here, but then there was south Asia, Sri Lanka—there is a whole series of Commonwealth migrants who, unless the Home Secretary does what it takes, will suffer the same humiliation as the Windrush generation.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
At the moment the right hon. Lady has not said a word that I have disagreed with, and I thank her for how she has said it. She referred to an issue that will not go away. Another issue that will not go away is, of course, the issue of illegal immigration, which is absolutely embedded within this whole debate. Can or will the right hon. Lady be—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I am sorry; I normally am heard, but I have a very quiet voice, as you well know. Lots of people here have a very keen interest in this debate, and I want to make sure that everybody who has put their name in does speak. If we are going to have interventions, will those who are hoping to speak please try not to intervene? You will end up moving yourself down the list—and please, interventions must be short.
Ms Abbott
I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, but he will understand that this debate is being watched all over the Commonwealth, and by the Windrush generation people themselves, and it is important that we all show a genuine concern, because they are the focus of the debate.
The Windrush scandal raises a number of issues of paramount importance. The first duty of the state is to defend the safety and security of its citizens, but under this Government’s policies we have a situation where citizens of this country are being denied their liberty through immigration detention, are being refused re-entry to this, their own country, have been made homeless or jobless, have been denied NHS treatment and have been left destitute. They have been, and continue to be, threatened with deportation. We have a situation where some citizens of this country do not have their security and safety defended. In fact, the agency undermining their safety and security is this Government and their policies.
Let me turn to the role of the Prime Minister, both currently and in her previous position as Home Secretary.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady believe that we should reduce illegal immigration?
Ms Abbott
Nobody on the Opposition side of the House supports illegal immigration, but the hon. Gentleman must appreciate how distressing it is for the Windrush generation to see the way that Members on the Government side of the House turn to illegal immigration whenever the subject of the Windrush generation is raised. They were not illegal. It is interesting how forenamed Members want to pivot and to talk about illegal immigration.
I want to talk about the role of the Prime Minister. Many people feel that, with the Windrush scandal, all roads lead back to her. It was the Prime Minister who was responsible for some of the worst aspects of the hostile environment. It was the Prime Minister who initiated the notorious go-home immigration vans. It was the Prime Minister who introduced the “deport first, appeal later” regime, and we know from documents in the public domain that it was the Prime Minister who set deportation targets.
It has been revealed that the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), the former Home Secretary, wrote a four-page memo to the Prime Minister on 30 January. In it, the right hon. Lady set out what she described as an “ambitious” plan “ruthlessly” focusing Home Office priorities and stated:
“I will be refocusing IE’s work to concentrate on enforced removals. In particular I will be reallocating £10m (including from low-level crime and intelligence) with the aim of increasing…enforced removals by…10%...over the next few years”.
Ministers can try to dance on the head of a pin, but 10% is a target on any reasonable understanding of the term.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Let me reassure the House: it is up to the Member who is speaking whether they— [Interruption.] Order. Thank you for the advice, but I am quite capable of speaking for myself. What I would say is that it is up to the Member who is speaking whether they give way or not. I want to make sure that everybody gets in. Quite rightly, if the shadow Home Secretary does not want to give way, she does not need to.
Ms Abbott
I am conscious that a number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, and therefore I am anxious to make progress.
So given that the Prime Minister knew so much about the target regime, we have to wonder, when she heard the various denials from the former Home Secretary, why did she not think to correct the record, or at least advise the then Home Secretary accurately to correct the record. Why did she not do that?
The Prime Minister’s record and her responsibility are clear. We have had go-home vans; the “deport first, appeal later” policy; targets for removals and for unsuccessful immigration appeals; protections against—
Ms Abbott
A number of hon. Members want to contribute to this important debate, and I am anxious to make progress.
Ministers now express their concern about the Windrush generation, saying that they came here, were invited and have contributed to this country’s prosperity. I might add that the Windrush generation enriched us in many other ways too, socially and culturally. That is what migrants do. Overwhelmingly, they come to build a better life for themselves and their family—wherever they are from, wherever they are going—and in building a better life for themselves and their family, they contribute to the prosperity of all. That is why it is time that we had a more positive narrative on migration.
As we heard earlier, Government Members and Ministers would far prefer to talk about illegal immigration than the plight of the Windrush generation. As I said earlier, no one on the Opposition Benches supports illegal migration. We are all in favour of the removal of people who are here illegally. We could start with the number of prisoners who judges have directed should be removed at end of sentence, but many are not removed because of an organisational failure by the Home Office in getting the paperwork correct.
For our part, the Labour party has pledged to recruit 500 extra border guards to deal with illegal immigration, people and drug trafficking, and smuggling. We do not want to support illegal immigrants; we want to prevent people who do not have the right to be here from entering the country. This Government and their immediate predecessors cut the border guards, so it is distressing to hear them talk about illegal immigration, rather than focusing on what is happening to the Windrush generation.
The Windrush generation are here legally, yet they continue to be talked about by some Government Members as if they were here illegally. The Government were warned that negative outcomes for Commonwealth citizens who had been here for decades would be a consequence of their hostile environment policy. Many people in the House warned them, including myself, as well as many others outside the House.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Abbott
I am afraid not. I am trying to make progress.
The warnings from the Opposition and individuals such as myself, and from all sorts of stakeholders, were ignored. The Government ploughed ahead regardless, with the consequences that we all see.
I also want to point out to the House that the Windrush generation includes people who came here as children before 1973. They have to be considered. In some cases, a lack of the documentation that the Home Office has only recently begun to insist on under this Government means that grandchildren may be caught up as well. All of this must end.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is she as surprised as I am that, despite the national debate over the last two weeks, when my office called the Home Office MP helpline yesterday to support a Windrush-affected constituent and inquire about the process, we were told that the helpline staff had been given no guidance on citizenship applications? My constituent, who has to prove that he has been here since 1965 with two forms of ID for every year, is in despair.
Ms Abbott
It does not seem that we have moved away from the Windrush situation altogether if somebody is being asked for two pieces of documentation for every year they have been here, as that was the problem for the Windrush generation—excessively rigid demands for documentation and no proper guidance.
Ms Abbott
No.
So the children of people who came here before 1973 have to be considered, and as my hon. Friends have said, the scandal also includes those who came from many other Commonwealth countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and countries in west Africa. It is not just about the Caribbean; these cases arise now only because many of those people came here—were invited here—earlier than the others.
In speaking about the Commonwealth, I made this point in my urgent question earlier in the week: this is an issue that has resonated around the Commonwealth—it is front-page news not just in the Caribbean, but in a range of Commonwealth countries. The point I was trying to put over to the Home Secretary is that, when we are trying to build our relationships with the Commonwealth for trade and other reasons—post-Brexit certainly, but I would support it in any event—what has been revealed about the way Commonwealth citizens have been treated is extremely damaging. That is not the most important reason to clear up this mess, but it is a reason to clear it up. I hope that the Home Secretary understands that.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way on the issue of transparency?
Clive Efford
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for winding up Government Members even further by giving way to me. If passed, this Humble Address is binding on the Government to publish all the documents relating to this matter and to provide those documents to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I understand that the Government have issued a three-line Whip to vote against the motion. Can she explain what possible reason they might have for doing so?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Would the right hon. Lady like to find out? Will she give way?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can we please have a little less noise from the Back Benches? The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) will be called to speak early in the debate and we want to hear her contribution, so I do not want her to waste her voice by shouting too much.
Ms Abbott
Do Government Members understand how voting against this motion will look to the Commonwealth and the Windrush generation here? Do Government Members understand how the laughter that we heard a few minutes ago will be seen by the Windrush generation? It is as if they do not take this issue seriously.
Anna Soubry
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could the record show that there was no laughter on these Benches, as has just been alleged?
Mr Deputy Speaker
That is certainly not a point of order, but I can assure hon. Members that there was laughter from both sides of the House.
Ms Abbott
As I was saying, Members of the Windrush generation and people who live in Commonwealth countries will be watching this debate, and they will have heard Government Members laugh. They will get the sense that Government Members are not taking this matter entirely seriously.
Dr Murrison
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Lady just referred to this as a debate. I seek your guidance on whether this can legitimately be described as a debate given that the right hon. Lady consistently refuses to take interventions from Conservative Members.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Dr Murrison, you and I both know that that is definitely not a point of order. I will repeat what I said at the beginning, which is that it is up to each individual whether they wish to give way. That is how the House works and it is how the House will continue.
James Cartlidge
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to table a motion that calls on the sovereign potentially to breach the Data Protection Act 1998 and, in particular, the general data protection regulation rules that will be coming into force in two weeks’ time in relation to text messages?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am getting very worried that somebody just might make a point of order, but that is definitely not one.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Abbott
I really have to continue.
We need to know the number of deportations and removals. We also need information about Windrush generation persons who are in immigration detention. The Government must know the number of people who are held in detention and why they are there. I have met Windrush generation persons in Yarl’s Wood detention centre, so I will continue to press the Government to provide that information. We also want information on the number of people who have been refused re-entry—people who perhaps went back to their country for a funeral or some such event, but were refused re-entry at the airport. These people have to face humiliation and separation from their family. We need to know the number of people in that situation. We cannot just brush it aside. Imagine what it is like for an elderly woman who has been home for a funeral to be stopped at the airport on her return and told that she cannot come home. We want to know the number of British people who have been refused re-entry.
Ms Abbott
I have to make progress.
I had a meeting about Windrush in the House of Commons about two weeks ago. Some 500 people attended and there were 200 people on the waiting list, and these people were extremely anxious. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) had a meeting yesterday that the Immigration Minister attended, and the people there were also concerned and anxious.
At yesterday’s meeting I was pleased to meet Amelia Gentleman for the first time, and I want to take this opportunity to praise her for her work, because she came back to this story week after week. Her newspaper put it on the front page. She showed a commitment to this story that some journalists might not have; they might have walked away or moved on. Many members of the Windrush generation really appreciate her campaigning and journalism, and I am glad to pay tribute to that this afternoon.
A number of issues were raised at yesterday’s meeting, which was organised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham. These issues have also been raised with me. A number of people found themselves literally destitute because of the way in which this policy worked. What type of policy making results in British people being put on the street because of this so-called bearing down on illegal immigrants? These people, who the Government put on the street, were British. People have also been given biometric identity cards, but they want to know why they cannot have passports like anyone else. I presume that the Home Secretary will be able to tell me.
It was clear from the meeting yesterday that many people are still frightened to come forward. We welcome any clarity from the Home Secretary because until people do not think that they will be picked up and detained if they approach officials, people who have been harmed will not come forward. This is very important. No one wants British citizens to be afraid to approach the authorities.
People at the meeting were concerned about compensation. As soon as we can have more details on compensation, they will be welcomed. Windrush compensation could cover pain, suffering and loss of amenity. It could also cover damages arising from: loss of liberty; impact on private and family life; unlawful detention; loss of employment; past loss of earnings; travel expenses; moving costs; legal fees; healthcare costs; loss of state benefits; past loss of pension; care and assistance; future loss of earnings; and loss of pensions. That is to name but a few. People are anxious that the Government’s promises of compensation will be meaningful and will cover the issues that I have touched on. If I could say just one thing in this debate, it would be that it is really important that we get the process for compensation right. Only then will the Windrush generation feel that they have been treated fairly.
There are other substantive questions for the Home Secretary. He must surely understand by now how serious this issue is and how far-reaching are the consequences of his Government’s policies—policies that he has supported throughout. Has his Department been in contact with British embassies and high commissions in Commonwealth countries so that they can use their best endeavours to establish where people have been wrongly deported? I referred to detention and to people refused re-entry. Similarly, how many people “voluntarily” left under threat of deportation? What information has the Home Secretary’s Department requested and received from Heads of Government of Caribbean nations and others regarding people who have been deported or otherwise prevented from returning to the UK?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think the right hon. Lady has given notice that she will not be giving way.
Ms Abbott
What is shocking is the way that the Windrush generation have been treated.
We want information as soon as possible about the independent means of establishing fair compensation. Has the Home Office issued written instructions to the call handlers of the helpline that they should not report cases for deportation enforcement where they believe that people are here legally? Did the Home Secretary’s Department issue advice to the immigration tribunals and judges on the changes in the Immigration Act 2014?
The new Home Secretary demurs from the term “hostile environment”. We appreciate that, but of course he was not the architect of this policy: it was the Prime Minister, and she has not resiled from that policy. In May 2012, she told readers of The Daily Telegraph—
Ms Abbott
I have to make progress.
In May 2012, the Prime Minister told readers of The Daily Telegraph:
“The aim is to create here in Britain a really hostile environment for illegal migration.”
As I have said, no Opposition Member supports illegal migration, but the problem with the hostile environment that the Government set up was that it swept perfectly legally British citizens up with it. So the Home Secretary will forgive me if I wonder about his claiming now to be abandoning the “hostile environment” title. I say this with all due respect, but his predecessor never seemed to be in command of policy on this matter. She was used as a human shield by the Prime Minister. I would hate to think that he will find that he is not in charge of policy on this matter either, but the Prime Minister is. In any event, unless and until the Prime Minister announces the abandonment of the form of hostile environment policy that she instituted and demonstrates that that is the case, we should all understand that the policy remains in place: the labelling and the spin do not matter. Unless the Government formally change their policies, Opposition Members will be clear, and this country will know, that their treatment of the Windrush generation was not an aberration and not a hiccup—it was the predicted consequence of a policy that they intend to continue with.
Ms Abbott
I am coming to an end now.
One of the important things about the Windrush scandal is that it is an opportunity to review immigration policy and the administration of immigration policy. We now have a situation where, because of the way that immigration is currently administered, this Government are preventing doctors from coming to take up jobs that they have been offered by the NHS. The NHS is in crisis. There is a shortage of 10,000 doctors, and the total number of NHS vacancies is in the tens of thousands. We therefore need to review immigration policy so that it is not only more humane but actually works in the interests of this country. We have seen a similar grotesque policy of wrongly removing overseas students from courses they have paid for, as this morning’s Financial Times reports. The NHS is suffering, our education system is suffering, and many others sectors are suffering: all because of a narrative on immigration that deems immigration to be toxic.
Finally, let me say this. The Windrush generation played an important role after the war. The Windrush generation are very meaningful to many of us who were brought up by that generation. They did not deserve to be treated in the way that they were. Ministers say they did not know, but there was a pattern in what was going on; they chose not know. As I said at the beginning, this issue is not going to go away. Opposition Members will not stop until we get not promises and not spin, but justice for the Windrush generation.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
Let me start by thanking the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for what she said in her opening remarks in welcoming me to my new position. I appreciate her comments.
I know I am not alone when I say that there are men and women from the Windrush generation who have been seriously let down by the immigration system: men and women who have had their lives totally and utterly disrupted, and in many cases put on hold. As I made clear at this Dispatch Box on Monday, I will do whatever it takes to put this right. That means putting all our focus and our resources into dealing with this issue and helping those who have been affected by it.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
May I be one of the first to congratulate the Secretary of State and wish him all the best in his new role? Could he confirm whether staff are paid bonuses for the number of individuals they remove?
Sajid Javid
Bonuses are paid in some parts of the senior civil service. If they are, that is not a matter for Ministers. Ministers will not get involved. In the case of my Department, it would be the permanent secretary and other officials he would work with.
We want to make sure that we are putting all our resources into helping with the situation that has been created, doing everything we can. However, putting it right does not mean that we divert our time and effort into some massive, open-ended fishing expedition. The motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and others is disproportionate and distracting. It would take help and capacity away from where it is needed by reassigning more than 100 officials, and that would of course create significant cost for taxpayers.
Stephen Doughty
With regard to officials, the Home Secretary did not, with the greatest respect, give an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on the issue of bonuses. Have senior officials, including Hugh Ind, Mandie Campbell—a former member of staff—Glynn Williams or Philip Rutnam, received bonuses related in any way to removals, deportation or detention targets: yes or no?
Sajid Javid
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am aware of some of the reports on that this morning. I have not personally had time to look into the particular issue of who may or may not have received bonuses. However, as I said, if there are senior civil servants who have received any bonuses, it is a matter for officials, not for Ministers.
Mrs Main
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is being very generous to the Opposition, when they were not to us. I notice the burdensome nature of what the motion requests. Why does he think the Opposition have picked documents from 2010 only and do not wish to look at 2009, when they were involved in some of the decisions?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend, as always, makes a very important point. A compliant environment has been put in place, and quite rightly; there should be a compliant environment. That is something that all Governments have supported, including especially the previous Labour Government.
I referred earlier to the motion. This Government recognise the importance of transparency. Members of the Windrush generation and Members of the House need to have confidence that everything possible is being done. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced earlier a package of measures to bring greater transparency to Members of the House and to people in our community who have been affected. Let me set out those measures in a little bit more detail. First, I will be writing—
Clive Efford
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—and this is a genuine point of order. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) just asked for the publication of documents that go back before 2010. If you were willing to accept a manuscript amendment to the motion, would the Government then support the motion?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I cannot hear what the point of order is. I cannot make a ruling on something I have not heard.
Sajid Javid
I was just coming on to the greater transparency measures that I want to put in place. First, I will be writing each month to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to give her and the House a report on progress. Secondly, I will also be writing to her each month on the latest position on detentions, removals and deportations. Thirdly, I will bring independent oversight and challenge to a lessons-learned review already under way in my Department. That review will seek to draw out how members of the Windrush generation came to be entangled in measures designed for illegal immigrants, why that was not spotted sooner and whether the right corrective measures are now in place. I have asked my permanent secretary to give the review the resources it needs and to aim to complete its work before the summer recess.
Simon Hoare
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Since his appointment on Monday, vile left-wing trolls have called him, among other things, a coconut and an Uncle Tom. Has that abuse motivated or depressed him in the challenge he faces?
Sajid Javid
I said earlier in the House that I am interested in a compliant, not a hostile environment. But, talking of a hostile environment, my hon. Friend reminds me of some of the hard left who have joined the Labour party ever since the right hon. Member for Islington North became Leader of the Opposition and how their anti-Semitism has been tolerated—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I cannot hear a word for the shouting. My problem is that if I cannot hear, I cannot make a judgment on what is being said. We have to keep in order. This is making life very difficult and does not do us any favours.
Sajid Javid
I was talking about members of the hard left who have created a hostile environment in their own party and people who welcomed my appointment by calling me a coconut and an Uncle Tom. If that is something the Leader of the Opposition thinks is wrong, why does he not get up at the Dispatch Box right now and denounce them? [Interruption.] I did not think he would want to say anything, and we know exactly what he thinks about a hostile environment in the Labour party against people’s backgrounds. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The House must come to order. I want to hear this debate. We have constituents who want to hear this debate. This debate is very important to this country and the people of this country.
Sajid Javid
I thank the right hon. Lady for getting up at the Dispatch Box and making that absolutely clear. I thank her also for condemning the racism that I referred to. I know that she, like me, has suffered from racism. It is wrong when it happens to any person, whoever they are, and wherever they come from in our country. When it happens—particularly in political parties, including my own, where it has happened in the past—it is incumbent on all political leaders to stamp on it and to deal with it.
Justine Greening
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position. Does he agree that this was a chance to have a debate about people, and instead the Opposition have chosen a motion that focuses on politicking and procedure? As someone who represents Windrush constituents, I very much welcome the steps he is taking to address the real concerns that those people are facing day to day.
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. She says that this is about people, and that is exactly what I want to come on to in more detail.
It is important to note that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), had already started important work to help the Windrush generation, and I would like to pay tribute to her efforts. These are people who are pillars of our society. They are people who are doctors, nurses, engineers and bus drivers—people just like my father, who came to this country inspired by hope and motivated by ambition. These individuals have made a huge contribution to making this country the great place it is to live.
That is why this Government have been taking action. As Members know, a dedicated taskforce has already been set up to provide the support these people deserve. Each person who is identified as potentially from the Windrush generation is called back by an experienced and sympathetic caseworker, who then helps them through the process. So far, there have been more than 7,000 calls, of which 3,000 have been identified as potential Windrush cases. That group is being invited to service centres around the country for appointments. Travel costs are also reimbursed. So far, more than 700 appointments have been scheduled and more than 100 people have had their cases processed and now have the documents they need. Those numbers are increasing by the day, and we will continue to schedule those appointments as a matter of urgency.
Chuka Umunna
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. He is right about the contribution of the Windrush generation, but can he be absolutely clear that these are people who are here and always have been here lawfully? Will he also condemn the continual attempt, not just in the Chamber but in the country generally, to conflate legal immigration with illegal immigration? I am fed up, every time the Windrush generation are spoken about, of continually hearing, “Well, what about illegal immigration?” We are talking about the Windrush generation.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct on both counts. My predecessor said it, I have said it and I am happy to say it again: the Windrush generation are here perfectly legally. There is nothing illegal whatsoever about it. Because the Immigration Act 1971 did not lead to documentation for those people, which has become familiar for many Members of the House, it is now right that we put that right and make it much easier to get them the documentation and formalise their status where that has not already been formalised. He is also right to point out the distinction between legal—the Windrush generation and many others—and illegal.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr Francois
I thank the Home Secretary for his generosity in giving way to Members on both sides of the House. The Windrush generation helped to rebuild this country after world war two, and we owe them a debt. Governments of all political colours make mistakes. It is clear that, despite the motion, some of this problem goes back beyond 2010, but we are where we are. Now that he has responsibility for this, can he confirm that he will strain every sinew to see that we do right by these people who did right by us?
Sajid Javid
I say to my right hon. Friend that I can confirm that, and I will do so. I will come on to cover in more detail the point he has made.
I want to address directly any concerns that people might still have about coming forward. As I told the House on Monday, any information provided to the taskforce will be used for no other immigration purpose than that of helping people to confirm their status. Any information provided will not be passed to immigration enforcement.
Let me remind the House of some of the other important changes this Government have introduced in the light of the Windrush situation. A Commonwealth citizen who settled in the UK before 1973 will now be entitled to apply for British citizenship—the legal status that they deserve—free of charge. We have made it clear that we will make the process they need to go through to get citizenship as simple as possible. While it is right that we are swiftly progressing urgent cases, all of this needs a proper legal underpinning, as hon. Members have suggested. That is why I will bring forward the necessary legislation to cover fee exemptions, fee reductions and changes to the citizenship process as soon as possible. I also recognise that, in some cases, people have suffered severe financial loss, and I want to put that right. That is why we are setting up a new compensation scheme. It will be overseen by an independent person, and we will consult on its scope, because it is important that we get the detail of this scheme right from the moment it begins.
It is essential in this debate that we do not lose sight of the distinction between legal and illegal migration. Successive Governments, including the previous Labour Government, have put in place what I would call a “compliant environment”—measures to tackle illegal migration—and this is a perfectly sensible approach to take. I will give some examples. The first NHS treatment charges for overseas visitors and illegal migrants were introduced in 1982, as were checks by employers on someone’s right to work in 1997, measures on access to benefits in 1999 and civil penalties for employing illegal migrants in 2008. More recent measures in the Immigration Acts 2014 and 2016, which were debated in this House at length, introduced checks by landlords before property is rented out and checks by banks on account holders.
As I made clear in this House on my first day in this role and as I have just said, I do not believe that the term “hostile environment” is in tune with our values as a country. This is about having a compliant environment. Measures over many years to tackle illegal immigration are of course a good thing, and we stand by those measures. They are designed to ensure that work, benefits and services in the UK go only to those who have the right to access them, and that is what the public rightly expect the Government to do. We are protecting our public services, and taking action against rogue employers, landlords and organised crime groups who exploit vulnerable migrants and damage our communities. We carefully balance the need to tackle illegal immigration with the need to protect those who are here lawfully from unintended consequences.
Mr Marcus Jones
My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech, and I am glad that he has very clearly set out how we are going to put right this wrong and support those in the Windrush generation who are clearly British citizens and are here legally. Does he not agree that we must be very careful about the language we use in the House, because some of the language I have heard used by Opposition Members today is scaremongering and will lead to people affected by this scandal not coming forward to get the support they need and deserve?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is incumbent on every Member of this House, if we are all to be united in helping the people who have been affected by this situation, to be careful about the language that they use.
Recent events have shown that the safeguards we already have in place need to go further, so that is exactly what we are doing. For example, we have already put in place additional support for employers and landlords to safeguard members of the Windrush generation seeking jobs or rented accommodation. Updated guidance on gov.uk encourages employers and landlords to get in touch with the Home Office checking service if any Commonwealth citizen does not have the documents they need to demonstrate their status. The taskforce will contact the individual concerned to help them to prove their entitlement, and the employer or landlord will be issued with a positive notice.
My Department is working with other Departments and partner agencies from across the board to ensure that we have the relevant safeguards in place to prevent those from the Windrush generation from being denied the benefits and services to which they are perfectly entitled. Tomorrow, the Minister for Immigration will chair a cross-Government meeting to discuss this very matter with colleagues in more detail. We are also very conscious that ongoing immigration enforcement activity must not impact on people from the Windrush generation, and safeguards are being put in place to minimise such a risk.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has announced the additional safeguards he wants to put in place for the Windrush generation, but will he apply those safeguards more widely? In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, we have heard that about 10% of the cases passed by the Home Office to banks are incorrect, and that the banks may therefore be taking action against people who are here legally because of errors by the Home Office. Will he put in place safeguards for everybody?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Lady makes a very important point, and I am looking precisely at that. She used the example of banks that may be acting inappropriately or in error, perhaps through no fault of their own. I will look at that very carefully, and I will get back to her, because this is a very important issue and she is absolutely right to raise it.
I must now conclude to leave other Members enough time to speak in this debate. I am clear that all the measures I have outlined today will make a real difference. I will continue to assess what further action needs to be taken, because I know that I am not alone in this House when I say that this situation has made me angry. I know that I am not alone when I say that it is unacceptable that there are those from the Windrush generation who feel hurt and betrayed by the country they call home. That is why the measures we are taking, and will continue to take, are so vital. We must make sure that those affected get the support and attention that they so rightly deserve, so that something like this can never happen again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before we continue with the debate, I must announce the result of the deferred Division. In respect of the question relating to tribunals and inquiries, the Ayes were 315 and the Noes were 202, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Before I call the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on behalf of the Scottish National party, let me say that it is obvious that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon and, although we have a lot of time, the time available is limited, so there will be an immediate time limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches. [Interruption.] I do not know why there is always an exclamation of amazement. I cannot be the only person who can do the arithmetic. The time limit does not of course apply to Joanna Cherry.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Earlier this week, I welcomed the Home Secretary to his place and congratulated him on his appointment. I mentioned that it is a good thing he is the first BAME person to hold this great office of state, and I want to make it quite clear that the Scottish National party absolutely condemns any racist abuse he may have received from whatever quarter. As somebody who is on the receiving end of a daily diet of anti-Catholic and anti-gay abuse from the hard right in Scotland and across the UK, I know what it feels like to receive such abuse from whatever quarter, so he has my absolute support in resisting it. I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in explaining to me that he would not be able to stay for my speech because he has a very important Cabinet Committee meeting to attend. How much many of us would love to be a fly on the wall in that meeting.
The right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), for whom I have a lot of respect, resigned as Secretary of State for the Home Department on account of having misled Parliament about her knowledge of the removal targets, but nobody has as yet been held to account for the policies that led to the imposition of those removal targets and caused the Windrush scandal.
Others who have Windrush constituents will speak eloquently today about the details of their position. I want to speak about the real, underlying reasons why this scandal has occurred and to say to the new Home Secretary, as represented here by his Immigration Minister, that he will be judged by this Parliament, and by the public watching outwith this Parliament, on the degree to which he has the gumption to address the underlying causes of the Windrush scandal rather than just fiddle around with the outcome.
What has happened to the Windrush generation is not an accident, it is not a mistake, it is not an aberration and it is not the work of over-zealous Home Office officials. It is, in fact, the direct result of the Prime Minister’s imposition of a wholly unrealistic net migration target and of the contortions that have to be gone through to achieve that target, which, incidentally, has as yet not been achieved.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
There is another dimension to the hostile policy, which I have seen in fishing on the west coast. It is not directly impacting on Windrush, but it is a similar aspect of the mentality at the Home Office. For eight years, we have been waiting to get non-European economic area labour in. Everybody wants the Home Office to give us a piece of paper that will keep the Home Office happy, but we just cannot get it. That is symptomatic of the Home Office that has led to Windrush.
Joanna Cherry
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. There are many people in the United Kingdom at the moment who make a great contribution to our society, but who are being made to feel very unwelcome at best and are being deported at worst, simply because they cannot evidence their right to be here.
These people have come to light as a result of another policy of the Prime Minister’s—the hostile environment policy, which is a racist policy. I say that quite clearly: it is racist. When people of a certain ethnic background, or with a name that does not look British, apply for a tenancy or a job, that is when they come to light, and that is when suspicion falls upon them. It is absolutely disgraceful. That is why, at Prime Minister’s questions this morning, despite the howls of derision from Conservative Members, I asked the Prime Minister to apologise for the policies that have caused this. I am still waiting for that apology, and I will be asking for it constantly. Policy has caused this problem, not mistakes—not mistakes by officials and not even mistakes by politicians. It is the direct imposition of policy that has caused this problem.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Does the hon. and learned Lady not agree that the Home Secretary must look at the issue of bonuses, because they create a culture? The buck stops at his door.
Joanna Cherry
It is absolutely astonishing that people should be given bonuses for the number of people they can boot out of the country. It is disgusting. What has the United Kingdom come to? I may be a Scottish nationalist, but I also consider myself British, and there are many aspects of the UK—[Interruption.] Yes, I am. Actually, I am half Irish as well—thank God, because I am getting an Irish passport. I am not one of those people who says the UK has never done anything good, but by God is this a smear on the UK’s reputation across the world.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister would not even speak to the heads of delegations from the Commonwealth about this issue; she thought she could get it swept under the carpet. Then she thought she could use the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye as her human shield. That did not work either. She thought she could come to the House this morning and get off the hook. Well, she is not off the hook. She needs to answer for the policies that have caused this problem.
We are hearing a lot today about how the Windrush generation will be sorted out. The previous Home Secretary gave us an undertaking that there would not be any more enforcement action against the Windrush generation. However, my question to the Home Secretary is this: if he cannot get the Windrush generation, which vulnerable group is he going to go after next to meet his targets?
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the hon. and learned Lady seen the Financial Times today? There is an article about the test of English for international communication, which reveals that 35,000 people have had their status as students in this country revoked. In 20% of those cases, that was based on a system of voice recognition that has proved to be faulty. An estimated 7,000 Bangladeshi, Indian and other students, including my constituents, have been removed from this country, or are at the threat of removal at this moment, because of a policy introduced in 2014 by the then Home Secretary—now the Prime Minister.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman is describing the results of this policy. The Government and the Home Office have to go after low-hanging fruit. They went after the Windrush generation, but they have been called out on that and they are embarrassed—hence all the shouting, the spurious points of order and the attempts to shut us up for calling them out.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
My hon. and learned Friend is making absolutely important points. This point about other vulnerable communities is hugely important, because more and more is coming to light. Does she agree that, in the light of the Windrush scandal, now is the opportunity for the UK Government to regularise the status of the Chagos islanders, who were forced off their land by the British state in the 1960s and 1970s? The second and third generations here are being denied British citizenship. This is an opportunity for the UK Government to put that injustice, along with so many others, right.
Joanna Cherry
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier this week, and as I will be repeating this afternoon, what we need now is a root and branch review of the Prime Minister’s immigration policies, because they are not working—the Home Affairs Committee has heard evidence that they are not even working according to the Government’s internal tenets.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The hon. and learned Lady is making a powerful case that the Prime Minister has many questions to answer. One of the key questions she needs to answer is: when was she told about the problems facing the Windrush generation? Was it when she was Home Secretary or Prime Minister? If it was when she was Home Secretary, she has many more questions to answer.
Joanna Cherry
The Prime Minister does have many questions to answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), as he said in a point of order, has laid down many written questions, which have yet to be answered. I suspect that the answers will be deeply embarrassing for the Government, and that is why those questions have not been answered.
I congratulate the official Opposition on having secured this debate on the Windrush scandal, but I make no apology for looking at the underlying reasons for it. I am afraid to say that they do not lie just with those on the Government Benches. There has been some unfortunate rhetoric from elements in the Labour party in the past. I realise that the Labour party is probably under new management now, and some of the new management had the gumption to vote with the SNP against the 2014 Immigration Bill. What I am trying to say is that a rather toxic rhetoric has grown up around immigration in both the Labour party and the Conservative party. It was, of course, Gordon Brown who famously spoke about British jobs for British workers, which the previous Home Secretary enthusiastically picked up on in a speech at the Tory party conference, promising tougher rules for foreign workers coming to Britain and taking our jobs. She suggested in an accompanying briefing that firms could be asked to publish lists of foreign workers. What kind of a union of nations are we becoming when it is seriously being contemplated that that sort of thing should happen?
Anna Soubry
The hon. and learned Lady is being very good in giving way. I agree with much of what she says, but she said that the Government “went after” the Windrush generation. The whole thing is a scandal, but would she agree that nobody has deliberately gone after the Windrush generation? She is right about a culture—I will dwell on that in my speech—but nobody has deliberately gone after the Windrush generation.
Joanna Cherry
I am sorry. Over recent months, I have found much about which the right hon. Lady and I can agree, but I cannot agree with her on that one. It was deliberate. There were targets; they were necessary to realise the Prime Minister’s policies. Until Conservative Members wake up to that fact and accept it, nothing will change.
As I said, the SNP position is that there should be a root and branch review of immigration policy and of the 2014 and 2016 Acts, and that review should be based on evidence—not on ideology and not on the need to blame somebody else for our problems. I say that because I have noticed since I have been a Member of this House that there is a tendency on the Government Benches to blame difficulties with public services in England and difficulties with the infrastructure in England on immigrants. In actual fact, the reasons—
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not give way. I want to finish my point—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. and learned Lady will finish her point. She will be heard.
Joanna Cherry
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today I was shouted down in this House and I have received an overwhelming number of messages from members of the public, and from some journalists, about how disgraceful that was. Many of them were not SNP supporters. I am very grateful to you for defending me.
My point is this: when somebody in England cannot find a home it is not because there are too many immigrants; it is because the Conservative party has not built any social housing. When somebody in England cannot get an NHS appointment or has to wait a ridiculously long time at accident and emergency, it is not the fault of immigrants; it is the fault of the Conservative party’s austerity policies. My goodness, earlier this week we heard that the Prime Minister would not even agree to pleas from her own Cabinet Ministers to let foreign doctors in to fill vacancies in the NHS. That is shocking.
Bim Afolami
The hon. and learned Lady said that there was a tendency by Conservative Members to blame the problems of the NHS or housing on immigrants. Will she please set out precisely to which speech of which person on this side of the House she is referring?
Joanna Cherry
That is a good try, but this is not something I thought up on the way into the Chamber. The toxic rhetoric around immigration in the United Kingdom is very well known. It is one of the reasons why there was a leave vote in 2016. Those on the Conservative Benches blamed immigrants rather than their austerity policies for the problems—[Interruption.]
I am calling for an evidence-based review of immigration policy. [Interruption.] I will very happily give evidence. [Interruption.] If I am allowed to speak, I will give Conservative Members some evidence. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. There is clearly disagreement about a particular point. That is why we have debates. The way in which we deal with disagreement is that one person puts their point of view and then a few minutes later someone else puts their point of view, but everybody must be heard and have their turn.
Joanna Cherry
I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The evidence has been heard over a period of years by the Home Affairs Committee, the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I sit, and the Scottish Affairs Committee. The weight of the evidence is that, in reality, immigrants are on average more likely to be in work, more likely to be better educated and more likely to be younger than the indigenous population. The overwhelming weight of the evidence heard by the Exiting the European Union Committee is that immigration is a net benefit to the United Kingdom. The director general of the CBI, no less—normally a great chum of those on the Conservative Benches—has called for an immigration policy that puts people first, not numbers. The CBI wants an evidence-based immigration policy, the Scottish Trades Union Council wants an evidence-based immigration policy and that is what the SNP wants.
In Scotland, historically our problem has been emigration—people leaving Scotland—rather than people coming into Scotland. By 2024—Madam Deputy Speaker, I guess we are both a part of the problem—the Scottish population is projected to grow by just 3.9%, as opposed to 7.5% in England. Some 90% of population growth in Scotland is projected to come from immigration. The time has come, in this review of immigration policy, to look seriously at the devolution of at least some powers over immigration to the Scottish Parliament, and to the English regions and Wales, to recognise the different requirements across the United Kingdom.
I know that these days we are, particularly those on the Conservative Benches, terribly inward-looking, but if we look outwards—
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not give way. I am going to continue my point.
Canada, where its provinces have different immigration policies, is a shining example of what can be done in a federation. Conservative Members should leave England—if it will not turn them into a pumpkin—and go and have a wee look at what happens elsewhere in the world.
I am calling for the Home Secretary to do things differently from how they have been done before. He said that he does not want to use the phrase “hostile environment” any longer and I have heard people talking about a compliant environment. I would say to him that it is not the language that we need to change—although that would help—but the underlying policies. We need an immigration policy that works for the whole of the UK, taking into account national and regional differences. We need an immigration policy that works to the benefit of the economy and to the benefit of society.
We have heard a lot of Conservative Members challenge the Labour party, the SNP and other Opposition parties by saying, “What would you do about illegal immigration?” What I would say is that every country has to have a sensible system of immigration control, but it needs to operate in line with the law, it needs to be just and fair, it needs to be human rights compliant and it needs to take cognisance of the rule of law. We do not have a system like that in the UK at the moment.
Any Member who holds constituency surgeries can provide examples of constituents who have been treated unfairly by the Home Office. The auditor has pointed out that the Home Office makes an awful lot of mistakes: it is a very poor performing Government Department. We know that 50% of appeals are successful. We also know that, thanks to the Prime Minister, most people are bounced out of the country before they can actually make an appeal. To my mind, that is contrary to the rule of law.
The problem is that we have a system that has elided the difference between legal and illegal immigration. We have constituents who come to our surgeries whose husbands and wives are not able to remain in the United Kingdom. My constituency has a Kurdish community centre. I have numerous examples of members of the Kurdish nation—people who have stood by Britain, fought alongside the British Army, worked as interpreters and so on—who came here expecting to receive a welcome but have been treated as illegals. There is something wrong with our policy and I am not afraid to say that I think it is morally wrong.
United Kingdom immigration policy has gone off the tracks. We need to acknowledge our mistake and introduce an evidence-based ethical immigration policy. Conservative Members shout about evidence and examples. There is a huge weight of evidence that a devolved differential system of immigration could work across the United Kingdom. That evidence has been given to the Scottish Affairs Committee and, in very detailed submissions, by my colleagues in the Scottish Government to the Migration Advisory Committee.
Let us have the guts to admit that the Windrush scandal is not just a mistake or an aberration. It is the result of policies that are wrong. Let us change the names of those policies, let us change the policies and let us have an apology from the Prime Minister.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
In line with your six-minute time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker, I promise to be brief, and I say somewhat gingerly that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).
I begin by putting on record how proud I am, as the son of economic immigrants, to welcome to the post of Home Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), another son of economic immigrants. It is testament to the Conservative party, is it not, that only it would allow a Scots-Italian to be the Member of Parliament for South Leicestershire and a British Pakistani to become Home Secretary? This demonstrates clearly that the Conservative party believes only in meritocracy and nothing else in terms of how one should serve the public.
Like many others in the House, I welcome the change in tone and approach that my right hon. Friend has taken in his brief time as Home Secretary. Recent events demonstrate the need for a human face as to how our immigration system works, as well as the need for exercising greater judgment when and where it is justified, and I firmly believe that the Secretary of State fits that profile well. As such, I very much look forward to working closely with him on the Government side of the House.
As we are aware, the Windrush generation, like many of us, have built their lives here and had their families here, and most importantly, this is their country and home. To that end, I very much welcome the steps that the Government have taken on this matter, but as ever—as with most issues—there is of course more to be done. In accepting that the state has let these good people down, we have to ensure not only that we build through the first steps that my right hon. Friend outlined, but that we continue to build bridges and repair relationships for the Windrush generation.
I am pleased that the Home Secretary has recognised that when people have suffered loss, they will be appropriately compensated. As a former lawyer in the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, I had the privilege of representing previous Home Secretaries, and I am all too aware of the litigious actions, some of which are entirely justified, that are brought against them in terms of unlawful detention and similar issues. I strongly encourage the Immigration Minister, who I am sure has already done so, to speak to colleagues in the Government Legal Department and ensure that the appropriate teams are in place to help those from the Windrush generation to obtain appropriate compensation, as outlined by the Home Secretary.
I especially welcome the setting up of a dedicated team to work with Government Departments, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. I understand that this new team will include a dedicated point of contact and will aim to resolve most cases within two weeks. This is indeed welcome news. I am also pleased that the Home Office has recognised the circumstances in which some former Commonwealth citizens have been wrongly subjected to removal and detention. Of course that is entirely unacceptable, but I am satisfied by the Home Secretary’s comments that departmental processes will be amended accordingly to ensure that this or similar situations never happen again.
I turn briefly to the situation of EU nationals, because it is important for the Home Office to recognise one administrative problem with processes that we would not want to develop. There is an oddity for children of EU nationals born in the United Kingdom between 2000 and 2006, in that they have to await their parents obtaining permanent residency in order to naturalise. I know that the Immigration Minister is looking carefully at the new settled status rules, but I ask her to look carefully at that issue to ensure that the Home Office adopts the right culture so that the documentation required for that category of EU nationals is appropriately obtained, with minimal delay and minimal inconvenience to them.
In closing, it is especially welcome to hear the Secretary of State’s assurances that the Windrush generation affected, who have given so much to our country, will be able to acquire their deserved legal status at no cost in an efficient and quick manner. Similarly and equally importantly, I am pleased that the children of the Windrush generation, who in most cases are already British citizens, will also be able to naturalise at no further cost, further enshrining the rights of the Windrush generation for years to come.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the speech by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who raised important, detailed and thoughtful points.
We have heard too many heartbreaking stories and about too many deep injustices—of people told they were not legal despite being British citizens, who have been made to feel unwelcome in their own country despite having worked here, lived here and loved here, very often for most of their lives and for longer than many of us in here have been alive; of people locked up wrongfully by the British state in their own country; and of people such as the pensioner I heard from who said his experience of simply trying to renew his passport had been so painful and brought back difficult memories of racism he had experienced as a child.
Many from the Windrush generation have told their own stories, and we should pay tribute to them for having the bravery to do so, even when, as some told me, they felt a sense of shame as a result. The Windrush families are not the ones who should feel shame. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) rightly said, this issue has brought a sense of national shame, and we must all now be determined to put it right. I welcome the new Home Secretary’s promise “to do right” by the Windrush generation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has been passionately pursuing this cause, is right that the Government will be judged on their actions rather than their words. We will need to see the progress of the taskforce, which the Home Affairs Committee will monitor.
The motion refers to documents being sent to the Select Committee. As with similar motions that have referred documents to other Committees, we have not instigated this call; nor have we had the chance to discuss or take a view on the motion, and we would of course decide how to respond. The motion itself is obviously a matter for the House, but we will continue to pursue our own questions as well.
Jeremy Quin
The right hon. Lady served with distinction in former Administrations. Does she share my concern that this is a very wide-ranging motion? It lists papers provided to Ministers covering a huge area of policy. It appears to cover minutes of a Cabinet Sub-Committee and discussions about our relationships with other independent states. This very wide-ranging motion goes well beyond what its mover set out as information she required. What are the right hon. Lady’s thoughts on that as a former Minister advised by civil servants?
Yvette Cooper
I am going to repeat what I said: our Select Committee has not had a chance to discuss this, but clearly we would be the recipients of the papers, if the motion were agreed to. It is for the House to debate the motion and for the Select Committee to decide how to respond, which we would do responsibly, as other Select Committees have done.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The right hon. Lady and I both serve on the Home Affairs Committee. Does she share my concerns about the Labour motion? As Chair of the Committee, she has requested significant information on our behalf from the previous and current Home Secretaries, which will be forthcoming, so I wonder why Labour is asking for even more. Did the Labour Front-Bench team discuss with her what information she had requested on the Committee’s behalf before tabling the motion?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right that we have requested a huge amount of information, and we will continue to do so, because we must continue our work on the Select Committee, which is separate from any decision the House makes. As he also makes clear, individual Committee members may take different views in this debate.
I want to pursue some important issues around the Windrush scandal. The Select Committee wants to know about the review the Home Secretary has announced. Who will it be done by? I would have concerns were it to be done by a Home Office official, given the concerns and questions raised by the targets and bonuses, which might have involved even the most senior of Home Office officials. We look forward to receiving more information on that, as well as on how the taskforce will respond, on the legal framework that will now cover the Windrush generation, on the compensation framework, and on other matters too.
I am concerned about our conflating the debate on the Windrush generation with the wider questions of illegal immigration. We all agree, I think, that the Windrush generation are here legally—they are British citizens. I also question the idea that the only problem is with a group of people who, because they did not get the right papers in 1973, have inadvertently ended up in the illegal immigration system, rather than the legal immigration system; there are, I believe, wider issues, based on evidence we have taken. The problem is that our immigration system does not have a good enough process for resolving who is here legally and who is here illegally. It is a system that makes too many mistakes, as has been highlighted in our Committee reports, in the inspectorate’s reports, and in our recommendations. The problem is that when people do not fit into the boxes, the system does not help them. Too often, its spits them out. As we said in one of our recent reports,
“urgent action is needed to address errors in the enforcement process.”
I hope that the Home Office will respond to our recommendations.
In cases in which appeals are still in place, half of them go against the Government because the Home Office has got it wrong, but in many cases there are no safeguards, independent checks or appeals. We heard last week that when people apply for “no time limit”, as many of the Windrush families may have done, there is no way of appealing if the system gets things wrong, even if it is the Home Office that has screwed up or there has been some other error in the system.
We also know that there are problems with the burden of proof. A letter from a Home Office Minister explained that Mr Trevor Johnson’s application had been turned down because
“He has…been unable to demonstrate that he has been continuously resident in the UK for the years 1989 to 1990, 1994 to 1995 and 1997 to 1998.”
That means that he had provided proof of his residence for the remaining 45 years, but not for those three years. I could not give four pieces of proof of where I was in 1989 or 1994. I hope that the Home Secretary will now address that issue of the burden of proof.
The system is also terribly complicated, and no legal aid is available. It is impossible for those who struggle with literacy or mental health problems to navigate. It is also hugely expensive, and too often penalises people for simple mistakes. It was reported in The Daily Telegraph today that 600 highly skilled doctors, engineers and IT professionals who may have been here for many years are being denied leave to remain because of minor errors in their tax returns. I hope the Home Office will take that up, because it obviously extends beyond the Windrush generation.
There are also the questions about targets and the way in which they have operated. All Departments have targets, such as key performance indicators, but the problem in this instance is the absence of safeguards or independent checks to prevent the targets from distorting individual decisions. That is how injustices arise. Underlying all this has been the overall net migration target, which our Committee’s report recommended should be replaced. It includes emigration as well as immigration, it includes people who are here legally as well as those who are here illegally, and it gives the Home Office as a whole an incentive to encourage people to leave whether they are here legally or not.
If something is to come out of this awful case, it must be this: we value and support the commitment of the Windrush generation, but we must also look much more widely throughout the immigration system at the things going wrong. An immigration system is crucial to any country’s national identity. We believe that we are a fair country and a humane country, and we must ensure that those values are part of our immigration system.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I agreed with everything she said. I will not be voting for the motion, for what I suggest to the House is a very good reason: under the stewardship and chairmanship of the right hon. Lady, we can be absolutely certain that there will be exactly the sort of full inquiry that should take place, with a proper request for the disclosure of documents that will be relevant to that inquiry.
This is a fishing expedition the likes of which I have never seen before. It extends much too far. I was a Minister in three Departments, and I know that it is imperative for civil servants to be able to give robust, open advice to Ministers which would not be shared with others because of its nature. It is also important for Ministers to be able to exchange texts—and we should dig deep into the text in the motion to see the full extent of what would be disclosed, including texts between Ministers and Secretaries of State. That would be ludicrous and it would be bad for government.
Jeremy Quin
I share absolutely my right hon. Friend’s concerns about what this does in terms of the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. Does she share my concern that when this information—policy advice—is put out into the public domain those very civil servants who have done their best to serve Ministers have no means to defend themselves in public and to explain what they were intending?
Anna Soubry
Absolutely, and it is imperative that we remember that, with very few, if any, exceptions, civil servants are some of the most outstanding workers in our country. It is too easy to slag them off but we should remember not only their quality, but the fact that often they cannot speak out and defend themselves. Therefore, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) that the Opposition motion really is not good enough. It is about process and procedure and it does not see people. That is what I want to address my comments to.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford was absolutely right when she said that the Windrush scandal has brought great shame on our nation, but some good has come out of this terrible episode in our country’s history. People are now at last seeing immigrants as people—as people just like them. They are neighbours. They are people who have come to our country to work and to do the right things. They have often worked in the most outstandingly contributing jobs in our economy and society. They are just like everybody else. They are not numbers; they are real human beings. I think we are already beginning to see a change in some of the opinion polls: thankfully, immigration is now going down the list of priorities as people realise that it is not some corrosive problem, but actually a wonderful, beneficial thing that has occurred in our country for centuries.
The Opposition should have used this opportunity today to talk about the positive benefits that immigration has brought to our country over centuries. Opinion is shifting. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) was on the television and radio the other night saying very openly and bluntly that for too long in my party we have not talked about the positive benefits of immigration. I will go further and say that that has occurred in both our main parties: for too long we have shovelled this away and not talked about it, or we have kowtowed to people when we should not have done and we should have stood up for immigration and all the huge benefits it conveys.
I want to say to hon. Members in the Labour party and in the SNP—I have a lot of time for the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—something about the level of offence. I apologise for being cross and angry sitting on these Back Benches, but I do get cross and I do get angry at some of the comments and slurs that have been made. The idea that there are people on these Benches who have done the wrong thing and said the wrong thing—of course there will always be people who do not always get the right argument, but it is wrong to cast that aspersion. The hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) shakes her head, but she should tread very carefully. I am old enough to remember as a Conservative being a proud member of the Anti-Nazi League, going on the streets—[Interruption.] She can listen for once. I remember going on the streets of Birmingham and standing shoulder to shoulder—
Anna Soubry
In a moment; I always give way to the hon. Lady.
I remember standing proudly with members of all political parties, every shade of Trotskyist, communist, broad left, far left, liberals and other Tories. The huge change that has happened in our society is that members of the hard left who shout from sedentary positions have forgotten all that and engage at the level of tribalism on issues that should unite us. That does them and our country a great disservice.
Lyn Brown
I want to bring the right hon. Lady back to today’s debate and read to her from a message that the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has placed in my inbox:
“Nothing that the government has announced today in parliament will address the root causes of the Windrush scandal—namely the ‘hostile environment’ policy. Hostility is still very much in play, the government still plans to roll Right to Rent out further to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
I really do respect the right hon. Lady, but may I suggest to her that she should understand why we are pressing for a vote tonight and join us in the Lobby to tell her Government how she truly feels?
Anna Soubry
I thank the hon. Lady, but that is not what this motion addresses. It is a bureaucratic, procedural thing. If it had espoused her very good arguments, I would not have any trouble with it, because I want to see change and I absolutely agree with her.
I have been saying to the House for I do not know how long since the Windrush scandal broke that the problem runs deep into the policy. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, who chairs the Select Committee, made the point that the policy basically sees everybody as an illegal immigrant. The default position is that people have to prove they are here legally. This shift in responsibility—this shift in the onus of proof—is anti-British and fundamentally wrong. I said the other day that we should perhaps go back to a system in which the state had to prove that a person had no right to be here. There might be an in-between way, but it cannot be right to have a system in which someone has to prove that they are who they say they are, when they have been here for decades and have a right to be here. That burden of proof must fall on the state. We are certainly seeing a shift in attitude, and I agree that we now need to see a shift in policy.
I am grateful that, just like his predecessor, the Home Secretary has assured us that the Home Office will from now on see people as people, it will not treat them as numbers and it will not see immigration as a problem. I have mentioned the need to shift the onus of proof. I have been saying for a long time that there is a problem, with too many officials having a default position of simply saying no. That has to change. If we are to have a fair and right system of immigration, we need to ensure that discretion and common sense run through the whole culture, from the top right down to the very bottom of the Home Office, in all its work. Also, if I may respectfully suggest this, we need to look at some of the solicitors who deal with immigration cases. I have my own concerns about the level of competence of some of those solicitors, and about the advice they give and the fees they charge.
We should scrap the ambition of reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. Actually, the market controls immigration. People come here to work, and if we do not have the jobs available, they will not come. We need to take students out of the targets—that has been ridiculous—and we need an immigration policy that meets the needs of British business as we leave the European Union. I want an assurance, please, that the Home Office has the people and the resources to ensure that the Windrush scandal does not extend to anyone else, and especially not to European Union citizens.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have to reduce the time limit to five minutes.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Thank you for the warning, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow a former member of the Anti-Nazi League. I have always thought that the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) was a bit of a closet pinko; she obviously needs to be looked into by the Conservative Chief Whip. I should like to congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on bringing a proper level of scrutiny to bear on this issue, including the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).
In particular, I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who really kick-started this and brought the issue out into the public spotlight. I should like to point out that his predecessor was Bernie Grant, who was a friend of mine. He came here from Guyana—it was British Guyana when he was there—with his head held high, proud of where he came from and proud of where he was going. That is the whole point about this scandal. People like Bernie are now being threatened with deportation. I say “people like Bernie” because he cannot be threatened with deportation; sadly, he passed away some years ago.
I am dealing with between 30 and 40 cases in my constituency. I have a big Windrush community. As a proportion, I am dealing with a very large number of cases. These are people who have been threatened with deportation, and I will give two brief examples. The first is a woman, and she is a classic Windrush baby case. She came to Britain as a baby in the 1960s, and she cannot remember Jamaica, which is where she was born. She has a broad east London accent, and it is pretty obvious that she is as quintessentially British and a Londoner as anyone else, yet when she went to apply for a passport for the first time in her life, having brought up a family and worked here for all these years, she was told not only that she could not have a passport but that she was going to be deported back to Jamaica. As she said, it is a country that she cannot remember.
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. A constituent of mine who came to Britain as a child in 1972 was recently detained upon his return from Jamaica after visiting his father, who has dementia. He told me about his humiliation and that he has had no recourse to public funds since then. He now cannot visit his father again for fear of being detained. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a travesty and that my constituent, along with his, should be afforded the same rights as every other British citizen without further delay?
John Cryer
Of course, I agree.
My second example is more unusual and involves a woman who came from Jamaica when she was a baby. She was abandoned by her parents and grew up in a nunnery, which—Members can tell what is coming—was closed down and demolished after she left, and its records were lost. Again, this is somebody with a broad east London accent. She is quintessentially British and has the right to stay here, but she was told, after she had been through all that, “We’re going to deport you.” That is the sort of culture that we are dealing with at the Home Office, and I suspect that it goes across Government, which I will come to in a minute.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I actually agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are aspects of this case that are deeply concerning, and I hope that the Government learn from it. May I suggest that, at the end of the day, we have to protect Government records and civil servants’ advice to Governments to ensure that civil servants can give advice with candour? Given that we will have an inquiry, which we all hope will go to the heart of the matter, we should look to it to take the issue back to where it began, which was before 2010.
John Cryer
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the inquiry, but this is an issue of transparency. He and I agree about an awful lot of things, but we are on opposite sides of the fence here. The documents should be put in the public domain. We can redact certain things, such as civil servants’ names, but the names of elected people should not be redacted.
Both the cases that I mentioned earlier resulted in victories, but I am dealing with many other cases. Over the past two or three years—this goes back a long way—I have spent an awful lot of time writing to schools, former employers, colleges and the police. In one case I even had to write to the Army to try to check the records to prove that people who had every right to be here could assume that right.
This country has close ties with the Caribbean and with other Commonwealth countries, and we should bear in mind that this debate will be watched across the Commonwealth. Thousands of people will be watching us in countries such as Jamaica, India and Pakistan. Those close ties with the Commonwealth, and with the Caribbean in particular, have their roots in an appalling institution: the empire. It was built on piracy and slavery, but nevertheless the one good thing to come out of that poisonous institution was the Commonwealth, which has always given relatively small countries, often with little political and economic clout, a platform for their voices to be heard, especially here and particularly at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings.
After the war, a series of Governments in this country and in others worked to foster the bonds with the Commonwealth, but those bonds have now been loosened. It is not simply that communities in this country have been given cause to fear what might happen, which is bad enough; we have also undermined relationships with countries across the globe. I never thought I would see the Prime Minister of Jamaica standing in Downing Street, expressing his dismay at the British Government and their policies. That goes way beyond what any previous Jamaican Prime Minister has said, and previous Prime Ministers were fairly critical—I am thinking of Michael Manley and his father Norman. Nobody has expressed such sentiments in the heart of the capital. This Government’s job now is to rebuild links with the affected communities and reassure them that they are safe and not under threat. The Government also need—this includes the Foreign Office—to rebuild links with the Commonwealth countries that have had their faith in Britain shattered.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
This is a timely and serious debate. We have to acknowledge that the Windrush scandal is a scandal, and we have to acknowledge that mistakes were made. The Government have not been shown in a very good light.
There have been some excellent speeches by Members on both sides of the House, and it is right that we look dispassionately at the issue of immigration. This is not an immigration debate, and very few people on either side of the House would question the fact that immigration is of great benefit to the United Kingdom. My parents both emigrated from a Commonwealth country in the early 1960s, and they are at the centre of what this debate is about.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) mentioned some harrowing individual cases, and I have heard of other cases, not of constituents but of people in other parts of the capital. I have seen that this has caused a lot of heartache, and it is a very serious issue.
I feel, and many people feel, that the way this issue has been politicised is regrettable. There is a suspicion that not the entire Labour party—many Labour Members have been very honest, capable and sincere in their approach to this problem—but a number of people in it have tried to score political points on a national scandal. I say that because I cannot remember an occasion during my eight years in the House on which both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have issued full apologies for the treatment of British citizens—I cannot remember that happening.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman says we are politicising the issue. It is fine for the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to apologise, but to address this they need to get rid of their hostile environment policy.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Forgive me, but can I make a little progress?
With respect to the intervention by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), not only did the former Home Secretary apologise but she resigned over the issue. That is a significant event. It is rare in our politics today that Ministers pay the ultimate price and resign, and that is what has happened.
There is a great deal of contrition, and there have been apologies. Not only that, but a helpline has been put in place to make it as easy as possible for people to find the right documentation. We have also heard about a policy to compensate people who have suffered the excesses of the Home Office. There has been plenty of policy and plenty of speeches, announcements and contrition on the part of the governing party.
I am not suggesting that every Labour Member is exploiting this issue for political ends—I do not believe that at all. I have heard many compelling and sincere speeches, but there is a suspicion that one or two Labour Members are doing so.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s points about contrition and about the resignation of the former Home Secretary, but surely the issue is the underlying immigration policies—the hostile environment. Can he enlighten us as to whether he and his Back-Bench colleagues challenged some of those policies? He is a Conservative Member and his party is in government. What did he and his colleagues do? I am sure that, like the rest of us, his mailbox is full of constituency cases of people who are being treated in a hostile manner.
Kwasi Kwarteng
It is no secret that the issue of immigration has been a matter of huge debate within the Conservative party. There is a wide range of opinions on the issue on the Government side of the House, just as there is on the Opposition side of the House. It is an issue on which both sides of the House are divided. Some Government Members want a very open, comprehensive, almost laissez-faire approach to immigration; others want to be more restrictive.
Anna Soubry
It should be put on the record that many of us who were elected in 2010, with the change of government, noticed that under the previous Government there had also been big problems in the Home Office in getting on and doing the right thing in relation to all manner of things—visas, applications and so on. This was nothing new under the Conservative Government.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Both sides of the House were complicit in this issue. Members have mentioned the Labour Government and a former Labour Prime Minister who suggested that British jobs should be restricted to British workers. If he had been a Conservative Prime Minister, that comment would have caused outrage and would have been widely regarded as a disgraceful comment. That was the environment in which many of us operated when we were elected in 2010. All of us have to take some degree of responsibility for this.
In my closing remarks, I want to talk about something that has been mentioned: illegal immigration. Many Opposition Members have suggested that Conservative Members were trying to conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration. We were doing the opposite; everyone said, categorically, that the Windrush generation had an incontestable right to stay in Britain, as they are British. No one on this side of the House has ever questioned their legal status. What we have said is that we need a strong policy on illegal immigration—after all, it is against the law. It is a principal job of Government to uphold the law, so any Government, of whatever stripe, would need robust and strong policies to counter illegal immigration. People should not be embarrassed about that, as we are talking about the job of Government. Many millions of people who live in this country—probably the vast majority of our constituents—would expect a rules-based system to regulate how one comes into the country.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that those with some of the loudest and most articulate voices in favour of a robust and fair approach are people who have come to this country and played by the rules in the first place?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I suggest we take a much more rounded approach to the issue. There is blame on both sides. I cannot condone what my Government have done in the past on Windrush, and I sincerely hope and pray that our performance is much better on this issue in the future, because the Government will ultimately be judged on how we resolve it. The whole country, like others across the world in the Commonwealth, is looking at us, and we have to acquit ourselves with dignity and competence.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this incredibly important debate. A lot has been said today and over the past week or so about this scandal, but I still feel that there are not words strong enough to describe how awful, appalling, heartbreaking and profoundly un-British this whole scandal has been. I associate myself with all the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary in her opening speech. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on the tremendous work they have done on bringing this issue to light.
This is a horrendous, horrible moment, not just for the Windrush generation and their children but for all of us in our collective national life, and it will have an enduring legacy. If we choose, and if the Government listen, it could be a positive legacy that helps us to move forward in a way that is in the best of our British traditions of fairness, decency and a desire to do the right thing. In that context, I say to Home Office Ministers that they should take heed of our motion and simply release the paperwork. If there is an issue as to how extensive the wording of the motion is, they should work with either the shadow Front-Bench team or the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee to come to a wording that is acceptable and to bring forward the disinfectant that is sunlight.
Jeremy Quin
I do not think the hon. Lady understands the import of the motion. If the motion is passed, the papers are required to be given; it is a resolution of the House. Then the Government would have to comply, I presume, with the orders of the Humble Address. It is not an invitation to treat or to discuss.
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but as we all know in this place, there are always the usual channels for discussions to be had, and if there was ever a moment for the usual channels and for discussions to be had, I would say that in resolving this most important national matter, this would be the time. It is open to the Government at any point to work with those of us who want the paperwork released, so that we can get to the bottom of what happened and truly learn lessons, and move forward in a way that would honour the Windrush generation and put right what they have suffered. That is what needs to happen.
I welcome the move today to provide legal certainty about how the Windrush generation will be treated in their future applications, but I ask Home Office Ministers to consider giving those citizens access to legal aid and good-quality legal advice as they try to regularise their status. I say that because the absence of legal aid has pushed people towards rapacious and terrible solicitors who give bad advice, and because simply saying, “We have put this on a legal footing and now you can trust the Home Office,” is not enough for people who are still too scared to come forward. The Government have lost the trust of a generation. I know people who, despite my personal assurances, are still too afraid to come forward. A simple legal and legislative change will not be enough. They need access to independent legal advice, and they need financial help for the purpose.
I shall make a couple of general remarks on illegal immigration. Some Conservative Members attempted to ask the Opposition, “What would you do about illegal immigration?” We dishonour the Windrush generation if we make this a debate about illegal immigration, and if we miss the point about the culture of disbelief that fuels the hostile environment, which, as the scandal has shown, sits at the heart of what has happened. It is that culture of disbelief that renders British citizens and British nationals as if they were not just immigrants but illegal too. It visits upon them the ignominy and humiliation of being deemed illegal in their own land. That assumption, which is made at the heart of our system, does not simply go after illegal immigrants; as we have said, it goes after those of us who look like we could be immigrants. We have talked a lot about illegal immigration sitting at the heart of this debate, but what we are not talking about so much is race.
I say to hon. Members who do not quite understand how these policies impact on their fellow citizens and their fellow British nationals: try making an application to the Home Office while having a name that is demonstrably African in origin. Try making an application, as a British national, to the Home Office with a name that is demonstrably south Asian in origin. I promise that the protection of a British passport will not help one little bit. People will have visited upon them casual humiliation upon humiliation. The system will treat them as if they were dirt on the bottom of its shoe, and that is not good enough.
That happens to British nationals on a daily basis when they apply for visitor visas or spousal visas. If they can get past the income threshold and prove the legitimacy of their love for somebody they fallen in love with and married, the system still makes them take a DNA test to prove that a child who might have been born while they visited their foreign-based spouse is in fact their child. That is not acceptable in 21st-century Britain. I say to Government Members: do not be complacent about what your system is doing on a daily basis to people who have the protection of a British passport. If you are in any doubt, come to see me in my constituency, which is 70% non-white. I have one of the highest immigration caseloads in this country and I see this daily. If you have illusions about this, I suggest that you disabuse yourselves of them straightaway.
This is a moment of national truth—of clarity. It is a moment when we can make a choice to have a better debate about immigration. It is a moment that we must not allow to be missed. We will honour the Windrush generation if we move forward in a way that is humane, that is compassionate, and that acknowledges the truth of the failures at the heart of our system and seeks to put them right.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), my fellow marathon runner. My remarks will share in the sentiment of the early part of hers, because I come at this debate considering myself very lucky to have grown up in a diverse community. In Wellingborough, I grew up with Afro-Caribbean families. I grew up with Asian families. They have played a huge part in our community; they have contributed so much. They are absolutely British, and they are here legally; let us be in no doubt about that.
I take great offence at any suggestion that not all Members of the House are concerned about this issue or that not all Members take the matter incredibly seriously or want it resolved as quickly as possible. I do not think that anybody would say that something has not gone seriously wrong here—it is impossible to deny that something has gone seriously wrong—but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that nobody has set about deliberately targeting the Windrush generation. Again, it is wrong to give the impression that that is the case, and I take issue with it.
It is right, therefore, that a full and frank apology is made, and we have seen a full and frank apology made on numerous occasions. What matters more than any of that, though, is action. This is about speedy action being taken, which is why I welcome the package of measures announced by Ministers in recent days, because they are comprehensive.
Having had constituents contact me who are concerned that they have been affected by this issue, my experience as a constituency MP is that they have been dealt with thoroughly and speedily to reach a resolution in their case. I have seen a system that has been put in place being responsive to dealing with these cases. Of course, this should never have happened, but these cases have been dealt with in a way that I would like them to be dealt with, and dealt with properly. I do not want anybody to be worrying about this for any longer than is necessary.
When the statement was made last week, I pushed the former Home Secretary on the two-week target. She was confident that it would hold, which is really important. I will certainly be monitoring progress against that.
I also welcome what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had to say today about the new measures around transparency that he is going to introduce. I welcome the fact that the Home Affairs Committee is going to be getting the information that it has requested, and when we look at my right hon. Friend’s record, certainly in dealing with the Grenfell issue, we can see that he has been incredibly sympathetic, incredibly thorough and always incredibly forthcoming in dealing with the issues—not just those raised by Members of the House, but those raised by the survivors. That is absolutely right, and I know that he will pursue this with vigour, robustly and thoroughly.
The truth is that the motion will do absolutely nothing to help any of that. This is a procedural motion. I wanted to intervene on the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the shadow Home Secretary, to make the point that if we are serious about this, why refer to the date May 2010? The fact that certain policies were enacted under the last Labour Government has been well documented in the media, so why are Labour Members not interested in getting to grips with the information from before that date? It would have been a much more genuine attempt had that been the case.
Mrs Main
That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. This is quite obviously a fishing exercise between certain chosen dates, and I have to say that if Labour Members were honestly trying to get to the truth, they would be looking at the whole number of dates covered by this policy.
Tom Pursglove
I agree with that analysis, and the approach that has been adopted is disappointing. It seems to me that Ministers are thoroughly engaging with the Home Affairs Committee anyway, and were engaging properly with the Committee before the motion was even tabled.
I want to touch on immigration policy and will start by saying that, of course—I have made this point previously and I make it again—the Windrush generation and members of that generation should never, ever have been caught up in the measures that have, in the end, affected them. I come at the issue of immigration policy as someone who campaigned in the referendum to leave and as someone who, yes, wants to see control, but also wants fairness in our immigration policy. I think fairness is the more important point.
If we asked my constituents in Corby and east Northamptonshire, they would say that a common-sense immigration policy is one that treats people equally, regardless of where they come from in the world, and treats people the same whether they come from the Caribbean, the subcontinent or the European Union. That is where I would like to get to at the end of this Brexit process. That is the immigration policy that I would like to see, obviously with a big consideration of the skills that are required in our economy as part of it.
But let me also say that we have to deal with illegal immigration robustly and properly. Of course we have to deal with it humanely and speedily, but the main reason we have to deal with it thoroughly, properly and robustly is that if we do not do so, it penalises those who come here legally, follow the rules and go through the right route.
To my mind, we must, first and foremost, put right what has gone wrong—no ifs, no buts. As one House, we should all be united in that resolve.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
At its heart this motion is about the hostile environment, and that is why so many of us are here this afternoon. The Home Secretary has committed himself to a “fair and humane” immigration policy. In my view, it is not possible to have a fair and humane immigration policy alongside the hostile environment. That is a paradox and a total contradiction in terms. He has said that he wants to move from a hostile environment to a compliant environment. Let us think about what compliant means.
Compliant means to obey rules to an excessive degree. Compliant means the action or fact of complying with a command. I say to the new Home Secretary: has he forgotten our history? I remind the House that I am here because you were there. I say “you” metaphorically. The Windrush generation are here because of slavery. The Windrush story is the story of British empire. And the Windrush community and its ancestors know what hostile and compliance mean. We know what compliance means. It is written deep into our souls and passed down from our ancestors. Slaves having to nod and smile when they were being whipped in a cotton field or a sugar cane field were compliant. Watching your partner being tied to a tree, beaten or raped on a plantation is compliance. Twelve million people being transported as slaves from Africa to the colonies is a compliant environment.
Mr Lammy
I will not.
Windrush citizens being abused, spat on and assaulted in the street but never once fighting back was a compliant environment. Black Britons being racially abused at work but never speaking up because they need to put food on the table know all about a compliant environment. Turning the other cheek when the National Front were marching through our streets was a compliant environment. Young black men being stopped and searched by the police, despite committing no crime and living in fear of the police, know what it is like to be in a compliant environment. And thank God that Doreen Lawrence defied that compliant environment.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend says, the terminology does not help. Does he agree that we also need a change of policy to get to the root causes of why this happened in the first place and to prevent it from happening again?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is exactly right.
I want to make it absolutely clear that it is my view that this belief about a compliant environment goes all the way back to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. This Parliament provided compensation, worth £17 billion today and paid for by the British taxpayer, to the 46,000 British slave owners for the loss of their property. The slaves got nothing. And now their descendants are being shackled and chained, dragged on to deportation flights and sent back across the same ocean that Britain took their ancestors from in slave ships centuries ago.
Stephen Doughty
As ever, my right hon. Friend is speaking with incredible words, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). Was my right hon. Friend as shocked as I was yesterday to hear the new Home Secretary say that he was not aware of any cases of wrongful deportation? Many such cases have been raised in public, let alone the incidents of wrongful detention. I have a letter here from the Home Office that admits that one of my own constituents—a British citizen—was wrongfully deported. Is he surprised by that?
Mr Lammy
I am staggered by it because there are thousands of people in the Caribbean who have lost their jobs and livelihoods, and are desperate to get back to their loved ones. But we still have no numbers from this Government.
I stood in this place five years ago and warned about the impact of the hostile environment. I told the then Home Secretary that her Bill was a stain on our democracy. In recent weeks, we have seen how the Windrush scandal has become a stain on our democracy and on our national conscience. I warned about the impact of a policy that would take us back to the days of “No Irish, no blacks, no dogs.” I stood in this place five years ago and read from Magna Carta, the foundation of our democracy, which says:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled…nor will we proceed with force against him…except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”
Yesterday, in a Committee Room in the Palace of Westminster, we heard testimony from British citizens who have been seized and imprisoned, who have been stripped of their rights, who have been outlawed or exiled, and who have been treated like criminals in their own country. So I ask the Minister: how many more Windrush scandals do we need before this hostile environment, or indeed compliant environment, is scrapped? How many more injustices? How many more lives ruined? Because I will be back here in five years’ time if we continue down this road to great injustices in our own country.
In recent weeks, we have seen so many Government Ministers and Members of the House talk about the issue of illegal immigration, conflating illegal immigration and the Windrush crisis. This is symptomatic of the hostile environment and its corrosive impact. What we have seen in this House, with Members standing up to talk about illegal immigration, is a perfect metaphor for the hostile environment and how it works: a blurring of the lines between people who are here legally and illegal immigrants, scapegoating innocent people, and blaming immigrants for the failures of successive Governments. Toxic anti-immigrant rhetoric created the demand for the hostile environment. Then we got a divisive policy handed down by our current Prime Minister, pandering to prejudice and aided and abetted by a hateful dog whistle emanating from our tabloid press. This was all reinforced by politicians too craven to speak the truth about immigration and too cowardly to stand up for the rights of minorities. Conservative Members want to lecture us about illegal immigration. The hostile environment is not about illegal immigration. The hostile environment is about raising questions about the status of anybody who looks like they could be an immigrant. It is about treating anybody who looks like they could be an immigrant as if they are a criminal.
Where does the hostile environment get us to? Let me tell you. It leads to cases in my own constituency of people being dragged out of their homes, going to Yarl’s Wood, and not able to do midwifery exams. It leads to people losing their jobs and their livelihoods. So I say to Conservative Members and Members across this House, on behalf of the Windrush generation: keep in mind that spiritual and let freedom reign. It will only reign when this country turns back from the path it is on, ends the compliant environment in which I know my place, and starts along a humane path that has at its heart human rights. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made a terrifically rhetorical speech and he deserves to be congratulated, but not by clapping. Could the House just say “Hear, hear”?
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I would like to address the motion on the Order Paper, because that is what we are here to talk about. Would that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, were on the Opposition Front Bench. She actually spoke to the motion, and with great knowledge. I was disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary did not address the motion as the right hon. Lady did. She seemed to spend three quarters of her speech—
Mrs Main
I am afraid that I will not take any interventions from the shadow Home Secretary, as she absolutely steadfastly refused to recognise the requests of any Conservative Members and did not give way in any way, shape or form. If she would like to take a bit of her own medicine—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is standing at the Dispatch Box, but the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has said that she is not taking an intervention. [Interruption.] It is not for me to decide; there is no point in the right hon. Lady appealing to me.
Mrs Main
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not be taking any interventions from the shadow Home Secretary, since she did not extend that courtesy to Conservative Members.
As I said, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford got to the nub of this debate. We have to ask ourselves whether documentation is needed for the Home Affairs Committee to do its business. I think that it probably is. I think she will be diligent in that task. As I said, I would like to see the information taken from the range of documentation.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I gently point out to her that the point I made was that it was not a matter for the Select Committee, but a matter for the House, to make a decision on the motion, and that we would choose how to respond. Although we have put our own questions to the Home Office, most of them are still unanswered. Clearly she will have her own points to make, but I ask her not to pray in aid my arguments.
Mrs Main
I take the point, and I hope the right hon. Lady gets the answers that she deserves. I think that all Conservative Members feel that the Windrush generation have been done a huge disservice. To conflate this debate with other forms of immigration, slavery and whatever else people have chucked into the mix, including fishing, does a disservice to the debate we must have about the wrongs that were done in the processing of the Windrush generation.
Mrs Main
No, I will not give way on that point.
We need to look at the process and truly analyse it. Heartfelt apologies have been made, which is absolutely correct. Anyone whose life has been disrupted—I do not dispute that many have been—deserves that apology, but we need to look at how it went wrong and what went wrong and make sure that compensation, if appropriate, is given. No Conservative Members would say any differently. The people of this generation are here absolutely legally, and we need to ensure that their position is corrected, so that neither they nor their children or family in future have any of these issues.
However, the motion before us is about how much protection is given to the people who advise those in government. This wide-ranging text, mentioning Ministers, senior officials, special advisers and so on, makes such an onerous and invasive request. If this request was taken to the nth degree on every contentious topic—for example, the invasion of Iraq—where would it end? How can a Government get the information they need and think outside the box, and how can text messages be sent between Ministers, if they believe that nothing can be said within Cabinet that cannot at any time be requested in an Opposition day motion?
If there are papers that show how this process came to happen in the way it did, I hope they are brought forward, as the Home Affairs Committee has requested, but this motion goes to the nth degree of asking for “advice” to be published—what sort of advice? Does that include oral advice, minutes taken, emails and text messages? The motion also mentions “all papers” and “correspondence”, but it is only for the selective dates that the Opposition feel may be helpful to their cause. This is not the way to sort out a problem that has occurred over decades. This problem must be put right, and I believe the Home Secretary has the passion to put it right.
The semantics and picking apart of the word “compliant” are ridiculous. Most Conservative Members would agree that the Home Secretary is a man of great compassion who cares deeply about—
Mr Lammy
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have had to cope with the hon. Lady saying that we cannot link the Windrush generation to slavery. I have had now to cope with her suggesting that my “Oxford English Dictionary” definition of “compliance” in my speech was wrong. Can she correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I understand that passions are running high, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. He has made his point. The hon. Lady may address it if she wishes to, but it is up to her.
Mrs Main
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply said that we have had everything thrown into this debate, apart from a discussion of the impact of what the motion would deliver.
As I was saying, I believe that our new Home Secretary is a compassionate and caring man. The fact that he has been called a “coconut”, and all the other things he has had to endure in the short time he has been in office, just goes to show that we do not live in the tolerant society that I would like to live in. The fact that he has the dignity to address those comments in the Chamber but still not be deterred from doing the right thing by the Windrush generation is to his great credit, and long may he do so.
I do not think that this debate has been characterised by good temper on both sides. When the shadow Secretary of State will not give way to anyone, it certainly does not make for a debate; rather, it makes for a one-sided monologue read from notes. The implication of the motion is so far ranging and so constraining on any future Government that it would be very dangerous to go along this route. The Windrush generation has been done a great disservice, but apologies have been made. I hope that there is a swift resolution, and I believe that under the current Government there will be.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Windrush generation came to our country in the post-war period to help to rebuild Britain. They have made our nation great, and they are part of us. They are British citizens regardless of whether or not they have the paperwork to prove so.
I first became aware of the appalling and inhumane treatment of the Windrush generation last October, when my constituent Paulette Wilson was detained at Yarl’s Wood and then taken to Heathrow detention centre, before being released at the 11th hour, after I had intervened, as had the Refugee and Migrant Centre in Wolverhampton. Paulette believed she was going to be put on a plane to Jamaica—a country she had not been to for 50 years, since she was 10 years old.
Paulette has worked all of her life in the UK, including serving food to Members of Parliament in this place, and she has paid 34 years of national insurance contributions. She has raised a daughter, and she now has a granddaughter. For weeks after her release, she found it difficult to sleep or eat. I want to press the Government on the compensation scheme. I know that they have to be careful and that it has to be got right, but I hope that they will bring it forward quickly and that she is properly compensated.
It pains me that it has taken so long for this scandal to come to light. Why did it take the detention of my constituent and the appalling treatment of many others—they thought they were isolated cases until somebody linked them together—as well as the work and determination of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the intervention of the Church of England bishops, the pressure from several Caribbean high commissioners and Heads of Government, and the work of a dedicated journalist at The Guardian to join up the dots?
The Home Secretary today announced an internal review into what went wrong. If that is to be meaningful, it must identify the root causes of this scandal. This is not about scoring party political points, but about focusing on preventing this from ever happening again and on rebuilding trust not only with the Windrush generation but with others who have come from the Commonwealth over the years and the EU migrants who have come more recently. I hope—I sincerely hope—that the Government will be honest and open about why what happened to Paulette took place, and why so many others have also been caught up.
I have heard some Government Members describe this as an administrative oversight, but I do not believe that to be the case. If it were just an error, why did it happen to so many different people in different parts of the UK? Others have tried to blame civil servants, as if what Ministers do and say has no bearing on their Department. The truth is that Ministers make policy and civil servants are there to carry out their policies. Ministers set targets and expect civil servants to deliver on those targets.
We have to look closely at the hostile environment policy introduced by the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary. This included making landlords, doctors and employers unwilling border guards, setting an unrealistic net migration target of getting immigration down to the tens of thousands and removing legal aid and the right of appeal on NTL—no time limit—applications.
We have recently learned that there have been internal regional targets for removal. The former Home Secretary denied their existence, and said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and members of the Home Affairs Committee:
“that’s not how we operate”.
We now know that she was wrong about the existence of such targets—they do exist—but what she said about not operating in that way was absolutely right. It is absurd and immoral to have removal targets for migrants. It has fostered a culture of disbelief and of treating people as numbers, not human beings.
We need an honest appraisal of what went wrong, to prevent this from happening again and to have any chance of building a fair and humane immigration policy, as the Home Secretary declared he wants to build. Let us learn the lessons, and let us make sure that our immigration policy is in line with British values and the country in which we live.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I want to keep my words short. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds).
I would like to comment on the words of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) because he said that it may be five years before he is back here fighting this cause. I hope it is not that length of time because, while I disagreed with some of the sentiments in what he said, it is important that the whole House pays tribute to the work and dedication he has put in to draw attention to an issue that should never have been there. Without his hard work and dedication—it was probably very frustrating at times—I certainly would not have known about this issue, and the Guardian journalist would not have known about it. So tribute has to be paid to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure his constituents are very proud of the work he has done on their behalf.
This is an opportunity for us to celebrate the rich diversity that the Windrush generation have brought to our shores. Regardless of whether we are talking about the first generation, their children or, in many cases, their grandchildren, we have to recognise them for the benefits they have brought. If we visit a health service in this country, it is almost impossible not to find examples of where those have been enriched by what has come to our shores. That is incredibly welcome.
It is important that we use this opportunity to learn from what has been a shocking example of failure. Whether it was deliberate or accidental, people were let down and betrayed. That was an absolutely shocking stain on a great Department of State. I really hope that Ministers and officials, regardless of party, reflect on the decisions they took and make sure that we learn from this, move forward and never make systematic mistakes again.
We are entering a period when we will be dealing with vast numbers of EU nationals, which, again, will potentially throw up lots of complications and questions. We have to make sure that we draw on what has happened, to ensure that the rights and protections for those people, their children, their spouses and so on are honoured and respected.
I would like to pick up on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) about immigration solicitors, because a huge amount of work needs to be done. Many of these solicitors work honestly and openly, and do a great job for those who come to see them, but there are others who do not. There are others who are not fully qualified. There are others who seek to charge exorbitant fees to people who often cannot afford to pay them. There are others who give people bad advice and who send them on a runaround. Very quick bits of advice could solve an issue, but some of these solicitors would rather look the other way and tie people into horrendous, horrific contracts that often leave them in penury. I would say to Ministers that, if there is no work being done on immigration solicitors, it needs to be done, because many vulnerable people are paying an awful price.
I hope that we are able to come together to sort the mess of Windrush and to ensure that immigration policy in this country is fair and balanced, regardless of the colour of someone’s skin or where they are from. I hope that we are able to ensure that it reflects them as an individual and the contribution we believe they can make to our country.
This is a moment when we can move forward. I encourage Ministers to continue in the way they have been doing in recent weeks. If we get this right, tens of thousands of people—not hundreds of people—will be grateful. We should be sorry for the people who have paid a horrific price, but we should be thanking those who have shone a light on what is an unmitigated disaster and who are putting a wrong right.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) for the tone he adopted in his speech. That is exactly the tone that the House should have seen throughout this debate.
We have to learn from this appalling scandal. We have to think about what it means for our immigration system and how we treat people—I repeat: how we treat people. Legal or illegal, they are people and we should treat them fairly and with justice. I say to Conservative Members that, when Hansard comes out tomorrow, they should re-read the speeches by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I found them very insightful. They spoke from the heart and from experience. I do not have the immigration case load of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, but I have a quite a number of cases and she talked about issues that I have seen in my surgeries far too frequently. There is a huge and systemic problem with the Home Office and it has to be put right.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham talked about what people are feeling out there: what real people are feeling, their emotions. If we do not hear that in the House, we will never get to the bottom of this problem. I say to Ministers and Conservative Members: just think. Yes, the motion is strong in terms of the amount of information it asks for, but that is right because it is proportionate to the level of scandal we are facing. It is proportionate to the work we have to do to get this thing right. I have faith in the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the Home Affairs Committee to look at that information and use it with judicious skill. If we can come together, we can really learn the lessons and find out what has gone wrong.
I am pleased at the period of time proposed in the motion. It includes a period of time when my party was in government. I am very happy for all that to be considered. I gently say to Labour colleagues that I wish the motion went a bit further, because we need to learn everything, but I will vote for it tonight. It talks about transparency and openness, and that is where we have to go.
I hope the Minister will say a little more about who it is we are helping, as that is currently too vague for my liking. The Windrush generation? Commonwealth citizens? Can we be more specific? We need to know exactly who will be helped by the unit and the new rules. Unless we do that, we will find other injustices. We need to get it right, so we need the detail. We know how much Home Office officials focus on the detail. If we are going to hold them to account for this system, we need detail from the Minister.
I urge the Government to not stop at Commonwealth citizens. There are people who have been in this country from all over the world for many, many years. I am dealing with a Moroccan who came to this country in 1973. His papers were lost in a fire in the place in which he worked in 1978. He is now homeless and suffering from cancer. He has no recourse to public funds and the Home Office does not take any notice of the letters I write. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] It is shameful. We really have to start thinking about these people as human beings. The Government have to realise that even if the Prime Minister is caught up in this and it emerges that she was told about the problems facing the Windrush generation when she was Home Secretary and did nothing, that is too bad. She will have to be held to account for that. We need the openness.
We will be debating an amendment to the Data Protection Bill on 9 May. The Government are putting forward a Bill with an immigration exemption so that people, including British citizens, will not be able to have access to their immigration file held by the Home Office. Home Office officials will be able to say, “No, you can’t see it.” That is a recipe for a cover-up and the next Windrush scandal. That clause must be removed. This House must vote against it on 9 May.
There are so many things wrong with our immigration system. We have heard this week about visas not being given to the NHS doctors we need to help our people. We have heard about foreign students who have been expelled against the rule of law. There is so much that is wrong. If the Government do not understand that and ignore what the editor of the Daily Mail says, I am afraid our country will not come together in the way that it should.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). On Monday, we had a first-class debate in the quiet environment of Westminster Hall. All of us who took part, including particularly though not exclusively the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), spoke to the heart of the issue and said what a number of colleagues on both sides of the House have said this afternoon: we are talking about people—people with aspirations, needs, family and commitments. Very often we reduce things too much by talking about a battery of statistics, telephone numbers and all the rest of it, and we lose sight of the fact that we are talking about people and their hopes and aspirations. Unfortunately, the motion and—I say this with the greatest respect to the shadow Home Secretary—the tone and manner in which she introduced the motion were not conducive to our seeing a replication of the debate that we had in Westminster Hall.
I say this not to be particularly partisan, but I think there is a very clear disconnect on this issue between the Opposition Front Benchers and their Back Benchers. Their Back Benchers are talking about people; they are talking about the principles that underpin their stances and objectives. The motion before us, which probably has very little to do with what many of our speeches have been predicated on, is all about politics and the process of politics. I would assert, I hope without contradiction, that most people who are affected by this issue really do not give a damn about the process. They just want to get it sorted out.
Legitimate questions have been asked, such as, “If we call up the Home Office number, and so on, will we compromise ourselves?”, and I hope that all of us feel that we have a duty to take back to our friends and constituents the fact that on this issue, the Government have recognised that there has been an error. The error has not necessarily been solely authored by this Government—it goes back to the end of the Blair-Brown era—but the people affected need confidence that the Government and the House are now on their side. They need to have confidence in the robustness, honesty and integrity of what Ministers say, whether that is in the media or at the Dispatch Box. If we decide, through narrow partisan political interest, to play politics with those people’s lives because we think that it might nudge us up one point or another in the opinion polls, that will let down our constituents.
Part of the problem, and I make no apology for rehearsing the point that I made on Monday, is that—
Yvette Cooper
I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful words earlier this week as well, but I really would ask him to withdraw some of the things that he has said about the Labour Front Benchers and the approach that they are taking, and in particular, about the shadow Home Secretary, who has been a passionate advocate for individuals who have been badly affected by the Windrush crisis. By all means, disagree with the motion, if the hon. Gentleman takes a different view, but I strongly urge him to withdraw the points about the shadow Home Secretary’s motive and approach, given the speech that she made earlier.
Simon Hoare
I say to the right hon. Lady that nobody in this House would doubt—let us be frank about this—the sincerity with which the shadow Home Secretary has faced fighting racism and abuse in this country. She is a leader in the field. I say to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, that if only the motion had reflected that, because it does not—it is about process.
As I said on Monday, at the back of all our minds, on the Government Benches and on the Opposition Benches, there is probably a little echo of guilt. Whether it was UKIP, the BNP or some of the more excessive narratives of our tabloid press, issues of “asylum” and “refugee”, “illegal” and “legal”, got conflated with “them” and “us, “foreign” and “different”, “alien” and “domestic”. All of us, looking to our political bases, became anxious about seeing our support nibbled away, and instead of making the positive, liberal case for the contribution that immigrants make—the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and by my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), on “Newsnight” on Monday—we ran away from those uncomfortable conversations on the doorstep. All of us—all of us—probably wish we had been a little more robust in making that positive case. That we did not make it is no excuse for not facing it now.
The Windrush generation answered our call in time of war and in time of peace, and the Government will answer their call to find a solution to this issue. Members on both sides of the House with equal passion owe all their constituents a duty to support that endeavour and to get it right—for people.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I want to talk about trust and how it has been violated, and I want to start with the cases of my constituents Gem and Jessica, both of which I raised in Monday’s debate in Westminster Hall.
Gem arrived here from Jamaica, Jessica from Dominica. Both have worked here, paying taxes and raising families, for nearly 50 years, and both have fallen victim to the Government’s hostile environment. Jessica has served our community in West Ham, working for a charity helping refugees and migrants, so what an irony that in March she was fired from that job because she could not prove her right to work. The lesson of the Windrush scandal is that the hostile environment strategy is, in and of itself, a breach of trust. The betrayal of people like Gem and Jessica will not end until that strategy changes.
The hostile environment violates the rightful, reasonable, normal expectations that the people of Britain share. We expect not to be treated with suspicion, like criminals, without very good reason. We expect not to be threatened with destitution, or to be divided from our families or communities, without very good reason. We expect that our voices and our contributions to our country will not be dismissed by our Government without extremely good reason. But those expectations were violated for our British Windrush citizens—their trust was violated. These citizens were stopped at the GP reception, the police station, the bank counter, the workplace, the jobcentre—all those places became hostile environments for Jessica, Gem and many others.
Papers are demanded—papers that many do not have—and when Windrush citizens cannot produce these papers, they are plunged into a nightmare of hostile demands and constant suspicion, and behind it all is the threat of deportation and the destruction of their lives, with jobs, housing and healthcare yanked away. We all know the consequences: homelessness, detention, depression, mental illness, suicide and bereavement. People like Jessica and Gem have been denied the decent, dignified, fair treatment that all of us have a right to expect. They have been treated like criminals without reason and denied redress without reason. Legal aid, tribunals, access to justice—all cut. Their trust in their country has been breached and cannot easily be restored.
There is massive anxiety in my community about immigration removal flights that may have British Windrush citizens on board. In particular, I am told of flight PVT070. I have asked about this in recent days, as have my colleagues, but despite ministerial assurances, anxieties remain. Can Ministers at the Home Office imagine just how badly they will have further betrayed the trust of generations if they fail to get a grip on this and British citizens are again deported?
Let me finish by echoing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said. The Windrush generation are British. They have always been British. Recognising their rights is justice. It is not generosity. I am tired of hearing that “they” came here to help “us”. In the community in which I grew up, there is no “us” of which Gem and Jessica are not a part. The Windrush generation did not come to help “us”; they are “us”. In serving our country all their lives, they have helped to build the communities that we share.
On Monday, in Westminster Hall, I spoke about how personal this is—and it is. Lucy and Cecil are my brother-in-law’s parents. They are good people. They are Windrush people. Lucy served for decades as an NHS nurse. They and their family, including me, are furious about the way in which the Government have treated British citizens. Sometimes when we are in this place talking about personal stuff, we struggle to find the right words and the right tone, but I hope that I have done them justice today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I want to make every effort to enable as many colleagues as possible to speak, so I shall now reduce the speaking time limit to four minutes.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). I think that she found absolutely the right words to express the human tragedy of this case, and I congratulate her on her powerful speech. Like her, I have been in the Chamber holding the Government to account when there have been urgent questions and statements about this issue, and like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), I am seeking—as my questions will confirm—the swift implementation, after consultation, of an effective and appropriate compensation scheme.
The House has every right, indeed a duty, to hold the Government to account. I hope that had the motion concerned the substance of policy, the mistakes for which the Government have apologised and the details of compensation and restitution, my contribution to the debate would have been no less sincere and no less demanding than that of any other Member in upholding the rights of our fellow citizens, to which I know the Government are also committed. However, that is not the motion that the Opposition have chosen to debate. Many speakers have not focused on the motion, but have discussed the Windrush affair more generally. I do not blame them for doing so—it is an issue that rightly excites fierce passions—but the House must be cognisant of what the motion actually says.
The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) set out a list of items of information, some of which I thought were quite reasonable, and most of which I thought she could access by means of parliamentary questions or freedom of information requests. However, she has resorted to a deeply archaic mechanism involving vastly wide-ranging powers and implications. The power that the motion invokes predates our Select Committees. It predates the routine questioning of Ministers on the Floor of the House. It predates freedom of information requests by centuries. It is not designed for a trawl through eight years-worth of text messages. In my view, it has been superseded by the freedom of information legislation introduced by the last Labour Government, with the checks and balances that that wisely incorporates.
I appreciate that neither the right hon. Lady nor the Leader of the Opposition has been a Minister with civil servants to advise them. However, having served on secondment in the civil service, I cannot emphasise too strongly how fortunate we are as a country to have a cadre of extremely experienced, independent civil servants, eager to do their utmost to provide the Government of the day with the best possible advice. I am deeply concerned by the precedent that the motion sets, not because of the position in which it places Ministers but because of the position in which it places decent public servants who do their utmost to support any incumbent Government.
The motion makes a number of demands. First, it demands the release of all papers, correspondence, text messages and advice on a set policy area over an eight-year period. I find it hard to think of a precedent that could be more injurious to good government and good advice. The motion makes it absolutely clear that through this mechanism, confidential advice destined for Ministers can be passed on. We are not talking about final policy, chewed over, discussed and determined by a Minister. We are talking about the range of options and recommendations provided by civil servants to aid the Minister in that analysis. The civil servants concerned have no means of defending themselves if this information is released into the public domain. I implore the House not to establish a precedent whereby our senior civil servants shy away from telling the truth to power.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Having worked in a Government Department and having had to produce papers for Ministers, does my hon. Friend agree that the failure to have any record to go back on means that there is no historical precedent, which affects future decision making?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is right: it puts civil servants in an invidious position. I would never discuss any advice that I might have been privy to in those days, but this puts civil servants in the most horrendous position. As I said to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), there are many Opposition Members who served their country with distinction in government. Before they vote to establish this precedent, I ask them to consider what the implications would have been for the men and women providing them with advice to the best of their ability, and for the advice that they might have received.
This wide-ranging motion would set a deeply damaging precedent. What makes it even worse is that it incorporates confidential advice directly relating to our relationship with other independent states, and in its last line it might even be encroaching on the minutes of a Cabinet Sub-Committee, which risks undermining the basis of collective Cabinet responsibility.
We all want to ensure justice for the Windrush victims, but I do not believe the motion is a responsible way to go about achieving that.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Windrush scandal has sent shockwaves through this country, and so it should. British citizens, men and women who were raised here, who built their lives here, who helped to rebuild this country—their country—after the devastation of the second world war, have been denied their basic human rights. They have been denied their rights as citizens to healthcare, housing, their pensions and social security, and in some cases they have lost their jobs. Some have even been deported in error—an error that has ripped apart lives, families and friendships.
Up to 50,000 British citizens have been too fearful of being deported or detained to even attempt to clarify their status. The Home Office does not even know the number of people it has wrongly deported, but even one person deported in error is one too many. So I ask the Minister to say in responding to this debate how many British citizens from the Windrush generation have been detained, and how many have been deported.
Whatever the answer, we know that a gross injustice has been committed against the Windrush generation, and those responsible for it must be held to account. The Windrush generation are owed more than that, however; they are owed the full restoration of their rights and compensation for the wrongs committed against them. But they are also owed a national discussion of how their country came to treat them with such inhumanity—a discussion of the history that led to the present day.
It is a history that my family knows well. My grandparents came to Britain in the 1960s. They were part of the Windrush generation, and their history and the history of the British empire are inextricably tied together. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) so proudly said, it is a history that begins in the 17th century when the European empires enslaved millions of Africans, taking them to the Caribbean in brutal conditions, subjecting them to cruelty and murderous exploitation and building the wealth of the British ruling elite on their enslaved labour. In the eyes of the British colonial rulers, they were unworthy of having rights. That is the Caribbean history just as it is the British history.
When my grandparents left Jamaica for Britain, they knew that history. When they arrived here, they were truly welcomed by some, but not all. They were confronted by fascists and racists, and they faced Conservative election posters that said “If you want a coloured for your neighbour, vote Labour”, signs in shop windows reading “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish”, and politicians such as Enoch Powell who whipped up racial hatred, blaming migrants for economic and social problems. Still my grandparents persevered. They built their lives here and raised their family here. By right, they are British citizens, but in the eyes of some, the colour of their skin says otherwise. By right, they are citizens, but they are not seen as such.
As a society, we must reflect on how we have allowed the British state to detain and deport wholly innocent British citizens and allowed our Government to pursue a “deport first, appeal later” policy. We must reflect, we must learn and, first and foremost, we must ensure that the Government give justice to the Windrush generation. Justice means compensation for the harms committed, the details of which the Government must fully spell out—
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
What has happened to the Windrush generation is completely unacceptable, and the Government must do all they can to sort out this mess as quickly as possible. I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who worked tirelessly during her time as Home Secretary and saw our country through times of unprecedented difficulty, including three major terrorist attacks. I also thank her for her response to the Windrush issue, during which time she acted without hesitation to put processes in place to correct past mistakes.
As the Government continue to right this wrong, I would like to seek assurances from the new Home Secretary on a few counts. First, we cannot underestimate the administrative difficulties faced by many in the Windrush generation, and indeed people from other Commonwealth countries who came here prior to 1971, in proving their citizenship to the Home Office. Many simply will not have official documentation. I understand that the Government are accepting other forms of evidence, such as school records, but Ministers must not take their eye off the ball. We need the various arms of the Government—from the Home Office to the Department for Work and Pensions and from the Department for Education to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—to work together to help those people to build a picture of their life here in the United Kingdom. This is complicated work, and the new unit at the Home Office must stand ready to assist people through the process.
The Government have already taken positive steps, with a new dedicated team helping individuals to identify and gather evidence to confirm their existing right to be in the UK. They have ensured that no one affected will be charged for the documentation that proves their right to be here. They have also created a new website to provide the necessary additional information, so that as many people as possible feel that they can come forward. The Prime Minister and the Home Office have met and reassured leaders, charities, community groups and high commissioners from across the Commonwealth. They have outlined the actions that we are taking to help people to evidence their right to be here.
The issue of compensation has already been mentioned many times today. The Windrush generation have given us decades of service and hard work, and helped us to rebuild our communities—communities of which they are now an integral part. Any compensation scheme must have those affected at its heart, but there is no doubt that we have failed them. This was a failure of the British state and we must make it right. That means compensation for all those who were blocked from accessing vital services, who were threatened with deportation or whose lives have in any way been adversely affected by this failure. Only then can we show the Windrush generation that we are sorry, that they are valued, and that we are determined to look after them as the British citizens they are.
This sorry episode was a failure of process and of the system under successive Governments. We have heard a lot today about the impact of the hostile—or compliant, to use another word—environment. We have been told that it is putting off foreign doctors and nurses from coming to the UK. We have heard how the Government’s migration targets must be dropped. However, I would remind the Opposition that the compliant environment has nothing to do with this. It is about tackling illegal immigration. I believe that that is an important job of Government, and that it is what the public want us to do.
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I will work with Members across the parties to ensure that we examine what has gone wrong, that we scrutinise why it has happened, and that we work to find a way forward. We will make recommendations to the Government, and I look forward to working with Committee members on that. What has happened to the Windrush generation has been scandalous. It was a failure of the system, Madam Deputy Speaker, and those people are just as British as you or me.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who is no longer in his place, on bringing this matter to the Government’s attention and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on her dogged determination in pursuing the issue.
I want to take issue with some of the comments made in this debate. The hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who is no longer in his place, spoke about the matter as though it were just a small administrative error, but my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) summed up the ignominy that many of my constituents have faced because they have a west African name or a strong accent. They come to see me for things that they should not have to see me about—not just immigration issues but, yes, those as well. I, too, have a heavy immigration workload, and I have some advice for the Minister, because another thing that has been said in this debate is, “Why aren’t we looking at the Labour years?” Well, I was the Immigration Minister in the last three years of the Labour Government, so perhaps I can help to bridge that gap.
Let me be candid: the Home Office has long had administrative problems on immigration. One of the issues that the Minister and her boss the new Home Secretary will face is that, to deal with the problem, we need proper investment in the right quality and numbers of people to be able to turn casework around in the necessary time, so that people are not dribbling through the system for a decade or bouncing backwards and forwards with decisions that require legal challenge. However, even with the current desire to tackle the issue, I bet that it will be a big challenge to secure the necessary money from the Treasury to deliver that.
Lyn Brown
I agree with my hon. Friend. I also have massive amounts of immigration casework, and I really have not benefited from the staff with whom I have been beginning to get a relationship, and who really understand the cases, being changed willy-nilly by the Home Office. We could do with some stability.
Meg Hillier
Tackling that is a huge challenge for the Department, and I agree with my hon. Friend. This was not just an administrative error. Dealing with the administration of immigration with never enough resources has been a challenge for the Home Office for years.
The hostile environment has bitten hard in my constituency. Discretionary leave to remain was reduced from five years to three years, meaning that people had to apply twice before they could get citizenship, and is now reduced to two years, meaning that people have to apply three times. The fee is £800 a time—it keeps going up; I lose track—before they pay over £1,000 for British citizenship. The costs are bankrupting my constituents who are working hard in this country, paying their taxes and paying their dues. They are being treated like second-class citizens. They are not yet citizens, but they aspire to be and they are doing everything right.
Turning to the people who are citizens, the Government have in effect declared an amnesty for those people from the Commonwealth who arrived here between 1973 and 1988, and I have another word of advice for the Minister. In declaring an amnesty—officials will be quavering at my use of that word, because they hate it in the Home Office—will she be clear, as other hon. Members have asked, about whether it applies to all members of the Commonwealth? Will it cover my west African constituents who are in exactly the same position? If I only I had the time, I would tell her about some of the horrific cases. One man is homeless, and another is about to lose his home because it belongs to his partner. They are frightened about ringing the Home Office helpline in case it causes them problems.
Those people are from the Caribbean, but I also have Commonwealth citizens who are in the same position. They are originally from Africa, but they are British, and yet they do not have the paperwork to prove it. The little paper Immigration and Nationality Directorate letters that people come to our surgeries clutching have been enough to get them a job and their entitlements, but their employers have suddenly said, “But you need a biometric residence permit.” Why did the Home Office—this happened strictly under this Government when they changed the rules—not write to everybody on the immigration lists and say, “You now need this new document in order to hold your job and keep your rights”? Had it done so, those people who are not yet citizens—those who have not chosen to go down the citizenship route, but have indefinite leave to remain—would have been in a better position.
The issue goes wider than just the Windrush generation, and let us hope that there is not just a quick fix for them, but a much wider review of the system. Let us not forget that this Government chose to abolish identity cards, which were being rolled out on my watch in the Home Office. They would have made a big difference to many of my constituents who very much wanted to prove that they had the same rights as other citizens.
I have little time to cover compensation and legal aid, but good-quality legal advice saves time and money for everybody in the long run, and justice is denied if justice cannot be accessed because someone cannot afford it. I am afraid to say that we have a real dearth of good-quality legal advice with legal aid—it is a desert in some areas—and many lawyers are charging high fees for, frankly, poor service. The Minister needs to take that into account, or we will see further such problems along the way.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and it is very reasonable of her to speak so candidly about the previous Labour Government and her experience as a Minister. There are some challenges that any Government would face, no matter what commitments they make, because of the scale of the task and the logistics involved, and so on.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who speaks for the SNP, accused Conservative MPs of blaming migrants for the problems in our society and in our infrastructure. She attended a Westminster Hall debate in November 2017, called by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), on immigration and the economy, in which I praised the east Europeans who recently came to this country and who have made such a contribution. The recycling plant in Suffolk serves the whole country, and it is kept going by Romanians—I praise them, and I will always praise them.
Today, on the Windrush issue, I am happy to offer the same praise to those who have come here from the Commonwealth. Although I now happily live in Suffolk, I was originally brought up in north London. I went to a primary school in Edgware that had many Commonwealth pupils, many of whom I assume came from families who were part of the Windrush generation.
Today we see the contribution, particularly from the Afro-Caribbean community, on the Front Benches, on the Back Benches, in this country’s public life—particularly in this country’s sporting life—and in the small businesses they run. My mother was a nurse for many years in north London. Nearly all her colleagues were of Afro-Caribbean origin and, of course, they made a huge contribution to the NHS.
Here is the thing, as terrible as the stories are—I do not defend any of it, and the Government certainly need to sort out the problems that have arisen—the underlying cause, about which the hon. and learned Lady and others asked, is the sheer scale of immigration, both legal and illegal, that this country has experienced in recent years. It is not a conspiracy. The scale is unprecedented, and I quote David Wood, the former director general of immigration enforcement, who told the Home Affairs Committee on 10 October 2017 that he estimated there to be at least 1 million people illegally resident in the UK—that is equivalent to the populations of Edinburgh and Glasgow added together. A responsible Government cannot ignore such things. It is an abuse of the system because it is an abuse of the rule of law. Frankly, it is an abuse of the legitimate citizenship held by all those who have been spoken of today.
I very much regret what has happened, but a number of hon. Members have spoken about language and the rise of scapegoat culture. Well, let us be absolutely clear that, for the centre to hold and to govern in politics, we have to address those issues, even if they are unpalatable. If we do not, we will truly give rise to populists, UKIP will get back into the game and the fringes of politics will come back.
People have to see that we are dealing with the problems that matter to them, and our constituents want us to address illegal immigration. We have to find a way that does not involve this sort of outcome, in which people who are here legitimately are penalised. We all accept that, so it is about striking a balance, but let us be clear that part of the balance is a robust immigration policy that deals with people who are here illegally and, if need be, deports them.
I intervened on the shadow Home Secretary, and I am pleased that she is happy to confirm that she accepts the need to tackle illegal immigration. There is perhaps more consensus than we let on. We need to work together to build an immigration system that is firm but fair, as many Governments have pledged over the years. It is not easy, but we need to respond to legitimate public concern that the level of immigration, and particularly illegal immigration, must be sustainable, otherwise we will lose the public’s support and they will turn to parties that are not so palatable.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the past few weeks I have been encouraged by the level of public backlash on the Windrush scandal, which is a mark of how far we have come and of how we are generally a more diverse, tolerant and accepting society. As ever, we have much more to do, and I am sure the new Home Secretary does not underestimate the Government’s role and the importance of the tone set by his Department in how it treats people who come from other places to live in this country, and in ensuring that we continue to make our society more tolerant and more accepting.
That is why I have been bitterly disappointed by the tone and comments of some Conservative Members, particularly during the early part of this debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, people from across the Commonwealth are watching this debate, and we owe it to them that the debate is conducted in the right way.
The public backlash also highlights just how out of touch the Home Office has been under the stewardship of the Home Secretary’s two immediate predecessors. I have not had any cases directly from the Windrush generation, but as a new Member of Parliament I can say that the Home Office has been the most difficult Department I have had to deal with. As a Scottish MP, I can say that many of the day-to-day issues that other Members will see in their casework are devolved to Scotland and are dealt with by MSPs. Immigration cases take up a large share of the matters my constituents bring to me, and just when I think I have heard it all, there is sure to be another example of an individual or a family in crisis because of the appalling treatment at the hands of the Home Office.
These are remarkable cases but it is clear to anyone who would take the time to listen to the people involved that they have every right to be in this country. I know the new Home Secretary does not like using the words “hostile environment”, but, whether he likes to call it that or not, that is what we have. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is no longer in her place, put it well when she described the default position as being the assumption that the person is here illegally. The numbers game is not working. My constituents are not numbers. They are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, and hard-working families, some of whom are devastated at the prospect of being separated. They are people who want to put roots down and start families. In one case, a young couple were unable to undergo the fertility treatment they need because the Home Office is indifferent to their special circumstances.
My constituents who have settled in this country tell me that they are Scottish and they want to stay in Scotland. They love Scotland, and they want to contribute and play a full role in their community. These are people who have paid thousands of pounds, whether they can afford it or not, for the right to stay in this country, yet at every turn the Home Office has put obstacles in their way and treated them like they do not belong. We should be delighted that skilled people who want to come to the UK, to contribute to our economy and pay taxes, and to enrich our lives with their culture love this country so much that they are prepared to keep battling against the Home Office at every turn. But they should not have to battle. The Home Secretary must resolve the Windrush scandal, but if we are to prevent this from happening again, the hostile environment must end, and now is the time to do it.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. It was particularly welcome to hear the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) a few moments ago and his comments about the contribution that migrants are making to his community. In the same way, those who have come to make Torbay their home, to make their life there and to exercise their legal rights within the community have made my community a stronger and better place.
When I first saw the heading for this debate and saw that this was what the Opposition had selected, I thought we might see a motion that celebrated the contribution the Windrush generation had made and referred to the achievements of that generation, who are as British as any of the rest of us in this Chamber and have made this country stronger through their presence. Unfortunately, that is not what the motion does. It is focused on getting certain documents and paperwork. It is an interesting one to read, with the selection of the dates being the most interesting part. It contains yesterday’s date, stating
“up to and including 1 May 2018”.
It makes sense to specify yesterday—I can see the logic there—but why the selection of 11 May 2010 as the start of the period? What happened on that day that makes it such a significant date? The Opposition chose not 1 May 2010 or 1 May 2009, but 11 May 2010. That will not be because it was the date of the last flight of a particular type of Nimrod; it will be because it was the date that the coalition Government came into power, which perhaps reveals some of what this motion is actually about.
This motion could have been an opportunity to have pushed the Government for particular dates by which certain cases will be resolved. It could have specified compensation payments, but it does not do so. It is about getting emails and texts about policy discussions—I am surprised it did not list WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook and anything else. I accept that government has to have a space behind the scenes, as any former Minister in this Chamber and anyone who has run their own local council will know, in which the discussion of policy can take place. Clearly, if there are differences of opinion, assessment papers might be presented later to back up policy coming through this Parliament, but that space is there. That says to me that the motion is the product of something rather different from a motivation to celebrate the fantastic contribution that the Windrush generation have made to this nation.
It was right for the Government to apologise for the handling of many cases. In my constituency, we have had only one email relating to Windrush, although it probably is not directly related, but it is right that the Government have apologised, as evidenced by some of the cases that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) described.
It is probably worth saying that we should celebrate the fact—it is quite significant, thinking of the contribution that that generation has made to this country—that two members of an ethnic minority in this country, the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, were the leading spokesmen for the Government and the Opposition. Despite obvious disagreements between the two, it is a significant moment for our country that that has been seen here today, particularly when we are discussing this particular issue.
It has been a welcome debate. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said, it would be welcome to have clarity about whether the issue applies to the whole Commonwealth, because we should remember that the Commonwealth includes not only Caribbean countries, but many countries in Africa and in the Pacific, and other nations.
I welcome the opportunity to have been able to speak for a few moments and pay tribute to a generation that is British, that has done a huge amount for this country and that has not been treated well. It was right that there was an apology. The wording of the motion, however, reveals motivations other than the celebration of that legacy.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I start by thanking the Minister for Immigration for listening to my recent plea for the Merry family, whose mother, Volha, received a letter from the Home Office to deport her and take her away from her family home in Coatbridge, where she lives with her husband Derek and daughter Milana. The Minister admitted that the letter, sent in error, should not have been sent, and apologised to me for the mistake. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine if you were sent a letter, to take you away—away from your family, your children, your neighbours, your home? Imagine how many people would run for cover if they received a letter similar to the one that dropped through Mrs Merry’s letterbox. The Minister’s admission came after weeks of chaos from the Home Office, amid the scandals of the Windrush generation and immigration targets.
The question remains: how many more letters were sent in error? How many people are in hiding, in fear of this Government coming to break down their door to take them away? Is it any wonder that we have people unregistered living in the UK, living in fear, living in pain because they cannot go to hospital, living in someone’s house that they cannot call home—mothers and fathers, frightened to speak out for fear of losing their children?
I was glad that Mr and Mrs Merry came to see me; I was their last hope. They were ready to run. I could see the fear in their eyes; that young couple had tried everything to register themselves so that they could live in peace, without worry, to bring up their daughter Milana, who was born in the UK, just as her father was. I saw a family who were desperate, who wanted help, and I was determined to keep that family together, to help them stay close to their friends in Coatbridge.
I came to this place to speak out for people—to speak out for my constituents—but I will not be the judge. The judge will be little Milana, who will see the tears that her mother shed every day turn to a smile when she has the chance to hold her daughter, instead of being held in a detention centre, ready to be deported, because of this Government.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It has been a huge honour to sit in the Chamber and listen to so many powerful speeches. I start by thanking the members of the Windrush generation, because time and again we have heard stories about how so many of those individuals have each helped to build the Britain that we know and love today. Like many others in this place, I regularly have constituents who come to me, asking for help with their Home Office cases. The Windrush citizens are British citizens and must be treated as such. As the new Home Secretary said as recently as Monday, this could have been his own family, and he and his team are right to be absolutely focused on getting help to those who need it now.
I am enormously proud to live in a country where people from all over the world want to come and live. I am enormously proud to be in a country where people can come from another place and sit in this House as a Member of Parliament. People can watch their own children sit on the Front Benches in this Parliament and rise now to become Home Secretary.
This is a fantastic country, and the rest of the world is watching how we act now and how we manage this situation. How we help the Windrush people will have huge precedence for how we then help the 3 million EU citizens who also have the right to be here, and how we expect other European countries to help the 1 million British citizens living with their families in Europe. We must get this right.
If the motion said the Windrush generation are British and have the right to be here, I would vote for it. If it said that many members of the Windrush generation have been treated abysmally, I would vote for it. If it said that the Windrush generation should be apologised to and compensated, I would vote for it. If it said that we must learn from this and make sure it never happens again, I would certainly vote for it. If it said that the Home Office should urgently put in extra staff to help sort out the problems, I would vote for it.
But that is not what this motion says. This motion says we should take staff off the frontline—staff who could be helping to sort out those problems—and send them into the archives, send them to seize computers and trawl through emails, and send them to grab people’s mobile phones to find out what their text messages say. As the Home Secretary said, that could take 100 people off the frontline—people who should be helping our citizens. That is why I will not vote for the motion tonight.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been a Member of the House for 26 years and I want to begin by talking about my experience with a Conservative Government when I was first elected.
In those days, Ministers were willing to meet Members personally when they had a case of somebody in difficulty. I remember a young woman who had won a newspaper competition for a free holiday in Morocco with her husband, but who had the misfortune to have been born in the northern part of Cyprus before Cyprus had its independence. There were all kinds of difficulty and she could not get a post office to issue her a British passport. I got Charles Wardle to overturn the decision of his officials. They gave her travel documents, but he said to me, “Please, please don’t make this public until after I have ceased to be a Minister.”
I remember the Secretary of State for International Trade, when he was a Foreign Office Minister, overruling officials: he was a doctor and he understood the compassionate case that I made for somebody to come here as a visitor and be able to care for someone. I remember Ministers in that time, and I say this because I am trying to get this Government to understand—there has been a change in culture.
In July 2013, the go-home vans were sent into my constituency. That sent fear into many, many people. There has been the development of a culture of disbelief within the Home Office. That has happened over many years. Between 2001 and 2002, I was in the Home Office as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister dealing with immigration and nationality, Lord Rooker. I can say there was enormous pressure at that time because of the political climate that we had had develop in this country.
I see the current crisis as an opportunity. If the documentation is properly made available to the Home Affairs Committee, which will then decide what is appropriate to be published and what is not—I am sure that the Committee can be trusted to do that, given the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—there will be a chance for us to put some things right. I am not just talking about the Windrush issue. There are other problems, including the English language test scandal exposed by the Financial Times, which I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). There is a similar issue with the tier 2 high-value migrant visas.
There are people in this country today, in different categories, who came here perfectly legitimately, but who have now found that their status is being challenged and they are being told that they have to leave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said, the coalition Government scrapped the plans for ID cards that were in the pipeline from the Labour Government. If that had not happened, the situation would not be perfect but we would be in a much better position today to deal with this culture of disbelief.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).
I echo the words of the Home Secretary in expressing my profound thanks and admiration to those of the Windrush generation, who—almost 70 years ago to the day—came to this country to help to rebuild post-war Britain and to work in our public services. It is right that we recognise, reflect on and address what has happened to them, particularly in view of the fact that their journey here was one of hope. Their journey and subsequent integration into British life reflected their determination and aspirations to build a wonderful life here. It was also a testament to the open and outward-looking nature of our country. It is important that we go forward from here in that vein, recognising the value of the Commonwealth of Nations and the contribution that its citizens have made, and will continue to make, to this country and to the world.
The Windrush generation have built their life here and have contributed enormously to our country. I emphasise again that there should be no doubt about their right to remain here. Where harm has been done, it should be recognised, addressed and compensated. Members of the Windrush generation came from all over the Commonwealth.
I declare an interest in Commonwealth issues, as a number of my family members have emigrated to Commonwealth countries across the globe. My daughter Felicity emigrated to Australia and has settled down there with her family. My brother Patrick and his wife Sally lived in New Zealand for a number of years, after emigrating there more than 40 years ago. I am certain that Members from right across the House have relations living in all areas of the Commonwealth.
Last month, the UK was host to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting—the biennial assembly of Heads of State from all 53 members of the Commonwealth. It has been argued over the years, particularly since our accession to the European Community in 1973, that the Commonwealth is an irrelevance on the national stage and with regards to our foreign policy. I believe that the opposite is true. As we begin to leave the European Union, our relationship with our Commonwealth cousins will become ever more important, and we must strengthen and build on our historical ties and friendships.
As we debate and address the appalling treatment of some of the Windrush generation, I hope that we can go forward positively. In considering how our country has welcomed and benefited from migration to this country from Commonwealth countries, we should also recognise and thank the wonderful spirit with which other Commonwealth countries have welcomed our citizens to settle and add value to their societies. We should do all we can to build on those mutually beneficial relationships. As we settle and move on from the Windrush scandal, it is important that we again look outwards, rebuild the bonds we have with our Commonwealth and make this work for us and them in a positive way.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I would like to add my support to the contributions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and many other Labour Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who rightly said that the treatment of the Windrush generation has been shameful. I want to return to the central point of this issue, rather than discussing the nature of the motion, as some Conservative Members have tried to do.
It is now more than two weeks since my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham raised an urgent question in order to bring this serious issue to the attention of the House, and there has rightly been a lot of discussion and debate. Yet we stand here today still with a lack of clarity on how it will be resolved for all those affected, who, let us not forget, are British citizens. Serious questions remain about compensation, the burden of proof that we place on individuals, and what long-term protection there will be to ensure that the Windrush generation—and indeed others like them from other Commonwealth countries or the European Union—have their rights protected. This uncertainty adds to the anxiety and suffering of those affected.
The mistreatment of the Windrush generation is the key issue that many people in my constituency have been raising over the past two weeks prior to the local elections. People are very upset. There is very strong feeling across different communities, and across the whole of the town of Reading, about the wrong that has been done to people from this community. People are understandably upset that our friends and neighbours have been put in this position and have suffered wrong. The factor that has caused the most upset among my constituents is that these problems have been caused not by mistakes by officials implementing the rules but by the fact that this Government have promoted a hostile environment for migrants. The Government have introduced immigration policies that have created an environment that has placed a deeply unfair burden of proof on people who are here legally, have the right to be here, and yet feel that they are being asked to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they should be here.
The stories we have heard from people across the country of being detained, being denied access to NHS treatment, losing their homes, or suffering every other form of terrible pressure and abuse have sent shockwaves across every community in this country, including in my own constituency. I would like to put it on record that Reading has the largest Barbadian population outside the Caribbean island of Barbados itself, and is a focal point for people from that island who come to live in the UK. We have a very strong West Indian community in our town. I pay tribute to BAFA—the Barbados and Friends Association—and to community groups that represent other West Indian and Commonwealth communities across Reading. Reading is twinned with Speightstown in Barbados, and we have had visits from both the Prime Minister of Barbados and its high commissioner.
I therefore support today’s motion calling for all papers and all communications to be provided for the scrutiny of the Home Affairs Committee. With regard to next steps, assurances that there are no statutory or legal obstacles are not enough. The rights of Commonwealth citizens must be enshrined in law, so I would urge the Government to commit to restoring—
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matt Rodda
I wish to make some more progress given the pressure of time.
I urge the Government to commit to restoring the protections for Commonwealth citizens that existed prior to the Immigration Act 2014. I also urge the Government to confirm that those affected will be fully compensated for loss of income or benefits, legal fees, Home Office application fees, air fares, emotional distress, and any other costs that they may have incurred as a result of the mistaken hostile environment policy. The new Home Secretary has said that he does not like the word “hostile”. I think he will be judged on his deeds, not his words.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I am very pleased to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda).
It has been very obvious today and in previous debates that there is justifiable anger over this issue. I think it is partly motivated by the fact that the contribution of the Windrush generation to building our society and economy in the post-war years has not been sufficiently recognised, or is undermined by what has happened. One element that we would do well to celebrate and recognise is the contribution of many members of the Windrush generation to our armed forces, prior to their arrival in this country in 1948, during the second world war. During the second world war, some 10,000 Caribbean soldiers served in the British armed forces across all three services, and many conducted themselves in a very distinguished manner.
That includes one Billy Strachan, who arrived in England from Jamaica in 1940 to serve in the Royal Air Force. He conducted himself with distinction, completing 30 missions as a part of Bomber Command at a time when the casualty rate in it was some 50%. He was made an officer and completed his training at Cranwell. The historian Ashley Jackson, in his book “The British Empire”, quotes Billy Strachan, who describes arriving from Jamaica as a new young pilot officer in his RAF unit and his surprise on meeting the batman he had been allocated:
“I was a little…boy from the Caribbean and instinctively I called him ‘Sir’. ‘No, Sir’, he hastily corrected, ‘It is I who call you “Sir”’.”
That is a very interesting vignette, and it reflects the remarkable role that serving in the armed forces can often have in advancing human rights.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I only wish I had known my hon. Friend was going to make that point, or I would have looked up the name of the very distinguished Afro-Caribbean officer from world war two who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and was one of many people from that background who were recognised for great gallantry in the fight against fascism and Nazism.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, and I hope that, prior to the conclusion of my speech, another Member will intervene to give us that name.
Of course, it was not such a positive experience for every member of the Caribbean community who served in the British Army. Allan Wilmot, who also came from Jamaica, volunteered to join the Royal Navy in 1941 and served throughout the second world war. He described the sense of hostility that many felt on arriving in the British Isles after the war:
“Being British, you feel like you are coming home, but when we came here it was like we dropped out of the sky. Nobody knew anything about us.”
Those people had to display the same bravery that they had demonstrated during the war on arrival in this country, to overcome that hostility, and of course many of them overcame it successfully and went on to contribute very meaningfully to our economy and our society.
The distinguished service of Caribbean armed forces men and women is not confined to the history books. There is no finer example of gallantry in the modern era than Johnson Beharry, from Grenada, who served with the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment in Iraq and was awarded the Victoria Cross in 2005 for his remarkable bravery in Amarah. Anyone who has served recently in the armed forces will have very positive experiences of serving shoulder to shoulder with members of the Commonwealth and Caribbean soldiers. I was very pleased to serve alongside Guardsmen from St Lucia and Jamaica.
My interest in the experience of soldiers from abroad who have come to this country and then go on to settle here also links to the experience of our Gurkha soldiers. They, like the Windrush generation, navigated the transition from service life to civilian life. Just as we are hugely proud of the distinguished conduct and contribution that the Gurkhas make, we would do very well today to be similarly proud of the distinguished service of a generation of Caribbean soldiers and the positive contribution they made in the second world war to guarding and defending our freedom.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the very interesting speech by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty).
Among the many issues that have been raised today is that of the need to prove Britishness in this hostile environment. When Bevan set up the NHS, he said about distinguishing “visitors”:
“Are British citizens to carry means of identification everywhere to prove that they are not visitors? For if the sheep are to be separated from the goats both must be classified. What began as an attempt to keep the Health Service for ourselves would end by being a nuisance to everybody.”
It may be time to revisit that issue. Little did he know that some 70 years later, the people who were so crucial in building his NHS would be facing such struggles.
The debate about migration and proof of identity is not new, but what I hope is new is the voice and experience of many of us here today in this place. I grew up the daughter of Irish migrants who in the 1950s—aged just 17 and 21—came to a really exciting but alien and sometimes hostile environment. My contemporaries in west London, as well as the Irish, largely came from the Indian subcontinent but also from the Caribbean. We knew we were different, with our parents born of a different time and place—we were like the in-betweeners—but we shared our knowledge of our history, food, customs and religion. I learned about Amritsar, Indian partition, slavery, the Commonwealth, the world’s religions and customs, and the joy of those cultures not from history books, but from my peers.
This country is great because of the ebb and flow of people, their industry and their ideas and culture over centuries. What has opened up in the past few years is the hostility that we know our parents endured, but which we hoped had gone. Many colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), have reminded us all so eloquently of the debt that we now owe to those previous generations.
I have been contacted by some Windrush people, but the Home Office problems go much further. In my constituency I have an American husband in his early 30s who is married to a British citizen, but they have been unnecessarily split due to administrative errors. A man born and bred in Bristol South, who moved to Australia to find work, cannot now bring back his wife and child. Someone who has been a civil servant in Bristol for many years and his second wife, with a 15-year-old son, were refused a visa and did not receive any appeals letter.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and Liberty have called for the appointment of an independent commission to review the workings of the Home Office and the legal framework of the hostile environment, and I support that call. They have identified many issues, including that of culture and the fact that the Home Office is continually error-prone and often arbitrary in its decision making.
I want to make a further comment about the Home Office in relation to Brexit and concerns in Northern Ireland, which I recently raised with the Minister. The Home Office Border Force recently issued job adverts requiring a UK passport issued in Northern Ireland. Following pressure on the Home Office, including from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the adverts have been withdrawn and an apology has been made. However, given the delicate balance agreed as part of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement—that people in Northern Ireland can be British, Irish or both—this was a fundamental display of at best ignorance within the Department.
The problems within the Home Office go far—much wider than Windrush and what we are talking about today. The Government need to get a grip and, crucially, they need to change the culture from the very top.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
It is a privilege to take part in this important debate, and to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), who rightly reminded the House of the proud record of service and loyalty of people from the Commonwealth.
Let me start by taking a step back. In my constituency, I am proud to have a large number of people who came to this country from Uganda in the 1970s. They were given 90 days to leave by Idi Amin, and they came here with nothing but the shirts on their backs, but they have brought such a lot to my constituency, building fantastic businesses through their hard work and enterprise. They are just one community in which I see so much to admire in people who have come to this country. As I go around my constituency, I see a fantastic culture of effort and hard work in our schools, and communities that have a strong record of looking after older people in their homes. There is much to admire.
When I speak to people in those migrant communities in my constituency, I am also reminded that they feel very strongly that we must not lose sight of the distinction between legal and illegal migration. They feel that they have jumped through many hoops, done all the right things and played by the rules, and they do not want people who have not done the same simply to be allowed to come to this country illegally.
I would argue for balance. I feel very strongly that the Windrush generation have been very badly treated, and it is essential that the new Home Secretary puts that right. He should put in place a more humane system, in which we do more to help such people prove their right to be here. I also think there is more we could do to make our immigration system as a whole more humane. We could be quicker in processing asylum claims and make sure we are quicker with visa applications, so that people do not fear missing family occasions. I welcome the Government’s integration strategy, and I would like us to do more to ensure that everyone can take part in our society.
Even as we do all those things, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I believe that we need to control migration, which does put pressure on finite resources such as housing and our infrastructure. Even today, a new poll has shown that the great majority of people in this country want tighter control of migration, and I think it is right to bear down on illegal immigration. Most illegal immigration takes place not as a result of people sneaking across borders but because people overstay in this country. So it is right to have measures in place that make it more difficult to be an illegal immigrant and that help us to reduce illegal immigration, which is unfair immigration.
If the motion was in favour of more humane treatment of the Windrush generation, I would vote for it in a heartbeat. Sadly, its effect would be to absorb huge amounts of resource, pursuing an agenda that will not help the people I want to see helped. I would like to see a humane system in which we do everything we can to help people who may not have much in the way of resources to navigate a complex bureaucracy. I would like to see a system that was less bureaucratic, more humane and faster. However, I am unable to support the motion, because it would distract us, rather than help us, in that important task, and it would make it more difficult, rather than easier, for the new Home Secretary to get on with the important work he is doing in ensuring a fairer deal for the Windrush generation.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. When the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, we saw immigration taken out of the scope of legal aid, and we have seen the effects over the last few weeks, as the cruel, inhumane and unnecessary treatment of the Windrush generation and their families has been revealed—people unable to defend themselves against the weight of the Home Office and the hostile environment it has fostered.
As a new MP, one of my first cases last year was that of Mr Robinson, a resident of Jamaican descent who came to me for help. He had been living in this country since the 1970s, working and paying taxes for his whole life here and making a valuable contribution. He is proud that his son became a world champion boxer. His son was working as a storeman in Cardiff and, with just two days’ notice, he accepted a fight for the world featherweight title and won.
Having never needed a passport since he lost his many decades ago, along with his naturalisation documents, Mr Robinson tried to apply for a new passport so that he could attend a wedding in Jamaica just last year. He was sent a letter saying that there was no record of him and that he needed to reapply for naturalisation and to pay the fees, which he did. Then the Home Office told him that he was not automatically entitled to citizenship. In the final letter, he was told that, because he had failed to register his British citizenship upon Jamaica’s independence, he had been relinquished of his British nationality in place of a Jamaican one, without his knowledge. At 85, and having been in this country for over 63 years, Mr Robinson is one of the oldest UK residents caught up in this fiasco and one of those who has been here the longest.
Just last week, I heard from an immigration lawyer representing students in Wales who are being rejected from university because their parents are from the Windrush generation. A student who got A*s in her exams wanted to be a doctor, but she could not prove she was in the United Kingdom legally, despite having been born here. When the university discovered that, her benefits were stopped and she lost her part-time job. That has meant that three generations of one family—one born here and the other two having been here for over 40 years and over 50 years—have been completely cut off from the right to housing, the right to benefits and the right to continue to be in their jobs. That is why I am calling on the Government to make legal aid available to all applicants who are now forced to prove their immigration status in the UK. They need that financial support and legal help to help them to secure confirmation of their entitlement to British citizenship.
The Government cannot undo the trauma, pain and suffering that has already been caused, but they can ensure that people can access the legal aid, support, justice and compensation that they deserve as valuable British citizens.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Speaker.
This debate touches the very heart of us. For so many of us, it is fundamentally about fairness. It is a debate about how people should be treated fairly. It is clear that all of us feel that a gross unfairness has been done to people who have been here legally, are part of us and are very much part of the fabric of our community. It is an unfairness that, sadly, started generations ago and has persisted for far too long.
Many Members have spoken, so I will not take up much more time. I simply want to say that that unfairness applies not only, as many have said, to the Windrush generation in the purest sense, but to a wider community who have come from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the African nations, the middle east and all over the world. One community I would particularly like to highlight, because it is one that touches me personally, is the Jewish community, who have come over the years and have also suffered unfairness through immigration at various points. I realise that that is in many ways tangential to today’s debate, but the point about fairness in migration is that it must include everyone or it includes no one.
I celebrate the fact that we have a son of the Windrush generation representing Her Majesty’s Government—is that not an image of the British dream if ever there was one?—and that he is not referred to as a British-Pakistani. He is not referred to as a British-anything. There is no qualifier. Nobody here is referred to as a British-anything. We are all simply British. That is a huge enrichment for our national life. It has made us, as a country, so much stronger.
I will end by saying how proud I am that this House is represented by so many different communities and by so many people who have come here very recently or many generations ago. The fairness we speak of today—this aspiration of equality that we all seek and too often fail to achieve—is at the heart of Britishness. It is therefore at the heart of the duty of the Home Office to deliver it. I know the new Secretary of State will do just that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Windrush generation are remarkable for their resilience and their grace. Before the Windrush sailed from the Caribbean, many of its passengers had volunteered to serve in the UK armed forces during the second world war, making that extraordinary sacrifice despite the racism they experienced, and choosing to rise above it and to serve the cause of fighting fascism in Europe. The Windrush passengers were also answering a call for help from the British Government to come and rebuild Britain after the devastation of the second world war. They came, above all else, to contribute.
I am proud to represent Coldharbour Lane in Brixton, the location of the labour exchange where, in 1948, many of the passengers of the Empire Windrush came to look for work. They found it in our NHS, at London Transport and in other public services. They found it in factories, the construction industry and offices. Many made their home in Brixton, establishing the first large Caribbean community in London. Nothing about that journey was easy, from the separation from family and friends and the long sea crossing to the arrival in a cold and unfamiliar climate and the daily experience of racism epitomised in the signs on doors reading, “no blacks, no dogs, no Irish”. But the Windrush generation found a way.
The Brixton we know today was made by Windrush citizens, from the shops and the markets to the music, the community centres and the churches. Windrush citizens made Brixton not only a place with a strong Caribbean community, but a place of tolerance where diversity is celebrated and where everyone is welcome whatever their background. I moved to Brixton in 1996, and for a young person from a small town in the north of England it felt like the centre of the world. Brixton embraced me and allowed me to call it home. I am proud now to have the privilege of representing our fabulous Windrush community.
That same community, however, has encountered an immigration system under this Government that has no grace and is devoid of all compassion. It is a system that is programmed to assume the worst of everyone—to ascribe bad motives to even the most innocent of errors and to look for every possible reason why anyone who has come to the UK from overseas should not be allowed to stay. It is a system that is loaded to saying no until it is forced to do otherwise, delivering injustice in many forms.
First, there is the injustice of incompetence: the hundreds and hundreds of people I see whose applications are delayed, whose papers have been lost, or whose decisions are founded on a mistake made by the Home Office itself. Secondly, there is the enormous injustice of a system that has proactively and deliberately used the lack of formal papers held by many British citizens who have been here for decades as an excuse to try to remove them from their home or deny them access to public funds.
The third injustice affects families seeking to travel to visit one another for a range of different reasons. I have lost count of the number of heartbreaking cases in which family members seeking to travel to a wedding, a funeral, to help out around the birth of a new baby or to support a loved one who is sick have been prevented from doing so, because the Home Office makes an assumption that anyone wanting to enter the UK must be trying to do so with the motive of staying here permanently. The most outrageous case concerned my constituent, Isaac, whose leukaemia stem cell transplant from his brother in Nigeria was delayed because the Home Office said that he might want to outstay his visa.
The final injustice I want to mention is that of having no recourse to public funds, which, right here, right now in this city, is causing a family with children and a heavily pregnant mother to sleep on our streets while two councils argue over who has a duty to look after them and put a roof over their heads.
A Department that is dealing with so many people in such appalling ways cannot command any confidence in its ability to deal fairly with the hundreds of thousands of EU nationals who will call the UK home post Brexit. We cannot allow this injustice to continue, and we cannot allow it to happen again. Nothing short of a root-and-branch review of the Home Office, a full compensation scheme for Windrush citizens and a radical change of approach will be adequate as a response to this scandal.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who made her case so passionately, and I would like to associate myself with many of her comments. We have heard that there is complete understanding from Members on both sides of the Chamber today that a wrong needs to be corrected.
Before I go on to the rest of my speech, I would like to add a brief moment of levity. There was some temporary excitement among my friends yesterday when they read a headline in the paper suggesting that the son of an immigrant bus driver had been elevated to the position of Home Secretary—they thought that the honour could have been bestowed on me already. However, when I explained that someone who holds that great position of state needs to be able to command a Department of 27,000 staff and a budget of £14 billion, handling millions of decisions every year, I think they completely agreed with the Prime Minister that it was probably best left in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), for the moment.
However, as I say, I am the son of an immigrant bus driver. My Irish parents came over from Ireland in the 1940s and I grew up in an Irish community in Birmingham. To go back to the comment made by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, I heard stories of signs on bed-and-breakfast accommodation that said, “No blacks, No Irish.” I have a complete understanding and affinity for that community, with which my parents shared so much of their early life. Indeed, my father never went outside of England and Ireland. He never travelled to another country and I cannot imagine how disturbed he would have been to be faced with the prospect of having to provide documents that would allow him a passport to travel to other places around the world to join and support family members, as the hon. Lady so rightly mentioned. I completely understand the difficulties that people will have faced and we need to put it right.
We also need to understand the context in which this debate can sometimes be framed. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) mentioned that we have approximately 1 million illegal immigrants in the UK. Clearly, this is a sizeable problem. Today, I read an article in the paper that said my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) had been talking about the fact that we need to reconsider our approach to our immigration policy in this country. In 1997, a poll showed that 3% of the people who were asked their view on immigration thought that it was the most important issue facing the country. Ten years later, 46% of people thought that it was the most important issue, so for today, we have a problem. However, it is best placed in the hands of a man who is a brilliant Minister, who will completely sympathise with the people affected.
What have the Government done so far? We have made 7,000 calls, identifying prospectively 3,000 people who have been affected; 600 appointments have been made and 100 people have already had their documents processed. As a party, we are taking this problem very seriously. We have deployed the resources necessary to address it, and I firmly believe that within months the Conservative party will have dealt with this issue.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this very important debate, but I am saddened that the debate is necessary. The Government assert that it is unhelpful to refer to their policies and the scrapping of protections afforded in the 2014 Act as fostering a hostile environment. I am sorry but I do not apologise. This is not, and cannot be considered, a compliant environment. It is correct to call it what it is: hostile.
I find it increasingly frustrating that the Government seek to conflate the Windrush debate and debacle with illegal immigration. To combine two sets of information is to conflate, so let me be clear: we are talking about people who were here legally being considered illegal. It is too late for warm words and simple apologies. The architects of this crisis must now step forward to give an immediate, full and honest account of how this inexcusable situation has happened and answer questions on the compensation and legal protections for the Windrush generation.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about the need for honesty in this debate. She will be aware that one of her activists in Peterborough has called my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a “coconut” on Twitter. What is she and her party locally doing about that? Such abuse cannot be tolerated.
Fiona Onasanya
I advise the hon. Gentleman that the activist is not actually a Labour member, but I hear what he says. I disagree with any form of racism, especially racism pointed towards or coming from Members of this House, such as Conservative Members using the N word.
The Home Secretary must confirm that full compensation will be paid—compensation not limited to but including: loss of income, loss of benefits, legal fees, Home Office application fees, air fares, emotional distress and unlawful detention. Will the Home Secretary factor in such considerations as I heard when I went to a Committee room? I heard members of the Windrush generation talking about how being held in a detention centre for nine months left them unable to pay their mortgage and that as result their home was repossessed? When will things of that sort be talked about and explained to us in the context of compensation?
This crisis was foreseeable and foreseen when legislation was being introduced. We have heard from both sides of the House that warnings were given to Home Secretaries but that nothing was done, no action was taken. In respect of action being taken, I also heard from a member of the Windrush generation in that Committee room that they had a biometrics card due to expire in 2024. Why would a British citizen not be given a British passport? This is not about targets; it is about justice for the Windrush generation. Until we have answers to these questions, we will continue to seek transparency.
Mr Speaker
I wish a happy 40th birthday to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), but I am afraid he does not get any longer than four minutes.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Your good wishes, Mr Speaker, and those of other hon. Members have certainly made facing up to middle age that little bit easier today, so thank you very much indeed.
I start, as I did in Monday’s debate, by paying tribute to the Windrush generation. They battled against hostility when they arrived, and it is a tragedy that they have to battle against hostility 70 years later. We have heard lots of thoughtful speeches today, but I am troubled by the emerging argument that this horrendous episode can be seen as a one-off administrative mistake. I am concerned by the argument that the world can be neatly and easily divided into good “compliant migrants” on the one hand and wicked and nasty “illegal immigrants” on the other, and by the argument that the hostile environment will affect only the latter while everyone else carries on utterly unharmed. Those arguments are at best naive and at worst disingenuous, as the Windrush scandal has shown.
The key point that I want to make in the limited time available is that the disastrous impact of the hostile environment—which is, essentially, a half-baked, back-door ID card—does not start or end with Windrush. Others have fallen victim to it, and will continue to do so. Some are legally here and some are undocumented, but they are as far from the desperate stereotype of the wicked illegal immigrant as it is possible to get. Hostility is not the answer.
Among the victims of the hostile environment—as we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—are the tens of thousands of undocumented children in this country. Many were born here, and many of those have led most of their lives here. They are entitled to British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981 if they register, but few are registering. Indeed, few will be aware that they need to register until they are refused jobs, education, social security, housing or NHS treatment in exactly the same way as the Windrush victims. Then, despite their not being allowed to work or claim benefits, the Home Office will refuse to register them unless they can scrape together more than £1,000, more than £600 of which is pure Home Office profit. Why should those children be subject to a hostile environment?
Also among those cast adrift in the hostile environment will almost certainly be tens if not hundreds of thousands of EU nationals who, for whatever reason, do not manage to secure settled status by whatever cut-off time the Home Office imposes.
There are further victims of that hostile environment. One is the Afghan interpreter who was in the news again last week. He worked with the British armed forces in Helmand province for two years, but his asylum claim has been turned down. Does he deserve to be in a hostile environment? Also forced to face that environment are the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Eritreans who were wrongly refused asylum on the basis of the Home Office’s dodgy country guidance. Many of them are now street homeless and destitute.
As was pointed out earlier by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), among the victims of the hostile environment are several thousands of students who were wrongly caught up in the English testing scandal. They were presumed guilty on the basis of a spreadsheet from the company that had messed up the testing in the first place, and were then rounded up and deported without even being allowed to see or hear the evidence against them, let alone challenge it in a tribunal in this country. Thousands of careers were ruined before they had even started. All those people might be caught up in the broad and pejorative term “illegal migrants”, but they deserve a humane rather than a hostile response.
Also caught up in the hostile environment are those who—just like the Windrush generation, and just like every Member in the House—are perfectly entitled to be here. Among them will be 9 million British citizens without passports, because 43% of landlords and landladies say that they are less likely to let to such citizens now that the hostile environment has made them petrified of getting “right to rent” checks wrong. That applies particularly to those who are foreign, look foreign, or have a foreign-sounding name.
The hostile environment has brought no gain, but so much pain. We must not pretend that this starts and stops with Windrush, because otherwise it will run and run.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I want to thank the nurses, the teachers, the bus drivers, the plumbers and the bricklayers who came to my city to make it the great city—the greatest city in the world—that it is now. I particularly thank those who came to my part of the greatest city, south London. The Windrush generation have contributed so much, not only through work but in the community, in our churches, and in our political parties. The strongest supporters of the Mitcham and Morden Labour parties, those who will be out tomorrow knocking on doors and putting leaflets through the letter boxes, will be from the Caribbean. If I had time, I would tell the House their names and their stories, but I do not. Instead, I will tell the stories of three people who have no right to be here, although each of them has lived here for more than 50 years.
Ken is 64. He came to the UK in 1962, aged eight, to join his now late parents Herman and Ivy Ellis, both of whom were UK citizens. He still has his dad’s UK passport and his birth certificate. He went to school in Wandsworth. He was taken into care by Wandsworth Council for some time. He first came to see me in 2013, and I tried to help him to find evidence to support his application to stay. I am sorry to say that I did not know that he already had indefinite leave to remain. I contacted the Revenue; it would not give his details unless the Home Office asked for them. I asked Wandsworth for his school records, but was told, “We don’t keep records that far back.” I even requested his landing card, not knowing, of course, that that had since been destroyed. That means that since 2013, Ken, who has always worked, has been unable to do so. His relationship has broken down, he has lost his home, and he is staying at the mercy of friends.
I would like to tell the House about Neville. Neville came to Britain in 1973, aged 17, to join his parents, Thomas and Deslin, both of whom were UK citizens—and I am now holding up their British passports. A subject order request to release his file from the Home Office showed that the Home Office was entirely aware that he had come to Britain in 1973 and later informed anyone who wanted to read it that the Home Office had destroyed his file and that of his mother. So there was no way for him to prove that he indeed was a British citizen.
I first got to know Trevor on 13 April. He came to see me. He had stopped working for Blue Arrow Agency because he wanted to care for his mother, Eastlyn. When he tried to return to work, they said, “Trevor, show us your documents, show us you can work.” He replied, “Can work? I have worked since the late 1970s. How can I no longer be entitled to work?” I spoke to Trevor about paying thousands of pounds to apply for indefinite leave to remain for naturalisation, because I did not understand that he already had indefinite leave to remain.
I am ashamed that I did not understand their position. I tried to help them, and I have failed. I only ask that the Home Office no longer fails and that these men be allowed to work, as their parents taught them, and to lead the lives that they want to lead as serious citizens of this country.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
My constituent was eight when he arrived in the UK with his parents and seven siblings nearly 50 years ago. He was schooled here, got a job, married, had children and then grandchildren, worked and paid taxes. A fear of flying meant that he never applied for a passport, in contrast to all his siblings who all hold British passports. Everything changed for my constituent, whom I will call Theo, when he applied for, and was offered, a new job in November 2014. He was required to produce a passport. Not only was his job offer withdrawn, but his existing employer was forced to suspend him.
Theo began a lengthy and expensive battle with the Home Office. It wanted his parents’ marriage certificate and his mother’s original passport. I would challenge any Member to produce their parents’ passports from 50 years ago, yet he did. The Home Office wanted evidence of Theo living in the UK; payment of tax and national insurance was not good enough. His citizenship was refused because of the lack of his parents’ marriage certificate, but, amazingly, this was found by a member of his family.
However, the Home Office refused to reconsider its decision, at which point I wrote to the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, about Theo’s case. She did not respond, but instead I received a letter from a civil servant. I raised the case in business questions with the then Leader of the House, now Secretary of State for Transport. He urged me to write to him, which I did. I received a response from the then Immigration Minister, now Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. There was no change to the Home Office position, but, chillingly, the final paragraph stated:
“It would appear, in this case, that Theo’s siblings may have been erroneously issued with British citizen passports. If their full details, including their dates of birth, can be provided then the Home Office will investigate the matter further. If it transpires that the passports were issued in error, then it will ultimately be a decision for Her Majesty’s Passport Office as to whether or not the passports can be retained, or should be revoked.”
Theo is a deeply private man; he is not seeking publicity or attention. This particular correspondence highlights why he wishes to remain anonymous.
When the new Home Secretary was appointed in July 2016, I wrote to her. I received a response from the Immigration Minister, now the Children’s Minister. The reason for my detailing all this correspondence is to show that this issue was known about long before the scandal broke, and that many Government Ministers have had their grubby fingers on it—in my constituent’s case, five different Ministers including the Prime Minister herself. The faux outrage from the Government Benches is simply not credible when we know how many people had previous knowledge of the situation and did not act. It is only right that the previous Home Secretary has resigned, but it would appear that she has committed this act of self-sacrifice to divert the attention from the true culprit: the creator of this “hostile environment”, the Prime Minister herself.
The impact on Theo has been enormous. This man who has worked all his life now finds that the impact on his mental health is so severe that he is unable to hold down a job. It is right that the Prime Minister has apologised for the wrongs that have been done, but how will she make up for the impact on his health, and how can she ever compensate Theo for everything he has lost?
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
I want to start by mentioning the patronising way in which the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—who is no longer in her place—spoke to me earlier about countering the far right in her youth. Countering the far right should not be something that people can consign to their youth; they should make a lifelong commitment to challenging and countering those deplorable racist views. It is quite a privilege for someone to be able to leave it behind in their youth.
There have been many brilliant and moving speeches today about the Windrush generation. I want to address the question of the “hostile environment” more broadly. It is clear to anyone who has had any engagement with the Home Office that our immigration system is broken. It is a shambles and, in its present form, it has been constructed on a premise that is solely negative and suspicious of our fellow human beings. There has been a culture on the right and the far right and in the printed press that places immigrants and immigration at the heart of society’s ills. That is both futile and inaccurate. I represent a constituency that has one of the lowest levels of immigration in the country yet, you know what, we still have hospitals that are underfunded, schools that are under immense pressure and a woefully inadequate transport system. None of those ills was caused by migration.
Returning to the question of our broken immigration system, I want briefly to outline some of the things that I think are wrong. People engaging with the immigration system have to wait far too long for a response. Deadlines for processing applications are not being met. The fees are extortionate, and there is little or no help or immigration advice. It is a complicated process. Passports, birth certificates and other important documents are lost. None of this has been created in a vacuum. The asylum process is degrading, frustrating and punishing, and many vulnerable, brave people are treated without respect.
The system is built on a presumption that everyone who wants to come to this country is a cheat and a liar who must be found out, and that their intention must be to defraud the system and to steal. Charges, borders, barriers, searches, detention centres, medical inspections, dawn raids, go-home vans, charter flight removals and hostile environments therefore seem necessary, but that is a flawed assumption based on a superiority complex. We might think, from the way some people talk in the press, that we have open borders, and we hear the perpetuation of the unfounded myth that migrants receive preferential treatment. Everything that has been said in this debate shows that that is absolutely untrue. Was I surprised to hear about the treatment of the Windrush generation? Absolutely not. It is not a shock at all. British citizens are regularly treated with contempt by this Government; it is nothing new. But now the mask has fallen, and we need some truth and honesty, starting with the publication of every single document relating to this fiasco, so that people can see and understand the scale of the problem.
We should not be shoved down the path of the good migrant versus bad migrant narrative. That language is wholly unnecessary, and it leads to two difficult endpoints, in which only the richest and most privileged people have freedom of movement, and the others who come here are often those who come in servitude to those people. What kind of society have we created, when those are the only two options? Where is the humanity in our immigration system? We must find it, develop it, nurture it and place it at the centre of whatever is built next. Pathologising human movement as though it were an affliction is not a route to a healthy society or a peaceful world. We can do so much better than this.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock). I speak today as an immigrant who has lived in Bedford—one of the most diverse towns in the UK—for 26 years. I was fortunate to grow up in a tolerant environment, and I have always loved my town, so much so that I wanted to work hard to give something back to my community. That was why I first got involved in local politics back in 2005, when I tried to give something back to a town that had welcomed me, but society is changing. To hear about how the Windrush generation—British citizens—have been treated is chilling for anyone who has come to live in Britain legally from Commonwealth countries and from elsewhere, and now even for EU citizens.
Like most MPs, I receive a lot of correspondence about immigration issues, including from people who want to go overseas to attend important events in their relatives’ lives. Hearing the heartbreaking stories of British citizens not being allowed to leave the country to attend parents’ funerals or a wedding or not being allowed home has been appalling. I have seen the effects of the hostile environment policy since 2014 and have felt the effects of a shift in attitudes towards immigrants—personally and through the stories that my constituents tell me.
In recent years, the Home Office has forced people from parts of Africa and the subcontinent to endure increasingly long waits to have their cases considered, labelling them “complex” and refusing to offer timescales or reasons for the delays. Such cases sometimes involve unaccompanied child refugees who, having made the dangerous journey to get here, have been left in limbo for years with no certainty that they will not be deported when they come of age. Entry clearance officers overseas now seem routinely to refuse visas from certain parts of the world, even when people have visited and returned several times before.
Things have felt different and difficult in recent years. The hostile environment has had a profound impact on our health service and on the social care sector. A manager of a nursing home contacted me just the other day to say she cannot get visas for qualified nurses. Nurses cannot get visas to come and look after sick, elderly patients in my constituency, in an out-of-hospital facility, because of Home Office policy. Meanwhile, our hospital is creaking at the seams and cannot discharge patients. The Government’s decision to make landlords, local authorities, schools, universities and every employer into an agent of Border Force by requiring them to check people’s status has created an environment of fear and suspicion. People have seen job offers withdrawn after incorrect information was passed from the employer checking service, and people have lost rental properties and university places.
Some of the Windrush victims have been detained in Yarl’s Wood—a terrible place that needs to be shut down. Let us not forget that it is Government policy, and Home Office application of that policy, that has led to so many vulnerable people being detained indefinitely in that dreadful place on the edge of my constituency—
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have raised shocking cases this afternoon. They have shone a light on the impact that treating people as numbers has had, and have raised wider questions. I have huge concerns about the Home Office culture that has been fostered by such policies. If we treat people as numbers, regardless of their individual circumstances, we all lose out, as we are now realising.
As an illustration, I raise the case of a young man from Sri Lanka to whom I spoke today. I cannot give his name. He has anonymity due to concerns for his safety, as the House will realise. This young man was trafficked to this country as a teenager after his brother was taken from school by the army and never seen again.
The young man claimed asylum in this country and agreed to give evidence against the international gang that had trafficked him. He was promised anonymity in the trial. He was promised leave to remain in this country, as he would be in danger from the gang’s associates back in Sri Lanka. So he gave his evidence and helped the Home Office to put away the UK members of the gang. The Home Office even put out a press release to celebrate its success.
However, instead of protecting the young man whose evidence it had relied on over two days of cross-examination, the Home Office gave details of his asylum claim and his family’s whereabouts to the defence. Very soon after the trial was over, the Home Office sought to deport him back to Sri Lanka. The defendants, who had shouted as they were sentenced that they would take revenge on him, thought their lucky day had come.
In spite of the young man’s evidence, the Home Office’s submission to his appeal said that
“consideration has been given to the criminal court judgement in which he was a credible witness, however this in itself does not present as a very compelling circumstance to prevent deportation.”
Even though a judge had ruled against his deportation to protect his safety, the Home Office sought leave to appeal against that ruling at the Upper Tribunal. Just last week, it succeeded in getting the asylum decision overturned.
The young man now has to go back to the First-tier Tribunal to have his case reconsidered. Having helped this country to put away the criminals who help people trafficking, and having helped the Home Office, he is now terrified of deportation and the revenge of the people traffickers.
I thank the Immigration Minister for having sat through the whole of this afternoon’s debate, and I thank the Home Secretary for being here. Will they address why the Home Office is spending such vast sums on victimising people who have done their best for this country and who have done us a great service while putting themselves in danger?
What does it say to the victims of people trafficking? We need them to come forward if we are to convict those who continue people trafficking in this country. Will the Minister please look into this terrible case individually and see whether Home Office resources can be better spent?
I am afraid this is the result of a policy that treats people as numbers and that sets targets for deportations and net migration—that deports anyone it can. As we have seen, a huge effort is going into this, and that effort must go into a humane policy.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George). I pay tribute to her for all the work she has done on behalf of her clearly very vulnerable but incredibly brave constituent. I hope the Home Secretary has listened to what she said and will look into that very worrying case.
I have three brief points. First, we need to understand what has happened and who took which decisions, when and how. We need that information because we need to prevent people’s human rights from being overridden by bureaucratic fiat yet again—I am not convinced that will not reoccur.
My constituent Yvonne Williams is a Windrush generation daughter. She was kept at Yarl’s Wood detention centre for eight months, and she learned just last week that she was due to be put on the plane back to Jamaica that so many Members have talked about in relation to their constituents. Last weekend, the decision was rescinded at the last minute and it appears that my constituent may well be able to stay.
My constituent is very well networked. She is well known in Oxford, and I was on her side as her local MP, but I am concerned about the large number of people who are isolated, who are not backed up by their MP, who have not been picked up and whom the Home Office may be missing. The Home Office will not know about those people if it does not understand why and how these mistakes were made.
Secondly, I want to make a point about the need for the Home Office to liaise with the Department for Work and Pensions. I have another case of a late middle-aged man who came to the UK when he was very young and discovered issues with his status only recently, when he was required to transfer from jobseeker’s allowance to universal credit. I was grateful that the Secretary of State talked before about how he is going to liaise with other Departments, particularly to make sure people’s access to services and to benefit is not compromised. What I want him to do, with the Ministers from the DWP, is make sure they get that message out there to the jobcentres, so that they do not turn around to people and say they will cut off their support. Instead they must say, “Right, we are going to help you because we know you’ve got a right to be here and we need to give you that support, via government and via the Home Office.” Until now, they have been saying they are going to cut off the support.
I want to end by saying that the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) need to remain with us and ring in our ears as we walk out of the Chamber tonight. She set out clearly how the Windrush case is not necessarily anomalous; it is, sadly, a hallmark of a Home Office that has been described by people on both sides of this House variously as operating in an “arbitrary” manner, in an “unfair” manner, in a “punitive” manner and in an “incompetent” manner .That has got to change. This has to be the clarion call that changes that operation of the Home Office.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Let me begin by thanking all the contributors this afternoon. The Windrush crisis has revealed something rotten at the heart of this Government: a blurring of the line between looking like an immigrant and being an immigrant. We can see now that race and immigration cannot be separated. Ministers have tried to claim that the Windrush crisis was a one-off. They have replaced the Home Secretary and pretended that that is the problem solved. Members have raised many individual cases this afternoon. For these people, the Home Secretary’s resignation did not put the issue to bed. We need to look back at what led to this crisis. We need to deal with what is urgently in front of us: justice for the Windrush generation. We need to look ahead, to make sure history does not repeat itself. If the Prime Minister orders her MPs to vote against this motion, it will expose the Tories’ crocodile tears on the Windrush scandal as a sham. The British public will not accept a cover-up.
Looking back, we see that the Government were well aware of the risks in 2014 when they designed the hostile environment. They were told by MPs, by campaign groups and by their own civil service, yet the Prime Minister went ahead and implemented it anyway. The Government have known about specific problems with the Windrush generation for a long time, too; individuals have been contacting the Home Office for years, and the media have been giving voice to Windrush cases for six months. As the former Housing Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) knows that the independent inspector sounded the alarm about the Government’s right to rent scheme before Easter. They have known all this time, yet they cannot tell us how many people have been wrongfully deported, wrongfully detained, and wrongfully denied healthcare and public services. Ministers have been reluctant to come forward with the facts, and we need to know these right now. If the Prime Minister is too weak to be accountable, Labour will have to force her to be accountable.
Now that people are in this awful situation, the Prime Minister must urgently confirm the legal status of the Windrush generation. Ministers have spoken of “granting” British citizenship, but let us be clear: these people are already British citizens. Their citizenship needs to be confirmed, not granted, and indefinite leave to remain is not good enough.
The Government have set up a taskforce. Does it have the capacity to deal with all the cases in two weeks? Can it expand if the case load demands? The Government have said that they will take a generous approach. What exactly will be the burden of proof and when will we get that in writing? Application fees have been waived. Can the Minister confirm that people will have more than two weeks to apply and have them waived? Will the Minister confirm that the waiver applies to all administrative costs associated with applying?
When the Prime Minister was establishing the hostile environment policy, there was a cross-Government approach. We need a cross-Government approach to solving the crisis created by this hostile environment. What communication has the Minister had with the Foreign Office to train high commissions in the Caribbean to deal with Windrush cases? What discussions has the Minister had with the DWP and HMRC to ensure that, where there is evidence of residence and arrival, that is shared with the taskforce? What discussions has she had with the Justice Secretary on the re-introduction of legal aid for immigration cases?
The Windrush generation have suffered a great injustice. They must have access to legal aid. As part of the hostile environment, checks and balances on the Home Office have been removed. In 2013, the Tories exempted immigration cases from legal aid, so people cannot challenge wrong decisions. I hope the Ministry of Justice is paying close attention to this crisis. There will be other groups who are affected in the way the Windrush generation have been. There are highly skilled migrants in the UK now whose visas are being refused on the basis of minor tax errors. The Government must reintroduce legal aid for immigration cases.
Justice for Windrush also means compensation. The Government accepted that there must be compensation for all those affected, and their families. The Home Secretary has said that this will be an independent process. What is the timeframe? How much has been allocated for it? Can the Minister confirm that compensation will apply to loss of employment, denial of access to benefits, public services and healthcare, as well as any shortfall in national insurance and pensions? Will it also cover the trauma, pain and suffering caused by the Government’s reckless hostile environment?
Looking forward, we need a complete change of policy and approach in the Home Office. A change of face will not do. The Home Secretary has said he wants an immigration system that behaves more humanely and with a greater sense of fairness. That does not come about through warm words; it comes about through action.
The Windrush generation came to Britain to build our modern, global Britain after the second world war. In 2018, it is 70 years since the Empire Windrush docked, 50 years since the “rivers of blood” speech and 25 years since the death of Stephen Lawrence. The Windrush crisis is the shameful culmination of our history. We need to investigate what led to this crisis. We need to get justice for the Windrush generation and we need to correct our future course so that history does not repeat itself.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
This afternoon, we have had thoughtful and passionate contributions from both sides of the House, which have reflected the public mood towards the Windrush generation, who have contributed so much to our country. We also had a debate on Monday, in which the tone was constructive; I listened carefully to Members’ contributions then, as I have today.
We know that the failure of successive Governments to ensure that individuals arriving before 1973 had the documentation they need is deeply regrettable. I have previously said that I am personally sorry, and I repeat that today, but I also repeat how important it is that we put this right, as a matter of urgency.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the Minister. Will she apologise for the underlying policies that caused this scandal?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. and learned Lady made some comments earlier that I wish to respond to, but I really think it is important that I put on record how sorry I am that people have been affected, and how crucial it is to me that we make sure we get it right, and that, going forward, we make sure this cannot happen again.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, putting this right must not mean taking resources away from the teams who are already working so hard to help those who have been affected. I have seen them working and know their dedication and commitment, which I saw this last weekend in Croydon and in Sheffield. That is why the Opposition’s Humble Address motion is not the right answer.
We have announced a package of measures today to bring greater transparency to Members of the House and to the public. I would like to remind the House of those measures. First, the Home Secretary will be writing each month to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) with an update on progress. I have little time this evening to comment on her significant contribution, but I would like to say to her that it is important to me that we provide her with the updates and make sure that her Committee is aware of the progress. It is seldom that I say this on the Floor of the House, but I look forward to being called to her Committee as early as next week.
Yvette Cooper
I have put to the Minister, on behalf of the Committee, and to the Department about 50 questions so far, about half of them two weeks ago. So far, I think we have had only about five of them answered. When will they be answered?
Caroline Nokes
It is absolutely imperative to me—and indeed to my civil servants, who have been working incredibly hard—that the right hon. Lady not only gets the answers, but gets thorough and full answers. We will undertake to make sure that that happens as soon as possible.
Secondly, the Home Secretary will be writing to the right hon. Lady each month on the latest position on detention, removals and deportations. Thirdly, the Home Secretary will bring external oversight and challenge to a “lessons learned” review, which is already under way. He has asked the permanent secretary to give the review the resource that it needs.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) shared with us her experience as a former Immigration Minister. She made some observations that I, too, have reflected upon in my relatively short time in this role, and she made some valuable points. It is clear to me that there are resources needed to put this right, and also to look forward and make sure that there cannot be similar occurrences again.
There has been much debate about the impact of the compliant environment on the Windrush generation. We are taking steps—important steps—to safeguard those from the Windrush generation seeking jobs or rented accommodation. We have published updated guidance on gov.uk, which encourages employers and landlords to get in touch with the Home Office checking service if they are unsure about individual status. The taskforce will contact the individual concerned to help them to prove their entitlement, and the employer or landlord will be issued with a positive notice to enable them to employ or register the individual.
The Home Office is working with other Departments. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) raised the importance of my doing so, particularly with reference to working with organisations such as the DWP, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to make sure that not only Departments, but the partner agencies across the board, work to ensure that we have the relevant safeguards in place to prevent those from the Windrush generation from being denied the benefits and services they should be entitled to. Tomorrow, I will chair a cross-Government meeting to discuss those safeguards in more detail.
We have also been clear that ongoing enforcement activity must not impact on people in the Windrush generation. Immigration enforcement has put in place arrangements to minimise this risk.
Caroline Nokes
Will the hon. Lady allow me to comment on some points that she raised at the end of the debate? It is important to me that I address them. It is absolutely crucial that we work very hard to make sure that we have immigration policies that are fair and reflect human beings—the people we know they are. That has been one of the most powerful elements of the Windrush crisis. I have seen and listened to the individual stories, and I want to make sure that they do not happen again.
The hon. Lady raised a case from Sri Lanka. I hope she will come to me with the individual’s details, because it is important to me—just as when I assisted the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), who is no longer in his place—that we work hard to solve individual cases. I recognise how time-hungry and resource-intensive that will be, but it is imperative that we get this right, and I know that the Home Secretary shares that ambition. The previous Home Secretary—
Caroline Nokes
The previous Home Secretary worked hard on this issue and spoke of changing the culture of the Home Office. I am absolutely determined that we do change the culture and work hard to right this wrong.
Mr Nicholas Brown
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question put accordingly.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have notified the hon. Member for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya) about this point of order. Earlier in the debate, I inadvertently misled the House in an intervention that she very kindly took during her speech in relation to Mr Tariq Mahmood of Peterborough. While it is true that Mr Mahmood has been found guilty of vote rigging and has campaigned and been photographed with both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Lady very recently—he has also been a local Labour party secretary—I alleged that he was a member of the Labour party, but it transpires that he is just a Labour party activist, not a member. As I hope you know, Sir, I cherish this place very much, and I would not have sought to have misled it advertently.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and it has been duly noted. It will—or, alternatively, will not—be pored over by hon. Members who take a very keen, and even anorakish, interest in his pronouncements.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I remind the House that, in 2008, United Kingdom taxpayers supported the Royal Bank of Scotland with an injection of £45 billion? We own the Royal Bank of Scotland—we own 73% of it—and our communities have stood by this long-standing institution. What is the repayment from RBS? It wishes to close 62 branches in Scotland, 13 of which are the last bank in town, and that will have a devastating effect on local communities.
RBS tells us that only 27 customers regularly use the branch in Beauly in my constituency of Ross, Skye and Lochaber, yet I was able to determine that there are actually 3,439 customers and 29,000 transactions annually. The Royal Bank of Scotland has been at the very least economical with the truth.
My constituents are alarmed at this potential closure. This is one of the branches that was given a reprieve, and I call on the Royal Bank of Scotland to make sure that the people of Beauly can continue to use banking services for the long term.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Ross, Skye & Lochaber,
Declares that the proposed closure of the following branches of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland in the areas of Kyle of Lochlash, Beauly & Mallaig, will have a detrimental effect on the local communities and the local economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Royal Bank of Scotland to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of these branches.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002144]
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Accrington Victoria NHS walk-in centre, which has had 42,000 patient visits in the last 12 months and which offers 88 hours per week of GP service, is being replaced by an out-of-hours GP service, with just 19 hours available. When the walk-in centre closes, many people will simply go to the A&E at Royal Blackburn—one of the busiest A&Es in the country. That seems ridiculous, particularly when a patient visit to the A&E costs £120 on average but just £60 to the walk-in centre.
The people of Accrington and Hyndburn have spoken today. This petition has 10,000 written signatures and 14,000 online signatures—24,000 signatures in total. The Government must now listen to local people, show some common sense, step in and save this valuable service.
I would particularly like to thank Chris Reid and Kimberley Whitehead for helping with this campaign. I would also like to thank all the volunteers involved.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Hyndburn,
Declares that the petitioners are committed to defending NHS services in Hyndburn; and further that the walk-in service based at Accrington Victoria Hospital is a vital community health resource which must remain open, and that other NHS services in the area are being run down.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that arrangements are put in place for the NHS in East Lancashire to ensure that the Accrington Victoria Hospital walk-in service remains open and that the closure of other NHS services in the area are halted.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002146]
Mental Health Services (Norfolk and Suffolk)
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for granting this debate on mental health services in Norfolk and Suffolk and the challenges they face.
Quite rightly, the Government have talked a lot over the last few years about parity of esteem between mental and physical health and about the need to invest more in mental health services. Indeed, there has been limited extra investment in Norfolk and Suffolk. None the less, the NHS trust has faced challenges that are affecting the quality of patient care. Tonight is a good opportunity to bring before the House some of those issues and, hopefully, to offer some solutions and appeal to the Government to do more to help the trust in very difficult times, because ultimately it is the patients who suffer when trusts are in difficult circumstances.
First, I would like to pay tribute to Gary Page, who is the chair of the Norfolk and Suffolk mental health trust. Despite very challenging circumstances, difficult Care Quality Commission reports and the financial pressures that have faced services in Norfolk and Suffolk for many years, he has worked hard to make sure that there has been continuity. It is thanks to his leadership that the trust is now able to move forward and address some of the challenges that it faces with the quality of care.
I want to talk briefly about some of the issues involved, focusing mainly on ward closures and the points raised in the CQC report. I want to outline to the House some of the fundamental issues with staff shortages, which are probably the worst in almost any mental health trust in the country. I want to talk a little further about the finances of the trust, and I also want to talk about some of the difficulties there have been in how the trust works with addiction services and how that is counterproductive to the effective care and treatment of patients.
Although my medical work is not currently in the east of England, I want to draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a practising NHS doctor working in mental health services, which of course gives me some insight into the challenges faced by the trust, although I do not think that interest is particularly applicable in this case, because my medical work is not done in the region.
The quality of care challenges facing the trust are quite extensive. As the Minister will be aware, the trust was put into special measures in October 2017. There are significant pressures on beds within local services, resulting in higher numbers of out-of-area placements for patients. Many patients are now having to be transported out of area to be treated because of the closure of beds, which is not good medical practice. It is not good for patients either, because they will be a long way away from their support networks, and it interferes with the effective post-hospital care and rehabilitation that is so important in co-ordinating with community services.
The challenges appear to centre on patient flow into beds and delays to discharge. We know that there is a historical lack of community mental health services in Norfolk and Suffolk, and investment has not been available to increase them at the necessary speed and rate. There are challenges with housing providers in the area not necessarily working closely enough with the trust, and there are also the pressures on social services that we know too well exist across the country. Those pressures are very relevant in Norfolk and Suffolk, where we have a lot of older patients with dementia who are struggling to be discharged effectively into the community because of delays in receiving adequate social services. A lot of the blame for that has been attributed to the mental health trust, but many factors are beyond its control.
The trust also faces significant challenges with the quality of its buildings infrastructure. Many of its buildings are old and not fit for purpose. The capital budget has not been available to improve the buildings, although there has been some new building work. I will come on to that in a moment.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
My meetings over the past three weeks with the new chief executive and others have given me cause to hope that the structural problems are now being addressed. A new co-produced community services partnership, commissioned by the clinical commissioning groups and involving Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Ipswich and West Suffolk hospitals, the county council and the GP federation, is embarking on a level of integration that has never been tried before in the United Kingdom, working with district councils, schools and the voluntary sector to make mental health everyone’s business. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have a real interest in seeing whether that model can succeed? Will he support me in calling on the Minister to provide sufficient pilot funding for the project, so that Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust can recruit the staff it needs to make the new model capable of success?
Dr Poulter
I thank my constituency neighbour for that intervention. I entirely agree with everything he says, although I am not sure it is quite so pioneering—I think the hospitals in London would probably disagree with that. There is a lot of good work going on in London built around exactly that sort of model of more integrated care.
One of the challenges faced by the trust in the past, and which mental health trusts in general face, is the failure of many partner organisations to properly engage on issues such as the provision of adequate social care for patients with chronic and long-term mental illness and dementia. There is also the failure of housing providers to be involved and of the police to be properly involved. There is a big overlap between some people with mental ill health and presentation to the police, when they would be better looked after by the NHS.
This project is the right way forward, with more integration of services and better integration between mental and physical health. Many patients with chronic mental health needs have physical health problems. They are sometimes a side-effect of the drugs, but are often a result of a chaotic lifestyle. Better joined-up working with the local NHS undoubtedly has to be a good thing. For that to be effective, however, as we have seen in some pilot projects in London, there needs to be the funding to deliver it. The mental health trust is not in the best financial shape—I will come on to that later—and support from the Government through funding for this innovative way of working, which I think is certainly a first in a rural area, would be very welcome. I hope the Minister may be able to provide some reassurance on that this evening.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on securing the debate. Before he goes on to talk about the money, which is very important, does he agree that it is very important that the trust promotes and endorses local, tailor-made initiatives such as the trauma-informed approach currently being promoted in Lowestoft by mental health champions Tod Sullivan and Paul Hammond?
Dr Poulter
Yes, that is absolutely the right way to provide integrated services and joined-up care, because we cannot necessarily have a one-size-fits-all approach across Suffolk or Norfolk. We need to look at the local healthcare need. That is partly about working not just with housing providers, social services providers, primary care and GPs, as I believe is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but with the voluntary sector, other third sector providers and local charities, many of which have knowledge of the needs of patients, families and carers. When we are providing joined-up, holistic mental healthcare, it is just as important to make sure that the approach is joined up and holistic in that regard, and I believe that the project in my hon. Friend’s constituency will have a very good chance of improving services for patients.
Dr Poulter
I will make a bit of progress first and give way in two or three minutes.
The challenge from a lack of bed capacity is acute; 36 beds have been closed in recent months, 28 of them temporarily to be reopened as soon as possible. One of the challenges, as my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) said, comes from the lack of joined-up working and a failure of commissioners, to some extent, to work collaboratively with the trust to identify short-term solutions. None of us wants to see patients travelling outside Suffolk. The commissioners have not worked well with the trust, because beds are available. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who is unable to speak because of her Government role, has rightly highlighted that bed capacity is available at the Chimneys in Bury St Edmunds—18 beds, including specialist eating disorder beds, which are available and could be commissioned if the commissioners worked more collaboratively and supported the leadership of the trust more effectively. I hope that will come out of the collaborative and pioneering work on which the trust’s partners are now supporting it.
None the less, there are some positive things to point towards. Building work is going on to deliver some new wards, and it is hoped that Lark ward in Ipswich, the psychiatric intensive care unit, will be able to reopen later this year. There are hopes that more can be done for child and adolescent mental health services, with continuing expansion in the number of beds.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I sought his permission to intervene beforehand and told him why I wanted to. With the prevalence of mental health issues 25% higher in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and with our NHS unable to meet the demand on the service, does he not agree that mental health reform must be UK-wide and undertaken urgently, before people who simply need a bit of help to cope become people who need in-patient care and a strong drug regime to survive? Do it now and it can stop problems later.
Dr Poulter
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He is always a strong advocate for the needs of his Strangford constituents. He is right to highlight that early intervention and early support can be very effective. That is partly because it often prevents some of the other unwanted effects of having a mental illness. When people have been untreated for a long period, they may well lose their job and struggle with their relationships. A number of the supportive and protective factors that can help to support someone through mild and moderate ill health, such as being in work or in a supportive relationship, can be lost. If we can do more to help people in the early stages, that is a good thing—quite apart from it potentially reducing the number of acute admissions later on.
I want to make the important point that the staff shortages at the trust are one of the major challenges that need to be addressed. It is frankly, and I do not use this word lightly—I do not think I have ever used it before, even though we often hear it used by politicians—a scandal that there is such a shortage of staff at Norfolk and Suffolk mental health trust. I hope the Minister can think of better ways to fund and support the trust. Without enough staff, it cannot expand services or deliver safe services. The trust has struggled with CQC inspections because there are not enough staff on the ground to deliver the care it wants to deliver. That is not entirely the fault of the trust, however, as it is constrained by its funding.
I will outline some of the issues that the trust faces. It has had difficulty recruiting band 5 registered mental health nurses—there are approximately 125 full-time vacancies; there are 35 full-time equivalent vacancies for psychiatrists, partly owing to a national shortage, but also owing to particular challenges in the east of England; almost one in five medical posts at the trust are vacant—that means that doctors who should be there treating patients are not because of staff shortages; and 16.02% of qualified nursing posts are vacant. That is not acceptable or sustainable. If we are to improve patient care and help the trust to turn around, the fundamental issue of recruitment has to be addressed. There are fewer than 15 psychiatrists per 100,000 people in the region, which is much lower than the national average. In fact, the east of England has the fewest psychiatrists per head of population in the country.
Doctor recruitment is not a good story either. Issues with the junior doctor contract might not have helped, but we are where we are. Recruitment for CT1 junior doctors in 2017 saw only 16 of 45 vacancies filled—that is 36%—so only one third of the number of doctors who should have started training at CT1 level are working in the trust. That is a big rota gap to fill and will of course affect patient care. In 2015-16, about one third of ST4 vacancies in child and adolescent psychiatry were filled. In general adult psychiatry, which is the bread and butter of psychiatry, only nine of 18 posts were filled in 2015. In 2017, only five of 22 posts were filled, which means that less than a quarter of posts for registrar trainees in general adult psychiatry are filled. The story goes on and is equally bad in older-age psychiatry—and we have a lot of older people with dementia to look after in the east of England.
Recruitment, then, is vital. We have to do more to recruit psychiatrists. The current strategies are not working, so I ask the Minister to look at what has been successful overseas—in Queensland, Australia, and other places—and to put financial incentives in place to support nurses and doctors to come and work in the east of England, because at the moment patients are paying the price for a lack of doctors on the ground. The trust is doing its best to recruit, but it needs extra financial support through Health Education England, and it needs to be given support and the go-ahead from the Department. We know from elsewhere in the world that financial incentives work in rural and coastal areas, as long as doctors and nurses are helped with a relocation package. The Department’s successful health visitor programme is a good example of how financial incentives can work. I hope she will look at that.
The pressures on the trust’s finances have been there for many years—since the merger of Norfolk and Suffolk mental health trusts—and we know that mental health has been underfunded nationally for decades. The trust needs £9.2 million to meet CQC recommendations for improvement. Some £4 million can be funded from the capital budget, but given that the CQC has criticised the building’s infrastructure, it seems ironic to raid the capital budget for buildings and infrastructure and put it into the revenue budget to deal with immediate quality of care issues.
Even with that £4 million, however, there is still a shortfall of £5.2 million, and that was the subject of a recent funding bid to NHS England. The bid will be resubmitted fairly soon, and I hope the Minister will encourage NHS England to look favourably on it. It is important that the trust is given the financial wherewithal to deal with the quality issues raised by the CQC, to reinvest in vital community services and to undertake the vital work on integration that my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ipswich, mentioned in his intervention.
There is some positive news. The ligature reduction project is proceeding successfully, and some good work is being done in the rebuilding programme at Chatterton House. The Norfolk and Waveney perinatal mental health service was launched in September. I pioneered support for the expansion of perinatal mental health services when I was a Minister, and I am pleased to see that it is now happening on the ground. In February a specialist perinatal mental health service was launched in Suffolk, which is a very good development. However, severe challenges remain and need to be addressed.
Finally, let me say something about services for patients with addictions. I will be brutally honest: I think that we created a problem with effective addiction treatment through the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The commissioning of addiction services has been transferred to local authorities, although the bulk of mental health services and physical health care for patients with addictions is still run by the NHS.
In the east of England, the amount invested in drug misuse services has been reduced by about £6 million over the last four years. Drug misuse is a serious challenge in areas such as Lowestoft, Ipswich and Norwich, not just as a result of underfunding but because those services are not working in a joined-up way with mainstream physical and mental health services. That must be addressed as a matter of urgency, because patients are falling through the net and not receiving the holistic care that they need. Many end up in the criminal justice system as a result, and the police and, in some cases, communities are picking up the pieces because of the failure to provide joined-up care for those patients. The lack of substance misuse services as part of any NHS system affects the dynamics and practicalities of good care, such as the sharing of information. Barriers are created, and the good intentions of staff on the frontline are undermined. That has an adverse effect, and I am sure that we will continue to see a rise in the number of drug-related deaths as a consequence.
Let me ask the Minister some questions. What additional support can be offered to the trust to help it to deal with its historical and current financial challenges and transform its services in the wake of the CQC’s report? There is a shortfall in funding; the trust has submitted a funding bid, and I hope that the Minister will support it. What additional resources can be made available to improve the recruitment and retention of psychiatrists and nurses, and what can be done to attract junior doctors to the east of England? One in five doctors who should be at work are not there because of staff vacancies. What steps are being taken to stop the transfer of patients out of area for treatment? Finally, what can be done to ensure that there is proper integration of addiction services with mental health services in our region, to ensure that patients are given a better deal?
It is time for the rhetoric about mental health to join up with the reality, and for patient care to improve. It is time for Norfolk and Suffolk mental health trust to be given the support that it needs, so that it can do the best for its patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on securing this important debate. I also acknowledge his own contribution to the NHS, not just as one of my predecessors but, as he has explained, as a doctor. He was entirely right to raise in the House the challenges facing his mental health trust. I am not in any way sanguine about those challenges, but we are determined to see the trust perform better for my hon. Friend’s constituents and for people throughout Norfolk and Suffolk.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues, which I shall do my best to address. He mentioned the trust’s bid for £5.2 million of capital with which to raise its facilities to an appropriate standard, as advised by the CQC. We received a number of good bids, some of them from trusts that were more financially distressed than my hon. Friend’s and others that required more improvements. We could not meet all the bids that we wanted to, but may I, through my hon. Friend, encourage the trust to bid again, as we will look at it sympathetically? I hope that gives due encouragement for it to do so.
My hon. Friend is right that there are very challenging recruitment issues for that trust, and, as he has said, the vacancy rates for doctors are 19% and 16% for qualified nurses. That is particularly high. Central to dealing with that is the issue of leadership. We have a new chief executive in place, a new director of human resources, and a new director of nursing, and we are looking to them to lead the effort to recruit the necessary staff. The trust is also taking additional actions to deal with this. Hotspot areas have been identified and focused action plans are being implemented. As my hon. Friend said, this will include premium payments to encourage recruitment and help attract doctors and nurses to those locations. The trust is also running a series of recruitment campaigns and careers fairs, and is reviewing its skills mix and the appropriate balance of service. Rather than just leaving vacancies open, it is looking at using more occupational therapists and assistant psychologists, and at developing advanced practitioners. We are relying on good local leadership to deal with some of these challenges, but we pay close attention to what is happening there, and we will assist in any way we can to facilitate that improvement.
My hon. Friend mentioned out-of-area placements. At one time they were particularly high, but I am pleased to report that the trust has done a great deal to bring the number of out-of-area placements down. I am told that, as of today, there are eight intensive care out-of-area placements. That represents a massive downward trend from the high point of February this year, but the situation must be closely monitored, and I look forward to there being more co-operation and collaboration between the clinical commissioning groups, through the sustainability and transformation partnerships process, to make sure that there is the appropriate bed mix in the right places for that service to continue to be delivered.
An interesting point was made about integrating with other services, particularly housing, the police and addiction services. I believe that silo policy making tends to end in failure, and my hon. Friend is right that we must be much more joined-up and perhaps have interventions earlier in the process. There are particular points for intervention, such as when people start to hit the criminal justice system due to their addictions. Times of housing crisis also tend to be times when people are particularly vulnerable, and we are looking closely at that. I am not going to pretend anything is perfect; all the issues my hon. Friend raised tonight are entirely valid, and we are looking at them closely.
Turning to local action to put things right, since the CQC report, NHS Improvement has supported the trust to address the major safety concerns and is chairing monthly meetings with stakeholders to monitor progress on improvement. I am also mindful, however, that the CQC might well re-inspect against the areas identified in the warnings notice imminently, which is only right. That will give us more intelligence about what needs to be fixed.
Central to our approach is that all patients must be kept safe and receive the highest quality care. My hon. Friend mentioned the number of bed closures; that was driven entirely by issues of patient safety. Those beds were on wards that were particularly undermanned, but the intention is that those facilities will be reopened once a safe level of staffing can be guaranteed.
I am pleased that the new chief executive officer has been appointed and that he started work yesterday. He has quite a big to-do list, it has to be said. Leadership is so often the crucial ingredient in resolving endemic issues such as safety and recruitment, and we will have a completely refreshed leadership team, including a new chief operating officer, a new director of nursing and a new HR director. We will be looking to that team to build the foundations to tackle the problems that my hon. Friend has identified. It is also important that we, along with NHS England and the Care Quality Commission, continue to support the trust as it leads itself out of these difficult circumstances. Further support is being given by an improvement director from the East London NHS Foundation Trust, which is rated as outstanding by the CQC and will act as a buddy trust. That support will focus on quality improvement.
There is not much more I can say in the limited time I have left, but I can tell my hon. Friend that this is obviously not going to be tackled overnight, and my door is always open if he wants to raise these issues again. However, we now have new leadership in place with a focus on tackling recruitment, and I believe that we can make progress. I re-emphasise that I encourage the trust to bring forward another bid for that capital.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
Draft West Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018
Draft West Suffolk (Modification Of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I call the Minister to move the first motion and speak to both statutory instruments. At the end of the debate, I will ask the Minister to move the second motion formally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft West Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft West Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018.
Rishi Sunak
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am delighted to tell Committee members that we are making a small piece of history by considering the first ever district council merger.
The two instruments were laid before the House on 19 March. They provide for the abolition of the Forest Heath district and the St Edmundsbury borough, together with their councils, on 1 April 2019. They also provide for the establishment of a new West Suffolk district, which will cover the same geographical area, together with a new council for it. The Government are committed to supporting local authorities that wish to combine or merge to serve their communities better.
I will briefly describe the area we are considering. West Suffolk is home to multimillion pound industries, including the home of British horse racing at Newmarket and world-renowned household names such as British Sugar, Greene King, Tattersalls, Treatt, CLAAS UK, Center Parcs and even Go Ape. It sits on the major trade route of the A14, which is linked to the port of Felixstowe.
West Suffolk has a diverse and beautiful environment, with thriving market towns and rural areas, including the stunning gallops in Newmarket, the historic abbey and cathedral in Bury St Edmunds and the protected Brecks landscape. Its workforce growth outstrips the United Kingdom’s average, and even that of nearby Cambridge. It is also home to many service personnel from the UK and the United States, with RAF Honington and the two largest US air force bases in the UK, RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall.
Historically, the area covered by what are now Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury councils fell within an area that has been known since Domesday as the liberty of St Edmund, which was administered by the abbey of St Edmund until the Reformation. The Local Government Act 1888 created three administrative county councils in Suffolk, including a county of West Suffolk, which covered the whole area of the liberty. The proposal that we are considering recreates that local government area and reflects the long shared history of the different parts of the area.
In local government terms, the two existing district councils that we are replacing have a history of shared service partnership, which has created ongoing savings in excess of £4 million per year. That will be safeguarded by implementing the merger proposed in the instruments.
In bringing forward the proposals and formulating its plans, West Suffolk has undertaken extensive engagement and open consultation. The councils undertook a programme of engagement with residents and stakeholders from May to the end of August 2017, including an independent, proportionally representative phone poll; a media campaign, including press releases and promotion on social media; information packs for town and parish councils; an open consultation via a dedicated webpage; an online survey; formal communication to 162 stakeholders; presentations and talks at resident and business forums, and at public events; and staff briefings for frontline employees.
The opinion research commissioned to find out local residents’ views suggested that 70% were in favour of the proposals to form a new single district council. All the local institutional stakeholders, such as the NHS, the police, the county council and major business groups in Suffolk, and all their neighbouring authorities, are also in favour. When the council received comments that expressed concerns, it went back to those people to explain how their concerns would be addressed.
The councils submitted a proposal to merge the authorities on 28 September. That proposal made it clear that implementing the proposed merger would lead to a new district of West Suffolk with a population of almost 180,000, and would yield further savings of £850,000 per year on top of the £4 million per year saved as a result of their joint working.
On 7 November last year, the then Secretary of State told the House what criteria he would use for assessing locally led proposals for merging district councils—first, that the proposal is likely to improve local government in the area concerned; secondly, that the proposal commands local support; and, lastly, that the proposed merger area is a credible geography. On 30 November, the Secretary of State told the House that he was minded to implement the proposal made by the two councils. There followed a period for representations, during which the Secretary of State received seven representations from the local area. All the responses received relating to the West Suffolk council merger were in favour of the change. On the basis of the proposal, the representations and all other information available, the Secretary of State is fully satisfied that all the relevant criteria are met.
It may be helpful to say something about the statutory framework and why there are two statutory instruments to implement the West Suffolk merger proposal. The West Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018 vary the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 in its application to Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury during the period from which the regulations come into force. The regulations are made under section 15 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, which provide that the Secretary of State may, by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, make provision about the structural and boundary arrangements in relation to local authorities under part 1 of the 2007 Act. Sections 15, 4 and 5 of the 2016 Act provide that such regulations can be made only with the consent of the local authorities to which the regulations apply. In this case, both councils have consented to the regulations.
The West Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018 will, if approved, be made under section 10 of the 2007 Act. It makes provision for abolishing the local government areas of Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury, and it establishes a new district with the previous areas of Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury named West Suffolk. It winds up and dissolves the district councils of Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury, and it establishes a new council—West Suffolk District Council. It provides appropriate transitional arrangements, such as a shadow authority and a shadow executive, and it establishes, in agreement with the councils, any necessary electoral arrangements.
In considering the two draft statutory instruments, we are assessing the merits of the merging of Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council, and the creation of West Suffolk council. In this instance, it is clear that the two councils in west Suffolk have come together to work on a locally led proposal, which, if implemented, will improve local government and service delivery in the area. It commands a good deal of local support, and the council area represents a credible geography. The proposed new council of West Suffolk is widely supported, and both councils have consented to making these regulations. I have full confidence that the local area will implement the district council merger by next April to allow the good people of west Suffolk to elect their new council in May next year. On that basis, I commend the regulations and the order to the Committee.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
We have no objections to the statutory instruments.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his presentation, and I have a couple of questions for him. He mentioned public support, and the explanatory memorandum says:
“The majority of town and parish councils that sent representations in response to the proposals were supportive. Seven responses were received from the eighty-five town and parish councils—four were supportive and three raised concerns.”
I think the Minister said that seven had responded, and they were all supportive. What concerns were raised by those three town and parish councils?
The Minister said that concerns were raised, but did not elaborate on that or explain what they were. It would be interesting for the Committee to have laid out what those concerns were, and how the people in the area were reassured that the proposed local authority would not be a problem and that their concerns could be overcome.
Will the Minister also say something about the merging of the two authorities? Where does he expect the new authority’s headquarters to be? How are those services to be merged, and what does that mean for job losses? Presumably, two HQs will be put together. What arrangements does the Minister expect in that regard?
Finally, although I note the general support for the proposals mentioned by the Minister, why does he expect the new authority to be better? What is it going to do that two separate authorities could not? What does it mean for housing, and for the rural problems that we know there are with housing? What does it mean for the provision of youth opportunities? He quite rightly mentioned all the fantastic industries and other recreational facilities available in this beautiful part of the world. How will the new council work with them to generate even more prosperity and opportunity for all residents? Given that it is a new authority, how does he expect the relationship with Suffolk County Council to improve? If I was trying to be non-consensual, I might ask why he does not want to create a unitary authority in west Suffolk, which would really give them some power—but that is for another day.
It is important that we know what the concerns were and how they were addressed, as well as what the merger means for jobs. The Ministers says that the new arrangement has the support of most local people. Will he say something more about how it will actually improve the services on which they depend and increase the opportunities that are available to them?
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I want to raise some issues arising from this statutory instrument.
As the Minister said, this is the first time that section 15 of the 2016 Act has been used. I was present in the House during the Third Reading of that Bill. During that debate, I was given an undertaking by the Secretary of State, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that the powers in section 15 would not be used to abolish any individual local authority without its consent. I am pleased that the proposal before the House today, unlike one that may come before the House soon in relation to my own borough of Christchurch, enjoys the consent of the councils concerned. That is the first point.
The Minister also said, very helpfully, that it was the Government’s policy to support councils that wished to combine. Here we have two independent, sovereign district councils saying that they wish to combine. In the case involving Christchurch, which will perhaps come up in due course, the situation is that sovereign councils do not wish to combine. This measure is potentially an important precedent in relation to the use of section 15, which was always designed, as was articulated by the Government at the time, to bring councils together to discuss what might be in their mutual best interests and the mutual best interests of the citizens and the businesses in their locality.
I ask the Minister about the particular provisions relating to electoral arrangements. I am sure it will not have escaped hon. Members’ notice that the West Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Enactments) Regulations 2018 actually alter the 2007 Act. The regulations state:
“A proposal made by either or both of the relevant authorities before the date that these Regulations come into force that otherwise complies with section 8 of the 2007 Act as modified…shall be treated as a proposal made under section 8(2A).”
That is potentially a retrospective provision. The explanatory memorandum states:
“Regulation 4 provides for the relevant provisions of the 2007 Act as modified by these Regulations to apply to the implementation of a proposal made before the coming into force of these Regulations.”
Will the Minister explain whether such a proposal has yet been made and whether a decision has been made on that proposal? There are two separate stages to the process. A proposal can be made, but if a decision was made on such a proposal before the regulations came into effect, it would seem to me—I stand to be corrected by the Minister, if he has wiser counsel—that that would be retrospective in effect. That is very relevant in relation to my council, which the Government seek to abolish, despite there having been a local referendum in which 84% of the local people were against the proposal that the council should be forced to merge with Bournemouth and Poole. I put that down as a marker to the shadow Minister.
The Chair
Order. May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that as delightful as Christchurch is, we are discussing Suffolk today? I ask him to stick to the script.
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely, Mr Pritchard. That is why I said it is important that the issue of consent is put to the fore. Where there is not consent, different issues arise. I am basically putting the shadow Minister—she leads for the Opposition on these issues—on notice that she should be alert to other measures that might be brought forward using the same powers. The Minister has lauded the fact that this is the first time that section 15 has been used. I hope that the shadow Minister will be alert to future occasions when that clause might be used in circumstances where there has not been consent. In the absence of that consent, such measures would potentially be in breach of the undertaking given to the House on Third Reading in December 2015 by the then Secretary of State.
I do not want to discuss councils other than this one, but in looking at the report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place—it looks at the policy aspects of regulations—I saw that it expressed concerns about whether there was sufficient local consent. That was not from the councils themselves, but the other parishes and organisations within the council area. It is a bit of a disappointment to me that that has not yet been explored, but obviously I am not a Member for this area, so I will not press that point. It is important, however, that we look not only at the views of the councils themselves, but the views of the people living in those council areas.
Will the Minister comment on this? Part of the explanatory memorandum states:
“A full regulatory impact assessment has not been prepared as these instruments will have no impact on the costs of business and the voluntary sector.”
How can such an assertion be made? Surely both the councils—one a borough council and one a district council—are already supplying services or giving money to local voluntary organisations that are dependent on those councils for grant funding. If those councils are merged without any guarantee of continuity of funding— there is no guarantee set out in any of the documents before us today—the instrument may have an impact on the voluntary sector. Likewise, whether positive or negative, the costs of business could and probably will be affected by the measures. Why is there no business regulatory impact assessment for those costs? It seems to me that there is something awry.
I commend the fact that in this case, both the councils concerned have made a full business case for what they are trying to achieve. It may well become apparent in due course that that is not commonplace. If councils are going to submit proposals for mergers, and they pray in aid quite heroic savings figures, it would be desirable that a proper cast-iron business case is drawn up in advance. That would demonstrate that those figures have some validity and could be subject to proper scrutiny by Members of this House. I accept that that has been done in this case, and I commend the council’s concern for having done that.
My main concern is about changing the 2007 Act after the event to enable changes to be made to the boundaries without the Minister engaging the Boundary Commission, as would normally be required under that Act—changing the rules by changing the law and backdating that change to 2007. Obviously, the impact of that and the severity of that retrospection depends on whether the proposals have only just been produced or whether they have been implemented. It seemed to me, from looking at the explanatory notes, that in this case, the Boundary Commission has not yet implemented the proposal. Can the Minister confirm that that is the situation? That will differentiate this particular case from the case that I will draw to the attention of the House on a future occasion.
I raise this issue because in correspondence, the Leader of the House drew my attention to these proposals and prayed them in aid as some kind of precedent. It is because I looked at them and compared them with the case that I had been raising with her that I thought it was important to raise these issues on the Floor of the House. I hope the Minister will respond to the points that I have made. If he cannot do so today, I hope that he will very quickly do so in writing.
We must be very jealous of our responsibilities here to ensure that we do not legislate with retrospective effect, however expedient that might seem to be. In this case, there are two councils that, apparently, want to abolish themselves and create a new council, for whatever motives—it is not for me to look into their motives. The mere fact that councils wish to do something should not mean that we play fast and loose in relation to the principles nor that we legislate retrospectively, but only prospectively.
Rishi Sunak
I turn to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who has discussed these issues at length, both with the Department and with me, not only in Westminster Hall last week but through extensive correspondence. First, on the issue of retrospection, which has been covered by our previous correspondence and that of the Leader of the House, these particular regulations have been cleared by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. If there was any question of their legality, the Joint Committee would have reported that and brought it to the attention of the Committee. It did consider the issue of retrospection on the equivalent regulation that he mentioned. The Government are entirely satisfied that the regulations are wholly lawful and do not raise any issues of having any retrospective effect whatsoever.
Sir Christopher Chope
Before the Minister goes on to the next point, can he explain why the alteration of the 2007 Act, by regulations brought in and being debated today, is not retrospective?
Rishi Sunak
Very simply, because the acts that are to happen have not yet happened. Most people’s understanding of the idea of retrospective legislation is to change the legality of an act that has happened in the past. In this instance, no such act has yet happened; it is to happen in future, therefore there is no question of retrospective legislation.
My hon Friend’s other point on assurances that he feels he was given in the House previously is the subject of correspondence between him and the Department, as has been clarified multiple times. Perhaps he misunderstood what was being said in the House. It was clarified later in the House of Lords by Baroness Williams of Trafford that it was not the intention of the legislation that one council could block a reorganisation proposal that the rest of the councils in an area had proposed.
There is of course a distinction between a merger, which we are considering in this case, between two councils that consent to it, and a reorganisation across an entire area where two tiers of government are involved. As the correspondence clarified, one council should not be able to exercise a veto to prevent all the other councils of an area taking a proposal forward. I know that my hon. Friend will not be happy with that response, and that he will continue to press me and others on the issue. I look forward to continuing my conversations with him.
The final issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised was about an impact assessment on business. The statutory instruments before the Committee have no direct impact on business or the voluntary sector. Any future impact would be due to the decisions of the council, which will be accountable to the local people. It is worth pointing out that business locally was entirely supportive of the proposals, no doubt because of the councils’ great track record of making savings by operating together, and the promise of more savings in the years to come.
Turning now to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Gedling, first, he seemed to suggest that seven might be a particularly low number of representations. It is worth saying that that was the second round of representations. The councils themselves conducted an extensive period of representation and engagement with people across the area before they submitted their proposal. Unsurprisingly, the need for further representations was reasonably limited.
I do not have every one of the representations before me. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the issues raised included the democratic accountability of the future council, and people’s wish to make sure their voice would still be heard. I am pleased to say that the council’s proposal on that score is a modest reduction in the number of councillors from 72 to 64, which will bring the average size of each ward—the electorate per councillor —into line with the English national average of about 1,925. In the new council it will be 1,919. That was one of the ways in which the council was able to provide reassurance.
Vernon Coaker
That is a helpful answer. Have there been any proposed changes to the town and parish councils in the area, or do they stay exactly the same? They are obviously close to, and often they give a voice to, people who might otherwise not engage with the district council.
Rishi Sunak
There is no direct impact on town and parish councils. Those decisions, of course, will be a matter for the new council. One thing that has been raised is the issue of borough status for one of the areas that we are considering—St Edmundsbury, which has borough status. However, there is provision in the order for the new authority to apply for borough status. It will apply in the normal way to the Privy Council under the existing charter process.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the headquarters and what the new council would do. It is probably worth bringing to the attention of those not intimately familiar with the workings of the councils in question that they already work essentially as one operational council. There is already a single headquarters, which is West Suffolk House in Bury St Edmunds, and all the organisational, management and executive functions have been merged.
Vernon Coaker
Will the Minister confirm that the new council’s expectation is that there will be no job losses?
Rishi Sunak
That will be a decision for the new council to make. I can confirm that the transfer of employees from the two different authorities to the new one should be relatively straightforward under TUPE, because they are all employed in one organisation, for the most part.
It is worth bearing in mind what the councils want to do—the hon. Gentleman will probably understand—and if there is a single operating management structure but two decision-making structures, that creates extra complexity in time and processes. That time will be freed up, and half the estimated £850,000 savings will be the non-cash freeing up of capacity, which can then be deployed on serving residents and constituents better.
Some of the other examples that the authorities have given would be to do with single reporting requirements, improvement of financial systems, removing the need to reconcile between different budgets, and broader and better planning of infrastructure and housing, which can now happen over a wider area. That will ensure that people have better choice, and it will not end at the council boundary as it currently does.
The hon. Gentleman’s last question was about Suffolk County Council. He will be pleased to know that the leader of that council is on the record as saying that he believes that the model we are discussing is the strongest model for moving forward in the first instance; he mentioned potential changes down the line. Before us today is a proposal that is locally led, locally driven and widely supported by all local participants and that will deliver real value for money and real change for residents on the ground. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee will join me in commending the work of all those in west Suffolk involved in bringing this historic moment into being, and in wishing them every success on the journey ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft West Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018.
draft west suffolk (modification of boundary change enactments) regulations 2018
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft West Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018. —(Rishi Sunak.)
Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Share Of Supply Test) (Amendment) Order 2018
(5 years, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Share of Supply Test) (Amendment) Order 2018.
It is tradition in such Committees to say that it is a pleasure to serve under the Chair, but in your case, Mr Austin, I mean it. Before we start proceedings, I hope you will allow me to abuse my position by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who had his first granddaughter this morning, Daisy Hawes. She deserves to be in Hansard at the age of a few hours.
The order will extend the Government’s powers to intervene in mergers that might give rise to national security implications. The powers to make this secondary legislation are found in the Enterprise Act 2002, which received Royal Assent in November of that year with cross-party support, following scrutiny in this House and the other place.
The draft instrument will amend the share of supply test to allow the scrutiny of more mergers, but only in three areas of the economy: military and dual-use technologies, and two large parts of the advanced technology sector, encompassing computing hardware and quantum technologies. Prior to taking on this statutory instrument, my knowledge of quantum technologies was somewhat sparse. I am sure some Opposition Members are doctors in quantum physics, but I am not. However, I know that it is very important to the national security of our country. I have spoken to quite a few hon. Members involved in national security on both sides of the House to ensure that they are briefed on this matter.
Generally, the Government’s policy, which Members may disagree with, is to try not to interfere unless we have to. The UK economy is open to the world. We have a framework of laws and policies on protecting national security that we feel have to be continually reviewed and updated. The vast majority of investment in the UK economy raises no national security concerns at all, but there is a risk that having ownership or control of critical businesses or infrastructure provides opportunities to undertake espionage or sabotage, or to exert inappropriate leverage on certain proprietary technologies. The Enterprise Act is the key legal means for the Government to examine mergers for the purposes of national security and other specified public interest criteria.
Last year, we set out a two-stage approach, beginning with action through today’s instrument and continuing with a proposed related instrument amending the turnover test. The Department published its consultation last year. There were 27 responses, and feedback was also obtained through meetings with seven organisations. Respondents recognised the technological, economic and national security challenges that the Government had described, and provided constructive feedback on the detail being incorporated into the reforms.
I will use the next few minutes—I promise it will be just a few—to explain the amendments being made. Today’s order and the proposed order amending the turnover threshold involve businesses active in three areas of the economy. The first is military and dual-use technologies, including such items as arms and military and paramilitary equipment. Those items are just for military use, but dual-use technology has both military and civilian uses.
The national security interests related to those technologies are fairly obvious. In the wrong hands, such items pose a clear and immediate risk to the UK, our people and society. In addition, the acquisition of items that provide the UK with its military advantage can raise legitimate and significant national security concerns. The instrument ensures that businesses involved in the development or production of goods that form well-known, established parts of the UK export control regime will be in scope.
Secondly, the instrument seeks to address the risk created through advances in computing hardware, which now mean that there are ubiquitous goods with the potential to be directed remotely, should a hostile actor obtain access or control. Thirdly, the instrument brings quantum technology within scope. The huge technological potential offered by this area presents national security challenges.
We are making these changes because we are concerned about scenarios where a business with no existing share of supply in the UK buys a business in one of these three areas of the economy. Such a merger would not result in an increase in the share of supply in the UK and therefore the current share of supply test set out in the Enterprise Act would not be met. However, with the changes made by this instrument, the Government would be able to intervene if the target business in the merger had a share of supply of at least 25% before the merger—that is the critical point. The acquiring party need not have any share of the supply of the same goods or services for the test to be met. Those changes will only apply to those areas of the economy I have set out.
Under the second proposed statutory instrument, the negative statutory instrument, the Government will be able to intervene in a merger if a target firm or business being taken over has a UK turnover of more than £1 million. The current £70 million threshold in the Enterprise Act has proven not to be at the right level. The scope of the revised threshold will exclude micro-businesses, ensuring that the Government take as proportionate and focused an approach as possible in delivering our policy intentions. Those changes will apply only to the same three areas of the economy covered by today’s order. We have published an impact assessment—for those hon. Members who have not received it, it is in the corner of the room—to provide guidance and greater clarity to businesses and investors.
The Government will continue to assess risk in other sectors, including emerging technologies. If there is evidence to suggest that the Government should take action in further areas of the economy, we will bring forward further legislation. In the longer term, the Government will bring forward primary legislation to make more substantive changes to how we scrutinise the national security implications of foreign investments. A White Paper will follow in due course. I look forward to hearing what hon. Members have to say about the proposed changes.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin—that is true of you and true of others. The Minister may be reminded of his comment on other occasions—it will potentially be entertaining to remind him of it. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock on the birth of his grandchild. The Hansard Reporters will no doubt try to determine if she is the youngest person ever to be named in Hansard—there is a challenge. I know, Mr Austin, that you have a train to catch, so I shall endeavour to ensure that you can be on it.
This is a very narrow statutory instrument, as the Minister explained. He alluded to a number of areas that it addresses. It follows on in part, if not wholly, from the UK national security risk assessment of 2015. It has taken a while to bring the SI forward, so perhaps the Minister can explain why it has taken quite so long. Undoubtedly, that risk assessment demonstrated the nature of some of the complex threats that the country faces. It is a concern that it has taken so long, given that, although this is a narrow SI, the provisions in it are important. We will support them for that reason.
The Secretary of State is reluctant to intervene, as we saw with GKN. The Opposition had grave concerns about the national security implications of the takeover by Melrose of GKN. The Minister used the phrase “control” of UK business; that actually describes some of the reasons why we were so concerned with the way that the Government did not choose to intervene in the takeover. He also used the phrase “dual use”, which is one of the elements that the statutory instrument covers. GKN has military and dual use in its operations. The statutory instrument highlights those real concerns about national security and the takeover. Perhaps the Minister can give a response now or later on that point.
The Minister mentioned the export regime. Will he expand a little on the implications of this statutory instrument for the Government’s approach to exports? He did not mention the Green Paper, but he did mention that a White Paper is coming forward about primary legislation in the area of national security. My understanding is that a Green Paper is also due on the wider area of competition regimes. Perhaps the Minister will indicate when he expects that to come forward.
There are concerns not just about national security; the public interest tests around mergers and takeovers cover a number of areas. The Competition and Markets Authority has a role to play in deciding how to investigate—we saw that just this week with the proposed merger of Asda and Sainsbury’s. With the White Paper coming forward and perhaps the Green Paper that I mentioned, will the Minister say whether the Government intend to make proposals on an economic interest test, as well as on national security? There are real concerns about some of the recent takeovers and mergers, such as GKN and Asda and Sainsbury’s. These changes would not have been relevant to Cadbury, BHS or Unilever, but there are a number of takeovers and mergers where there is great public interest and concern. Perhaps the Minister might have some thoughts, in relation to what he has said, about some of those takeovers, particularly GKN because it is relevant to national security.
We support the measures and think that they are right, but perhaps the Minister will say why it has taken so long since the 2015 risk assessment to get to this point today.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his very articulate presentation of the statutory instruments. They are to be welcomed because they plug a loophole in the short term, until primary legislation can deal with the wider issues. On those wider issues, intellectual property is the danger, as much as the research and commercially viable businesses that may be bought or sold. When we look at the primary legislation, perhaps those are two areas that we can focus on, as well as merely the mergers and acquisitions.
Richard Harrington
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, which I will do my best not to answer—I mean to answer—as best I can. I hope that is made clear in Hansard. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor for his comment and for his support for the statutory instrument.
The questions certainly went beyond the statutory instrument itself. I will not detain the Committee for too long, but I will answer the question of why it has taken so long. I agree that is has; the paper was in 2015, and we are now three years on from that. From what I have read of the papers, this measure is very delicate and involved a lot of extensive consultation, and I do not just mean a consultation where stakeholders would just email in a comment; it was very complex and, of course, there are genuine views, both ways. The Government wanted to be careful that the measure was proportionate and would not exclude legitimate mergers and takeovers, but would instead provide the necessary level. It has taken longer than I would have liked—I perfectly agree with that—but I do believe that it has been done properly.
On GKN, it is fair to say that national security—with or without this turnover threshold—was the ground upon which this was reviewed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had a quasi-judicial role in taking advice on the national security aspects. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Sefton Central what that advice was, because I do not know, as it was given in a quasi-judicial capacity. However, I know that my right hon. Friend invoked the clause whereby he got the national security advice, I assume from the security services and others deeply involved in this sector, and took the decision based on that advice. All this statutory instrument does is simply to change the threshold at which that advice would have kicked in, but I would imagine that if the deal was very much smaller and caught within this measure, the advice would have been the same.
I think that what the hon. Gentleman is really alluding to with his comments—he is taking a very legitimate position, although I do not agree with it—is that the Government should have a direct power, and not just through the Competition and Markets Authority, which I will come on to in a minute. He referred to it as an “economic benefit test”, whereby the Government could get directly involved in investigating or stopping a merger on grounds other than competition, which is the power that the CMA has, and in a way that goes beyond the direct powers that the Government have now. We have discussed one of those powers today, which is about national security; another is about control of the media, as in the Sky case, which is obviously not relevant here.
That really is a political view. The Enterprise Act, which governs this area, deliberately picks out national security and media plurality—I think the other factor is financial stability—and does not include powers other than those for Government intervention. Much of what the Opposition have said on GKN, on the urgent question the day before yesterday and in the House of Lords yesterday has been based on a whole new power to get involved on the basis of economic benefit—a power that Governments used to have many years ago, and which in the end really became political grounds to get involved.
The Competition and Markets Authority can only look at the competition side and it covers the interests, which are quite wide, of consumers and suppliers. The good thing about the CMA, as opposed to governmental involvement, is that its process is a public one, so anyone can take part in the considerations of the Asda-Sainsbury’s merger. To give it credit, the CMA is a world leader and has a lot of credibility. In the case of Philip Green and other cases referred to by the hon. Member for Sefton Central, other organs of the state were involved. In the case of Green and BHS, the Pensions Regulator was able to take action.
The hon. Gentleman is right that economic benefit alone is not something that the Government have direct power over, and I really believe in limiting the power of Ministers in this kind of thing, because it is best dealt with by an arm’s length authority. I believe that the Government’s policy is absolutely right on that. I am sorry not to be able to satisfy him on that subject, but I think he would have expected that to be my answer.
I thank the Committee for considering the order and for its valuable contribution to this important debate. I have tried to answer the questions as best I could. I hope that we can move forward with these reforms and I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Perry
We want the men and women of the Dagenham plants and plants around the country to have the investment and skills to lead the manufacturing of a new generation of cars. Of course, we already make one in five electric vehicles sold in Europe. [Official Report, 27 April 2018, Vol. 639, c. 1228.]
Letter of correction from Claire Perry:
An error has been identified in my response to the Adjournment debate on Dagenham diesel engine production on Friday 27 April 2018.
The correct information should have been:
Claire Perry
We want the men and women of the Dagenham plants and plants around the country to have the investment and skills to lead the manufacturing of a new generation of cars. Of course, we already make one in eight electric vehicles sold in Europe.
Sainsbury and Asda Merger
The following is an extract from the response to the Urgent Question on the Sainsbury and Asda merger on Monday 30 April 2018.
Andrew Griffiths
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. [Official Report, 30 April 2018, Vol. 640, c. 23.]
Letter of correction from Andrew Griffiths:
An error has been identified in my response to the Urgent Question on the Sainsbury and Asda merger on Monday 30 April 2018.
The correct information should have been:
Andrew Griffiths
Today the Secretary of State and I have spoken to Sainsbury’s chief executive officer Mike Coupe, and Asda CEO Roger Burnley, so that we can better understand their plans.
Petition
6 Alderbrook Road
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
HPV Vaccination for Boys
(5 years, 12 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
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the case for HPV vaccination for boys.
I am delighted to find you in the Chair, Sir Henry. Before I start the substance of my speech, I want to place on the record my appreciation for the help I have received from a number of people, most notably Professor Christopher Nutting, one of the country’s most eminent oncologists specialising in throat and thyroid cancers, and Peter Baker, the campaign director for HPV Action. I am grateful to them both for educating me. I am also indebted to Stephen Bergman and Jamie Rae, two sufferers from the condition we are going to discuss—I shall say more about them later. Finally, I place on record my appreciation of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). The Minister will understand that he cannot be here this morning; he has Government duties and a vow of Trappist silence as a Government Whip.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
I have been there.
Sir Roger Gale
My hon. Friend the Minister indicates that he knows the problem only too well. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has done a significant amount of work in achieving the provision of human papillomavirus vaccine for gay men—a small but significant step in the direction in which I hope we may travel further this morning.
Until a relatively few weeks ago, I knew very little about this issue. I concede that entirely. Unlike one of my colleagues who was here in this Chamber yesterday morning while I was in the Chair listening to the debate, who had a relative who had died of bowel cancer, I have no personal experience. However, when I met Professor Nutting and Peter Baker, I was astonished at the speed with which they convinced me of the argument—and I am not a pushover when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money. I think it is a no-brainer, and I hope to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister, and others, on this cause.
The human papillomavirus causes, among other things, cervical cancer, throat cancer, anal and penile cancers, and cancer of the back of the tongue. The virus is carried by about 80% of the population, which means somebody in this room is a carrier; it is not uncommon. I would like everybody to take that on board. Go on the tube in the morning and there will be dozens of people carrying the virus—most of it dormant, and a lot of it non-malignant. It is contracted in sexually active youth and, for men, usually in their teens or 20s.
The point is that it is a slow-burn issue. Its effects are not experienced overnight. A condition contracted as a teenager or at university may not rear its head for 30 years. We are talking about men now in their 50s and 60s, who some of the eminent people sitting behind me in the Public Gallery are treating, waiting that length of time without realising that they have anything wrong with them at all, because there is no screening process for men, unlike the screening process for cervical cancer.
I spoke yesterday to two people, Jamie Rae and Stephen Bergman—both sufferers, and both in their mid-50s—who described their experiences to me. I will not go into too much of the gory detail. I heard again this morning of another experience: somebody’s colleague, himself an eminent surgeon, who had throat cancer and suffered many months out of work, which was a loss to the health service, damage to his family and, of course, the treatment. The treatment involves chemotherapy and radiotherapy; it may involve a tracheostomy; and it inevitably damages the saliva glands in the mouth, leaving the patient who survives with permanent dryness, considerable pain and ongoing discomfort. As I have indicated, there is also the social damage. Both Jamie Rae and Stephen Bergman described to me in graphic detail the processes they have been through and the discomfort—I use that word very modestly indeed—they have experienced. They described themselves as the lucky ones, because both those gentlemen have come through it relatively unharmed, but of course there are many others who do not.
The HPV vaccine has been available to adolescent girls since 2008. A pubescent girl of 12 or 13 is offered the opportunity to be vaccinated in school. The parents, quite properly, have a right to refuse that vaccine. Just in case anybody has any doubt, I am aware that there are a small number of cases where parents believe that things have gone wrong and that children have suffered as a result of the vaccination. That is medically unproven, but we have to recognise that the parents believe it. Parental choice is vital, and in the case of pubescent girls there is parental choice.
The process ties in directly with the Department of Health and Social Care’s cancer strategy, which of course is about prevention. The Department has done significant work on preventing or seeking to prevent other prominent cancers. Lung cancer is the obvious one, and the anti-smoking campaign is highly relevant in this context. Melanoma is another; something that people of a certain age, such as myself, probably did not bother with at all has suddenly become prominent as the realisation of the damage that the sun’s rays can do to the skin and the cancers that can arise from that has dawned on the population. Any responsible parent or grandparent now takes the trouble to ensure that their children have appropriate sunscreens at all times when enjoying the sun. HPV vaccine falls directly into that category. It is usable for prevention and, used properly, it works. That is proven. As I said, this has been available to adolescent girls since 2008.
We now come to the hard bit of the argument, because up until now I think everybody would probably agree that we are on a winner in using HPV vaccine, but of course there is the question of cost and efficacy. The argument has been deployed that herd immunity, to use the colloquial phrase, will mean it is not necessary to vaccinate boys, because if we eliminate the infection in girls, boys will not catch it from the girls. That is nice in theory, but wrong in practice.
I am told by those who know better than I do that the average young male has at least 10 sexual partners. The Minister might find that surprising; I did myself, but it is so. It depends whom we believe, but in the United Kingdom the vaccine has an uptake of between 70% and 83%, although in some parts of the country it is as low as 50%. A young man embarking on an exciting night out with his girlfriend therefore has a very high risk of contracting HPV from a girl who has not been vaccinated, and that is just in the UK. We overlay on that the foreign travel that many young people are now happily able to enjoy. Sometimes, with sun, sea and sand goes sex, and the risk of exposure to HPV in those circumstances can be even greater. Therefore, the idea that herd immunity will in time address the problem is fallacious, and this is where I have to accuse those who are responsible for taking the decisions—that is not the Minister—of short-termism.
I can see the attraction of the argument that extending vaccination would not be cost-effective and that herd immunity is coming downstream. Yes, the cases coming through now are historical, in the sense that the disease was contracted 20 or 30 years ago, so well before any immunisation. If we want to save money and damage health at the same time, that is quite a good way of going about it. I am seeking to persuade the Minister of the real value of having the courage—he is not lacking in courage—to take a long-term decision now.
The cost of immunising every adolescent boy within the relevant range in the UK is estimated to be, at the top end—this includes the purchase of the vaccine, which of course has to be negotiated by the health service, and its application—about £22 million a year. That is a lot of money, but in health service terms it is almost a bagatelle. Set against that, I am told by those with real experience, some of whom are sitting behind me in the Public Gallery, that there are about 2,000 patients a year—men in their 50s and 60s—who have developed throat, penile or anal cancers. The cost of treating those is about £21 million a year. Of course, that takes no account of the social costs and the other damage that can be done. In the case described to me this morning, of a surgeon who was taken out of play for a considerable time, the cost of treatment—of a replacement jaw, as well as the chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hospitalisation and everything else that goes with it—is looking like being somewhere between £50,000 and £100,000, and that is just one case.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions the 2,000 people. Does he have an estimate of the total number of people who might be spared the effects of the virus if the actions that he proposes are taken?
Sir Roger Gale
I am afraid that I do not. The figure that I have is 2,000 people a year, so one has to assume that it is that—but it is growing.
The reason the condition is becoming more prominent, not less, is the change in sexual attitudes from the 1960s onwards, when practices that were previously unacceptable became acceptable. Oral sex, for example, became relatively commonplace. We can therefore expect, certainly within the next 10, 15 or 20 years, a significant rise in the number of cases. The discussion has to be about what happens after that and whether the herd immunity actually works. I am arguing that it will not, for the reasons I have given.
I have talked about the slow burn, the 20 or 30-year wait, and the costs to the health service, on which the view seems to be, “Okay, fine. Let’s kick that into the long grass. It’s not our problem.” There will be 15 Ministers between the present one, sadly, and the time when people are developing diseases. However, the condition of genital warts, which is also caused by HPV, takes only three, four or five years to incubate, and the cost of that annually is £50 million, so do the maths. The economics of this are unassailable, and on those grounds I defy anyone to challenge my argument. The argument comes down to herd immunity. Will vaccinating girls do the job or not? I have made it clear that I believe it will not, and I think that the time has come for the Department to take a further long, hard look at the issue.
Up to now, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has indubitably taken a short-term approach to this: “Does it work? Well, yes, the vaccine works. Is it worth it? Well, not if we are vaccinating girls. Let’s see what happens—kick it down the line and save £20 million a year today,” even if that means that in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time we will be spending not £20 million but £200 million a year, which will be in addition to all the social costs. I understand that the JCVI will meet in the first week of June. We were promised that a decision on extending vaccination would be taken in 2015. That was deferred until 2017 and has now been deferred without a date being set for the final result.
Before I conclude with a request to the Minister, I want to say this. Chris Curtis, chairman of The Swallows head and neck cancer charity, sent me a video this morning. It was compelling, because he has been a sufferer himself and he described his own circumstances. I want to say something to the JCVI, to each and every member of that august body, who are of course medically qualified in a way that I am not. What I want to say on behalf of all the people who have been treated and have approached me is what Chris Curtis said at the end of his video. Friends, when you are thinking of kicking this into the long grass because it is not going to affect many people for a very long time and we do not have to concern ourselves with tomorrow, remember what Chris Curtis said, very starkly: “Tomorrow comes very quickly.”
I will not ask the Minister to second-guess the JCVI—that would not be right. I do not believe that this is his decision to make, in the sense that I suspect he is little more medically qualified than I am. Neither of us has the expertise to make this judgment. Will he please convey that sense of urgency about tomorrow to the JCVI, with the firm and genuine request that he wants them to take a long-term view, and to make the decision on the balance of long-term cost, not savings tomorrow?
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on his address and on securing this debate. We have to remember two things. First, celibacy is about the only thing we cannot inherit from our parents. Sex may be adopted or forced on you, but it cannot be inherited, unless one is conceived in a glass dish, which most of us were not. Secondly, HPV is a vector. It goes from male to female and from female to male. If I was to alter my hon. Friend’s speech, I would say that the female, from whom the male may get the virus, probably got it from a male in the first place. We have to regard this as an almost endless chain of sexual engagement and the vector going on.
When I was involved in the HPV issue, it was to try to get the Government to bring in genital warts protection for females and to have that added to the cervical cancer vaccination. As it happened, the pharmaceutical company in the town I represent was making the vaccination that did not include it. Somebody came along and pointed out that this might mean a loss of trade for the particular business. I explained that the role and responsibility of a Member of Parliament—of the Government also—is not to put their constituency interest first, but to put the national interest first. My hon. Friend the Minister will not need any reminding that public health first means prevention of illness, then curing illness and then caring for those who cannot be cured. This issue is about prevention. The introductory speech should convince those behind the Minister to get things moving.
The arguments for delaying the addition of the HPV protection to the cervical cancer protection were scandalous. Adding to what my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, if we are looking for herd immunity, we should note that, as has been discovered in Australia, it comes twice as fast if young males are offered the protection at the same time as young females. There is the extreme case of those males who only have sex with males—the herd immunity will not get through to them, and that leads to 400 avoidable deaths a year.
The key point is to get herd immunity for everyone far faster. It seems to me blindingly obvious, in medical terms, public terms and cost terms, that the sooner that happens, the better. If there is some problem about the run-on of the existing contract only being for a certain number, I say to the Minister that no pharmaceutical company that I know supplying the national health service would object to having its order doubled, so that young males were included with young females.
We look forward to hearing that the Minister is persuaded and that he will give a strong nudge to the Joint Committee. We look forward, in time, to being able to congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving—with Government, the medical profession, the nursing profession and the affected communities—this progress, which has been too long delayed.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. There is not much more that I can add to the presentations that have been made by my colleagues, but I want to make a couple of points. First, this is not simply about the sexual relationships of gay people. It affects all of us. My colleagues made that point firmly, but we need to make it again. Secondly, this virus is horrible. It is a disgraceful virus—to anthropomorphise a virus. We have heard the descriptions of the cancers that are induced by it.
I want to concentrate on the preventive powers of this vaccination for genital warts. There is a strong case for that. They may appear to be insignificant, but I do not believe that they are; they are much more widely distributed among the population than the cancers induced by the virus. My hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) have made a compelling case for the immunisation of boys, which I fully support.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for bringing this debate today. I participated in the debate in June 2016, which the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) brought to the Floor of the House. I am delighted to be here for this debate. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for Henley (John Howell) on participating. I am slightly disappointed that more hon. Members are not here, because this is an important debate. It is especially important for hon. Members who happen to be men to understand the issue of HPV and their role in prevention.
Across the UK, the Governments of the various nations are progressing towards what I see as a progressive policy on HPV vaccination. As a Scottish constituency MP, I am delighted that the Government in Scotland are progressing that way and that this debate is taking place in the UK Government. In all good conscience, however, as a constituency MP I also have a role to highlight the issue around HPV and the need for men to be more aware of their role in sexual health, predominantly because this is a public health issue. A great amount of work is being done all over the world, which has impacted on people’s lives.
We heard about issues relating to penile cancer. It would be interesting to know how many hon. Members know that men can get penile cancer. When I was the secretary of Cahonas Scotland, a male cancer charity in Scotland, we did a piece of work with a broad range of men from different socioeconomic backgrounds. The very idea of issues such as penile cancer was an absolute shocker to them. We showed them pictures of men wearing adult nappies. The lived experience of other men dealing with the impact of cancer related to HPV was profound and they did not know anything about it.
This is not just a sexual health issue, but a public health one. Knowledge is power. Knowing more about the issue and being able to make an informed choice to have the vaccination with parental approval is critical in ensuring that young men are protected for the future. Nevertheless, clarity is required—it is a challenge for me to say this to Governments across the UK—on why we are articulating a message about the numbers game, in which it is just about cost. If we relate that to the lived experience of men living with the consequences of not having the vaccination—I believe there may be some in the Gallery today—the clinical evidence needs to inform the economic choice. The clinical evidence is that the vaccination for young men will save lives. That is about understanding the consequences of the failure to give the HPV vaccination to young men. Governments across the UK should no longer be timid. We are being progressive at the moment, but timidity does not save lives.
There is also a difficulty at the core of this debate. In public policy debates on public health, it seems that those of us in the public policy arena—men, predominantly—are abdicating responsibility by saying, usually through the herding immunisation argument, that the public health and sexual health of young men are down to young women. I do not find that acceptable. I can no longer stand as a Member of Parliament and look young women in my constituency in the eye and say that, from a policy perspective, abdicating sexual and public health to them is acceptable. It is the responsibility of policy makers to articulate a view that young men and young women have the right to this vaccination. In allowing that public policy narrative to continue, we as men are abdicating our responsibility to those young women. That is no longer sustainable.
Historically, it is now 100 years since women over 30 got the vote. How does that relate to this issue? It is about gender being at the heart of a public health debate. We are saying to young women that they are responsible for young men’s sexual health, with negative consequences for young men. In the 21st century, that is no longer tenable. It has profound consequences for young men in the future, in relation to cancers, and it is the same stuff that we said to young women in the 19th century: “We’ll just leave it to you when it comes to sexual health.”
The hon. Member for North Thanet said that instances of oral sex were a new thing since the 1960s, but I have to admit, that is news to me. When I look at the historical narrative of sexual—[Interruption.] I sometimes feel as though I might have been born then. The historical narrative of sexual health has traditionally been an abdication of responsibility from men to women. One need only look at the friezes in Pompeii where oral sex is de rigueur. It was no different in the 18th century, when women had to tolerate the sexual norms of men who would have sex with other men and with sex workers, and when the attitude was that women just had to deal with sexual health issues.
In 2018, I make no apology for saying: not in my name. The young men of the UK deserve better, and the young women in my constituency should expect no less from me as their Member of Parliament than for me to say to Ministers—not just here in London, but in Holyrood, Belfast and Cardiff—that we need to take collective responsibility and stop genderising the public health debate. Only then will we create a more equal, fairer and far healthier society, in which young men have the opportunity to participate and acknowledge their role in sexual health and, in future, to live healthy sexual lives without fear of talking about sex or HPV—and, frankly, without having to tell parliamentarians stories of their sexual activity to bring a debate to the Floor of the House. That is no longer tenable and we need to rise to the challenge.
We need to say to young men and older men who are suffering from HPV that we will do everything in our power as politicians to meet the challenge they have placed before us. We need to say to young women that we no longer accept that they are responsible for the sexual health of young men.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I thank the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this important and long-awaited debate, and for speaking with such knowledge and passion. I also thank the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell), for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for their contributions. Although we are few in number, due in no small part to the local elections, that has been more than made up for by quality.
As we have already heard, 70% to 80% of sexually active women and men will acquire HPV at some point in their lives. Most healthy people will be able to clear the infection out of their system and will never know that they had been infected, but 3% to 10% of cases lead to serious health conditions. HPV is a major cause of cancers in men and women, and accounts for 4.8% of the estimated 12.7 million new cancer cases occurring annually among men and women worldwide.
HPV is linked to nearly all cervical cancers, 70% to 75% of vaginal cancers, 29% of vulvar cancers, 50% of penile cancer and 85% to 90% of anal cancers in both sexes. HPV can also cause genital warts, as we have heard, which is the most common sexually transmitted disease caused by the virus in both sexes. Why, then, do we vaccinate only girls, when men and women can be infected?
Since 2008, girls aged between 11 and 13 in the UK have been offered the HPV vaccination. My daughter was in the first cohort. As a parent, I was a bit anxious when the new vaccination was rolled out, but I need not have been. The vaccination programme has been mostly successful, with a high uptake of about 85% nationally, and it has made an important contribution to reducing the burden of infection among young women in the UK.
However, there are significant regional differences in the uptake of the vaccination, with the lowest level of uptake of two doses at 48.3% in my region, in Stockton-on-Tees, compared with the highest level of uptake in East Renfrewshire at 95.6%, which is astonishingly high. What steps will the Minister take to address those regional inequalities in the vaccine uptake? How does he expect a herd immunity philosophy to apply in areas such as Stockton in the north-east, where uptake is so low?
It is clear from the ever-growing evidence that it is time to extend the HPV vaccination to boys. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation believes that the high uptake in girls protects enough males and makes it cost-ineffective to vaccinate boys too, but that short-sighted view protects only heterosexual men who come into sexual contact with a woman who has been vaccinated, and leaves out a significant proportion of the population. Despite the high uptake among young girls, a heterosexual man still has a one in seven chance of meeting an unvaccinated woman in a sexual encounter.
Men who have sex with men are also unprotected by a girls-only vaccination programme. They are 20 times more likely than heterosexual men to develop anal cancer, but the men who have sex with men—MSM—programme being piloted in England will not be sufficient to protect that population.
Between 2009 and 2014, the median age of the first presentation of men who have sex with men to sexual health services in England was 32 years old. They are therefore likely to have been having sex for many years before they attend a sexual health clinic. A recent study of men who have sex with men attending a London sexual health clinic found that 45% had a current HPV infection of a type that could cause cancer or genital warts, which suggests that a significant proportion of them will have already been infected before they are offered the HPV vaccination. Offering the vaccine in a sexual health clinic is too little, too late for men who have sex with men.
In addition, as we know, sexual health services are at a tipping point after demand for them increased by one quarter in the past five years, but at the same time, spending on them was cut year on year. Offering the vaccination in a sexual health clinic adds to the ever-growing demand on those services, but still excludes a significant proportion of the population and is far too late for some men.
The optimum age for the HPV vaccination to work is around 12 or 13 years old, when boys are unlikely to attend a sexual health clinic or may not be aware of, or willing to declare, their sexual orientation. The only solution to the problem is to offer the vaccine to both girls and boys while they are still at school and not sexually active. That will protect girls and boys from preventable disease.
HPV Action estimates that more than 2,000 new cases of HPV-related cancers are diagnosed each year in men in the UK. Like me, the Minister is passionate about reducing the incidence of cancer in this country. Extending the HPV vaccination programme to boys would be a step forward in doing that.
In response to a written question earlier this year, the Minister stated that the Government do not have an estimate of the number of boys and men each year who are left unprotected against HPV because of a lack of direct or herd immunity. However, HPV Action estimates that, with each year that passes, another cohort of almost 400,000 boys is left unvaccinated and potentially at risk of HPV infection and the diseases it causes. As the briefing I received from the Terrence Higgins Trust says:
“When we have a vaccine that can provide effective protection against such illnesses, it is unacceptable to maintain that vaccinating only one half of the population is sufficient to stop preventable ill health.”
HPV is not gender specific, so the vaccination programme should not be gender-specific either.
This is not a new philosophy. In fact, 14 countries are already vaccinating boys against HPV, or they will be soon. They include Australia, Austria, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and the US. Compared with their international peers, therefore, boys in the UK are at risk of being disadvantaged.
This is an opportunity for us to play a leading role globally in the elimination of cancer caused by HPV, but we are at risk of letting that opportunity slip away. Since 2013, the JCVI has been reviewing whether to extend the HPV immunisation programme to boys. However, the publication of a final decision has been deferred twice. The thousands of boys who go unvaccinated each year cannot afford to wait any longer and the JCVI must make a decision this year, preferably when they meet next month. I therefore urge the Minister to work with the JCVI as it comes to make its decision, so that both genders can be protected from these preventable diseases.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry, I think for the first time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing the debate and bringing this important subject to the House. He was in the Chair the last time I was in Westminster Hall, which was just yesterday. I am surprised that so few Members are present for the debate. As the shadow Minister suggested, perhaps matters elsewhere in the House and outside are occupying their minds.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet mentioned, our expert group, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, is considering this matter, and it is important that I do not pre-empt its final advice, as he rightly said. That does make the timing of the debate challenging, but I will respond as fully as I can and give as much context as possible.
I will first set out some of the context. In 2008—before I was even a Member of the House—on the advice of the JCVI, an HPV vaccination programme for girls was introduced. The primary objective was to protect against cervical cancer. As the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) kindly said, my mission in life—not just in my job—is to challenge and beat that dreadful disease. While I am on the subject, I pay tribute to Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust and the brilliant Rob Music, who leads it—I know that the hon. Lady knows them well. The trust’s work in this area over many years, including with me as Minister, has been truly transformative for many women’s lives.
The HPV vaccine that is used in the UK offers protection against the two types of HPV that are responsible for about 70% of cervical cancers, and since the introduction of our vaccination programme the number of young women infected with HPV has fallen dramatically. Protection is expected to be long-term, eventually saving hundreds of lives each year, which I am sure we all agree is very welcome. Today, however, our focus is on boys and men.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the Minister aware of the paper on this subject by Dr Gillian Prue of Queen’s University Belfast? Dr Prue’s six recommendations are very similar to what the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and others have put forward today. They include: first, that both men and women should be vaccinated against HPV-related diseases; and secondly, and more importantly, that the significant human cost of HPV-related diseases should be the primary consideration for including boys in vaccination programmes. If the Minister has not been made aware of the paper, I am happy to furnish him with the copy. Its recommendations are integral to moving forward on the issue.
Steve Brine
Not wishing to mislead the House, my honest answer is that I am not aware of that paper. Whether my officials are aware of it is another matter—I will ask them. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not be shy about putting a copy in my hand after the debate.
The good news is that HPV vaccination of girls also provides some—I emphasise “some”—indirect protection for boys. When the vaccination uptake rates are high, as they are in England, there are fewer HPV infections in heterosexual males, because the spread of HPV infection between girls and boys is reduced. There is evidence to back that up; it is not just words. For instance, diagnosis of first-episode genital warts in young heterosexual men between the ages of 15 and 17 declined by 62% between 2009 and 2016. That suggests that there is some—again, I emphasise “some”—herd protection from the existing HPV vaccination programme. However, that is not the start of the story, and neither is it the end, and I have to put it on the record that nobody in Government has ever said that it was. Nevertheless, I take the points that have been made today about herd immunity; it is only part of the story.
Of course, it will take much longer to see the impact that the girls programme has on HPV-related cancers, but we should not wait for those results before considering whether more needs to be done now for boys. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, this is a slow-burn problem.
Sir Peter Bottomley
It is just a matter of pure mathematics. If 100%, or nearly 100%, of any age cohort —male and female—gets the vaccination, the herd immunity develops much faster than just relying on vaccinating up to 50% of that cohort.
Steve Brine
I think that my hon. Friend is stating facts, and I know that the JCVI officials who are here today will have heard him.
The JCVI keeps all vaccination programmes under review, as it should, and it keeps Ministers informed of any reviews. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet is aware, given the increasing evidence about the link between HPV infection and oral, throat, anal and penile cancers, alongside the incidence of genital warts, the JCVI has considered whether HPV vaccination is now needed for males.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) made about the surprise about penile cancer. He has more experience of the subject than I do, but it is not a surprise to me. I work with a very good charity called Orchid Cancer, some of whose staff attend my cancer roundtable regularly. It deals with male cancers and is trying to raise awareness of penile cancer as a challenge in society today. It is an issue that is difficult for society, let alone for men, to talk about. I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said today.
The JCVI considered its current piece of work in two parts: first, whether the HPV vaccination should be introduced for men who have sex with men—MSM—and secondly, whether it should be introduced for adolescent boys. MSM, as we know, are a group at high risk of HPV infection. Unlike heterosexual men, of course, they are unlikely to receive much, if any, indirect protection from the HPV vaccination programme for girls. The JCVI advised us that a targeted HPV vaccination programme should be introduced for MSM up to the age of 45 who attend genitourinary medicine clinics or HIV clinics. Following a successful pilot in 42 clinics that was led by Public Health England, we announced in February that the programme would roll out across the country from April, and it is now being rolled out. That programme is welcome, but again I fully appreciate that it is not the start and it is certainly not the end of the story, for some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West set out in her very coherent remarks.
Let me turn to the issue of adolescent boys. Of the non-cervical HPV-associated cancers, not all cases are caused by HPV—indeed, the percentage of cases that are attributable to HPV is widely debated. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet mentioned The Swallows, which I do not have much contact with, although I have heard of it. I passed a note to my officials asking them to get in touch with the charity as a result of this debate, so it should look out for that. For head and neck cancers, alcohol is an important risk factor to take into account, but HPV does play a role, and that is why the JCVI is considering whether vaccination for boys should be introduced.
The JCVI issued interim advice on HPV last July. As Members know, that was subject to consultation. It is reviewing the evidence ahead of finalising its advice to Ministers. Its members are the experts, and they are best placed to consider the evidence and provide advice to Ministers. That is the system that Parliament has mandated. Parliament could change it, but that is our system.
Sir Peter Bottomley
When the Minister sends a report of this debate to the JCVI, it might be worth him respectfully saying that some of us here are aware of how long it took it to agree to bring in HPV protection even for females. It might want to consider whether postponing that decision was right or wrong. In my view, it was wrong. The people at the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV knew that it was wrong, and it took an awfully long time for them to change their minds. Can we please ask them respectfully not to make the same mistake again?
Steve Brine
Those people are nearer to my hon. Friend than he knows, and they will have heard his point.
In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet asked the JCVI to take the long view, and I hope that I can reassure him somewhat on that point. Some examples of what the JCVI is taking into account in its considerations include: the projected future number of HPV cancers resulting from the current incidence of HPV infection; the potential savings as a result of preventing future cancers, which a number of Members have mentioned; the potential savings from preventing genital warts; and, crucially for my hon. Friend’s point, the long-term impact of HPV infection up to 100 years into the future, which will outlive even him.
The JCVI’s interim advice indicated that to vaccinate boys would be
“highly unlikely to be cost-effective in the UK, where uptake in adolescent girls is consistently high”.
It is true that the UK has achieved high uptake for the girls HPV immunisation programme for the past 10 years. In 2016-17, 83.1% of girls completed the current two-dose course, including the daughter of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West. I have two young children—one of each—and of course those of us who are parents want what is best for our children. Somehow arguments about cost-effectiveness do not feel right. Cost-effectiveness is important, however, because it is about how to fairly, consistently and robustly assess which interventions and treatments should be funded in what we must remember is a publicly funded health system. We need to deliver value for money for the taxpayer and deliver the most health benefit possible to all patients. That is our system.
Mrs Hodgson
I take on board what the Minister is saying for areas where uptake is high but, as I cited earlier, there are parts of the country where uptake is nowhere near high enough, such as Stockton, where it is 48%. How does that work? How does that argument stand up for those parts of the country?
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I was hoping to have a note to respond on that specific point about regional inequalities, but I will have to write to her. Perhaps it is something we can discuss offline. That very good point has not been raised with me recently, but I will take it away and follow it up.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet did not mention discrimination and equality, but other Members certainly did. I accept that equality needs consideration in this case, and I confirm that the Department is carrying out an equality analysis. That cannot be completed until we have received the JCVI’s final advice and we know what it is advising and why, but I can confirm that officials will make contact with key organisations such as HPV Action—I met members of it recently at a roundtable I held on cost-effectiveness methodology for immunisation programmes and procurement, and I know that some of them are here today—as they progress the equality analysis to ensure that such views are taken into account. I confirm that the equality analysis will be published, and I will make the House aware when it is.
There have been a number of threats of judicial review related to equality and sex discrimination in relation to HPV vaccination. I do not think it would be appropriate to say more at this stage, but the House will have heard those two commitments.
Mrs Hodgson
On the equality point and the herd immunity point, may I raise the issue of men who have sex with men and the fact that their first presentation at a sexual health clinic could be at the age of 32? Again, there is no way for there to be herd immunity or even for us to extend the vaccination, as we have done in the pilot, to men who have sex with men. There will still be huge numbers of people not covered. Does the Minister agree, and what is he going to do about that?
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady makes her point, and it is not one that I miss, I assure her. That issue forms part of the ongoing deliberations. She has made that point twice, and it is a good point.
I know there are concerns, to put it mildly. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet set out the timeline of how long it is taking the JCVI to finalise its advice. However, the consultation raised some important, complex issues around the cost-effectiveness model, and it would be remiss of the JCVI not to ask for those issues to be addressed before it puts the matter on its agenda and makes its final decision. I appreciate that my hon. Friend and other Members want the advice quickly—believe me, so do I—but I cannot advocate asking the JCVI to cut corners, which would call into question the quality and robustness of its advice and undermine an internationally respected organisation. The JCVI will get its advice on boys to me as soon as it can, and I am certainly expecting it this year. As soon as I have it, we will turn it around as quickly as we can.
I am totally committed to our world-leading vaccination programme. It is an area where this country leads the world. I am as keen as my hon. Friend and other Members present to hear the JCVI’s final advice on HPV vaccination for boys as soon as possible. The JCVI has helped successive generations of Ministers and, as my hon. Friend said, it will help those who come after me—there will be many, and maybe sooner than we think. It has helped Ministers make decisions that are fair and justifiable, and we need to allow it to complete its advice without too many distractions that could slow it down even further, which no one wants.
We have heard an impassioned case for an HPV vaccination programme for boys from, among others, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, for whom I have so much respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) suggested, I will send a transcript of the debate to the JCVI to ensure that in the unlikely event there are any issues it was not aware of, that can be reflected in its final advice. It is listening to the debate today. For the reasons I gave at the start of my remarks, I cannot give the House an indication of when exactly a decision will be made, or what that decision might be—trust me, I would love to—but I can say that I will prioritise consideration of the JCVI’s final advice as soon as I receive it.
Sir Roger Gale
May I first thank you, Sir Henry, for presiding over this debate with lenience, and for allowing a frank discussion of what is clearly a sensitive subject? When we do not write speeches, as I do not, we fly by the seat of our pants and ad lib. Inevitably, we miss things. I am therefore particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for Henley (John Howell), and to the hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who clearly has a tremendous grasp of the subject. Together colleagues have put flesh on the skeleton that I sought to create at the start of the debate. I am very thankful indeed for that.
I hugely appreciate the candour with which the Minister has spoken and the positive attitude he takes to this difficult issue. I also understand that from his point of view the timing is not easy, given the imminence of the JCVI discussions. I hope and believe that as a result of all the representations that have been made, not only in this debate but across the piece, the JCVI will now take what to some of us is the obvious decision and, for a relatively small amount of money, create a much better environment for both boys and girls in the future.
To conclude, the Minister said that he had two children. I have five grandchildren. We cannot wait. I quote again the remarks that were made earlier: “Tomorrow comes very quickly.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the case for HPV vaccination for boys.
Prison Officers: Working Conditions
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the working conditions of prison officers.
Before I begin, I should explain that I have three prisons in my constituency, and I have raised regularly in this House issues that concern people working in them. As I have done on many other occasions, I pay tribute to the fantastic men and women who work in Elmley, Standford Hill and Swaleside on the Isle of Sheppey. I am immensely proud of those dedicated, hard-working professionals, who work in an extremely challenging environment, facing the threat of violence almost daily with few complaints and a great deal of courage.
Violence is not the only issue that concerns prison staff—I intend to talk about numerous other issues later —but I will start by addressing it. Ministry of Justice figures show that violence in our prisons is at its highest level since records began. In the last quarter, there were 21,270 prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, of which 3,029 were serious. At the same time, there were 8,429 assaults on prison staff, of which 864 were serious. In one quarter alone, about 4,000 serious assaults took place. Given the nature of what constitutes a serious assault, I suspect many were carried out using some form of offensive weapon.
The Serious Crime Act 2015 made it an offence to be in possession in prison of an offensive weapon, so I would expect action to have been taken against those assailants. However, during 2015 and 2016, there were just 149 prosecutions, which hardly seems to be a deterrent to potential troublemakers. Such a low prosecution rate means that offenders know that if they attack a prison officer, they will probably get away with little more than a slapped wrist.
The lack of prosecutions against violent prisoners by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service has been a long-standing bugbear of mine. I have pointed out on a number of occasions—I make no apology for doing so again—that if a police officer is attacked while on duty, the full weight of the law rightly comes down on the attacker. However, if a prison officer is attacked while on duty, too often nothing happens. That cannot be right.
There are a number of reasons for the increase in violence, and I will touch on a few of them. There has been an increase in organised crime in prisons. I have heard stories of prisoners resorting to violence to avoid the risk of early release because their criminal activities in prison are so lucrative. There has also been an increase in the number of gangs in prisons: they are behind much of the organised crime, including the supply of drugs, which is big business.
The use of drugs in prisons is a huge problem, as I am sure we are all aware. A steady supply is smuggled in by visitors, corrupt prison staff and, increasingly, drones. My local prisons have introduced drone-exclusion zones, but they have no real means of enforcing the ban. The problem will be solved only by installing in every prison a system to detect, track and jam drones before they reach their destination.
Another concern is the increased incidence of prisoners smoking Spice and other harmful drugs in their cells. When prison officers enter the cell, they are at risk of harm from inhaling the lingering smoke. I know of a young prison officer in one of my prisons who was seriously affected by the inhalation of Spice fumes and had to be sent home because he was so ill. To counter that, gas masks should be made available to prison officers who enter cells in which it is suspected that an inmate has been smoking harmful substances, such as Spice. Stemming the flow of drugs is essential, and prison officers believe that the task of detecting drugs will be improved by the use of more sniffer dogs in prisons. I urge the Minister to consider that.
Drugs are not the only issue making the management of our prisons difficult. Mobile phones are also a big problem, as they are used to conduct much of the illicit business in prisons. People perhaps do not realise that mobile phones can be used to take photographs of prison officers, which can be sent to contacts outside the prison, who then intimidate them. The Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012 was supposed to help solve that problem by allowing phone signals to be blocked, but I understand that there have been difficulties implementing the Act. That is why I welcome the new Bill going through Parliament, with Government support, which will make it easier to prevent the use of mobile phones in prisons.
Combating prison violence can be problematic for a number of reasons, including the lack of control in some prisons. For instance, the Prison Officers Association alleges that prison managers sometimes fail to stick to the agreed regime management plans, which are put in place to set out work practices based on the number of officers available at any given time. The POA claims that some prison managers ignore RMPs because they fear the reaction of prisoners if they are not allowed out of their cells, even if there are not sufficient prison officers to supervise them. That leads to too many prisoners being unlocked without proper supervision. I should add that there is no evidence that that is happening in my three prisons.
That leads me nicely to another problem: the lack of prison officers. The Prison Service is in the process of recruiting more officers. Like the POA, I welcome that recruitment drive, but the influx of new recruits has presented its own challenges. Under benchmarking, the Prison Service lost thousands of experienced prison officers. They have been replaced with young, inexperienced officers, who are being asked to manage increasingly violent prisoners. We must do our bit by giving them the tools they need to do their job safety and effectively. One such tool is PAVA—pelargonic acid vanillylamide—which is similar to a pepper spray and is widely used in the police force. The Prison Service is piloting the PAVA in four prisons, and the results have been extremely positive.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. He made a comparison with police forces. I have taken part in the police service parliamentary scheme, which enables MPs to gain a fuller understanding of the nature of the work that we expect public servants, including prison officers, to do. Will the Minister consider establishing in prisons something along the lines of the police service parliamentary scheme so that Members of Parliament can go into that environment? I appreciate it is very dangerous, but we could none the less learn much from it and take away much that would be of benefit to our public servants.
Gordon Henderson
I welcome that intervention, and I will talk about that issue later in my speech.
I met my local police chief inspector, who happens to be a very small woman, and she said that, without PAVA, she would not be able to do her job on the beat. Between November 2017 and February 2018, HMP Bedford recorded 23 assaults on staff, of which two were classified as serious, whereas, HMP Preston, which has a larger prison population, recorded just eight assaults on staff, of which one was classified as serious. It cannot be a coincidence that, during that period, officers in Preston were issued with PAVA, but those in Bedford were not. The use of PAVA seems to be a no-brainer. I urge the Minister to roll out its use and issue PAVA to all prison officers in all prisons without delay. I would also like to see made available to prison officers rigid handcuffs, radios and body-worn video cameras.
The environment in our prisons gives rise to another big concern. Unlike police officers and firefighters, prison officers have to work until they are 66 years old. Over time, that will increase to 68.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
My hon. Friend is coming on to changing the pensionable age for prison officers. Recently, I visited HMP Dumfries in my constituency and was most impressed by the prison officers and the standard of their work. They expressed concern about the pensionable age being 68—as they put it, 68 is too late. I agree with them. Not everyone is physically robust at that age and, if they are not, does my hon. Friend agree that those prison officers should be found jobs in offices so that they need not be on the frontline?
Gordon Henderson
I certainly agree with that, but the problem is, what happens when the administrative jobs run out? What do we do with them then? I think there is another solution. Police officers and firefighters have dangerous and physical jobs, which is why they are allowed to retire early. Prison officers, too, have dangerous, physical jobs. I believe that the time has come to allow them the same rights as their colleagues in the police force and the fire service.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I have a number of personal case studies from prison officers at the prison in my constituency. One of the issues that they have flagged up is that changes have, in effect, blocked their ability to be promoted, because to accept promotion, officers have to sign up to the lesser conditions, so we are losing the experienced officers whom we so need to run our prisons. Is my hon. Friend aware of that and does he share those concerns?
Gordon Henderson
Yes and yes. That is just another example of the way in which those in the Prison Service—prison officers in particular but also other prison staff—are treated as second-class citizens of the public service. It is time for us to treat them in exactly the same way as police officers and firefighters.
Equalising the retirement age, for example, would help to make the role of a prison officer more attractive, as would increasing the salary structure. It is difficult to recruit prison staff because they are paid less than other public sector workers, such as border staff. A lot of prison officers who leave the service become border staff. Is it any wonder that a very small minority of corrupt prison officers are tempted to earn money on the side by turning a blind eye to criminal activity in prisons?
As I have pointed out before in the House, it is particularly difficult to attract staff to work in Sheppey’s prisons, because local people can earn more working in a warehouse than they can working in a prison. I believe that my prison staff are worth more money, and they should be paid what they are worth. There is also a frustration among prison officers that they are seen simply as turnkeys. That, too, is wrong. They are not jailers. They are not prison guards. They are prison officers. They should be treated with the respect that their position deserves.
One way to enhance esteem for prison officers would be to make better use of them in other roles, such as in the provision of education and healthcare to prisoners. An inmate is more likely to respect a prison officer if they know that that officer is helping them in some way. That is simply human nature.
I am not expecting—surprise, surprise—the Minister to wave a magic wand and to deliver immediately all the measures that I have suggested. However, it would be nice if he at least acknowledged the important role of prison officers and pledged to start some of the reforms needed to make their working conditions better.
Finally, I have another special request to make of the Minister—the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) touched on this earlier. I was invited by my local prison officers to spend a day with them on the frontline. I agreed straightaway. I thought it would be a good way of understanding better the conditions in which they work. But I made one condition: I would join them only if I was able to wear a uniform and to be treated in the same way as a prison officer, so I could really know what was going on at the coalface. I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members with prisons in their constituencies would like to do the same. Unfortunately, the Prison Service ruled that I would not be allowed to take part in such an exercise. I would be really grateful if the Minister encouraged the National Offender Management Service to change its mind.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson). It is important for the Houses of Parliament to focus on prisons and in particular on the service of prison officers. As my hon. Friend pointed out in his substantial and eloquent speech—he is extremely well informed, with three prisons in his constituency—and indeed as my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) and for Henley (John Howell), and the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) pointed out in their interventions, we have a very strong debt of obligation towards our prison officers. Prison officers are very unusual uniformed public servants. They generally operate outside the public eye, and prisons are not places that the public generally visit. That is why I wish to come on to that good idea of a parliamentary scheme suggested by hon. Members.
The job of prison officers is very unusual. On the one hand, it has some of the features of the job of the police, in so far as they are dealing with criminals and therefore with a lot of violence and trauma but, on the other, a particular set of skills is also required. Unlike a police officer, a prison officer may often see the same individual hour after hour, day after day, week after week and even year after year, having to provide a moral exemplar for such individuals on their journey towards ceasing reoffending. Prison officers are helping to educate and support them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey pointed out, in everything from healthcare through to employment.
The challenge presented by my hon. Friend is what we can do practically to help prison officers in their daily work—and, my goodness, they face a challenging situation.
John Howell
I am fascinated by the idea of providing opportunities for Members of Parliament to work in prisons. I happen to be the deputy chairman of the Industry and Parliament Trust. Will the Minister work with me to see whether the trust might develop a form of fellowship to take the idea forward?
Rory Stewart
My hon. Friend makes a very generous offer. We are incredibly interested in that, but the real thing that we need to make the idea work is Members of Parliament prepared to do it. If the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and even my hon. Friend the Member for Henley are interested in being part of a parliamentary scheme, we really have got something to take to the head of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service: I can say not just that this is a theoretical idea, but that we have real, living Members of Parliament who are genuinely interested. We can set up a pilot scheme, learn from what happens in the armed forces and the police service parliamentary schemes, and look at the potential support suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley. That would be an incredibly useful thing.
For anyone listening to the debate who is not aware of such schemes, the amazing idea behind the armed forces and police parliamentary schemes is that Members of Parliament can see for themselves what people are going through on the frontline. In fact, legislation considered on Friday, partly on behalf of the police, was driven in part by the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who had been on the police scheme and had been inspired by seeing the action of police officers. So the scheme has changed legislation here in Parliament.
To accelerate, what useful things can we do for prison officers, apart from paying tribute to them for their extraordinary service, intelligence, commitment, honour, loyalty, courage and resilience, and for the way in which they work with unsociable hours and difficult people? Concretely, there are three different types of thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey touched on terms and conditions, but that I will not touch on today, because we are in confidential discussions with the public sector pay review body, looking at exactly the issues raised, such as those of how we move people from the pre-existing closed-term contracts to the new fair and sustainable contract, and the difference in salary compared with other employment opportunities.
To give one small example, of which my hon. Friend is probably aware, in the Isle of Sheppey we pay an increased amount to attract people away from competing professions, such as in transport or the police, to get them to work in the Prison Service. There is much more to be said about that, but I want to talk concretely about the equipment that we can bring in to try to make a prison officer’s life better. We talked about PAVA spray—pepper spray, in other words. My hon. Friend also talked about the introduction of rigid handcuffs and discussed other equipment being proposed, including suggestions for stab-proof vests, body-worn cameras, which we are rolling out across the estate, and CCTV. All that will increase the confidence of the prison officer in dealing with the prisoner.
We also need to be able to prosecute prisoners who assault prisoner officers. We were very proud, on Friday, to be able to double the maximum sentence for anybody who assaults a prison officer from six months to 12 months. But that requires the Crown Prosecution Service to bring those prosecutions. Too often, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there has been an attitude that, somehow, assaulting a prison officer is different from assaulting a police officer on the street.
Gordon Henderson
That is a particularly sore point with me. The CPS standpoint has always been that it is not in the public interest to prosecute a prisoner who is already in prison. It may not be, but it is certainly in the interest of the staff who have to suffer those assaults.
Rory Stewart
It is 100% in the public interest to prosecute prisoners who assault prisoner officers. If they are not prosecuted, the authority of the state is undermined; it becomes almost impossible for prison officers to run a decent and human regime, very difficult for people to be unlocked from their cells and difficult to move people into education and purposeful activity.
If the education and purposeful activity and the decent and safe environment of the prisoner are not delivered, the prisoner is much more likely to reoffend when they leave that prison. That is a direct threat to public safety; therefore, as my hon. Friend implies, the Crown Prosecution Service must prosecute prisoners for attacking prison officers. We owe that to prison officers, but we also owe it to the public as a whole to have safe, clean and decent prisons. These are our prisons; in the end, prisoners are citizens who come out and reoffend on the streets. We have to restore discipline.
My hon. Friend spoke about drugs and the importation of mobile telephones. In the end, those issues can be dealt with. There are basically only five ways in which mobile telephones or drugs can get into a prison—after all, there is a fence around the prison. They can be thrown into the prison, flown into a prison, dragged into a prison, posted into a prison or carried into a prison. Every single one of these ways needs to be addressed.
We address the issue of people flying things into prisons by tackling drones; of people throwing things into prisons by the use of nets and proper yard searching; of people dragging things into prison by identifying the wire set-ups that run into prison windows; and of people posting things into prison—for example, a letter impregnated with Spice so it can be smoked can be photocopied. But we have not been good enough in England for nearly 40 years is searching humans going in and out of prisons.
Scotland is different. I venture to suggest that it is not a coincidence that the violence and drug rates have been lower in Scottish prisons and that there has been much more regular routine searching of people going in and out of Scottish prisons. I do not think that is an accident. I would be very interested in working with the Prison Service to pilot in 10 prisons increasing the security and routine searching at the gate, to see what would happen. But that will not be enough—many other things need to happen. At the core are people: the prison officers themselves.
There is no point in my standing here and pontificating about the Prison Service because there are more than 100 prisons. With the best will in the world, even if I visited two prisons a week, I would not be able to visit them all in a year. There are more than 20,000 prison officers and 84,000 prisoners. In the end, good prisons depend on good people. That is about recruiting, training and promoting the right kind of people and managing people in the right way.
How do we recruit the right kind of people? We search for exactly the values we are looking for. We train them by focusing on institutions such as Newbold Revel, the prison officer training college, to make sure people feel proud of being prison officers. I am very interested in reintroducing the passing out parade—getting families in to applaud people as they graduate from that training college, so that they feel they are extraordinary public servants, protecting our nation through their work. They need to feel that in their uniform, in their passing-out parade and in every day of their work.
We need to get the training right when people enter, and when people move into the custodial manager role. We need to think about how supervisory officers on the units, even if they do not have formal line management responsibilities, can mentor and drive those young, inexperienced staff. In many prisons, 60% to 65% of prison officers have been there for less than a year; we need supervisory officers to be able to work with them, to give them the confidence and the jailcraft to manage those prisons.
Then, we need to think about what happens at the governor level. How do we make sure that we do not end up in the situation that my hon. Friend found in a prison in his constituency, where there were four governors in five years? We need governors to stay longer in the prisons. We need them to be formally trained before they arrive in those prisons. One of the key determining features in trying to work out why one prison is performing well and another is not has to do with questions that are very difficult to put on paper. We sit here and look at staff numbers, drug levels and the age of the building, but the biggest constant is always the human factor: the culture of that prison and the prison officers, the nature of the leadership and management, the morale of the place and the way in which people work together.
This has been a really important debate. From our point of view in Parliament, we are very proud that there are three Bills on their way through the House of Commons that will help prison officers. One of them is doubling the maximum sentence for assaulting a prison officer. We have another Bill going through that will focus on new psychoactive substances and testing of drugs in prison. We have a third Bill going through the House that focuses on excluding mobile telephones from prisons.
Legislation on its own is not enough. It is about public understanding and support for one of the most unique, precious and impressive services that we have in the United Kingdom. That is why I believe that the proposal, made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, of a parliamentary scheme focused on telling Members of Parliament about the Prison Service will be an enormous help in getting legislators to understand how much our prisons matter to our society and, above all, understanding how much we owe our prison officers.
Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)
I congratulate the Minister on an outstanding speech, made just from schematic light notes.
Question put and agreed to.
Reduction of Plastic Waste in the Marine Environment
(5 years, 12 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
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
We come to a debate about Government policy on reducing plastic waste in the marine environment. Everyone can see that quite a large number of Members wish to speak. I ask colleagues to bear that in mind when they make their speeches. I may have to impose a time limit. I call Mr Alistair Carmichael to move the motion.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on reducing plastic waste in the marine environment.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Another week, another debate on plastics in the marine environment. I welcome the Minister back to her now familiar position. I consider myself fortunate to have obtained this debate, and I am delighted to see such a healthy turnout of Members from all parts of the House.
This issue has become quite fashionable of late. It has certainly come to public attention since the BBC screened its “Blue Planet” series last year. But what people now understand is something that I as an islander, and others who live in coastal communities, have known for some years—that the amount of plastic in our marine environment has been growing exponentially for years and is now a massive danger to us all. People just have to walk along any beach to see that. The part of the world I represent is famed for its clean environment, but the number of coffee cups, food containers, fishing nets and ropes that we find even on our otherwise very attractive beaches provides evidence of that. That is actually the easy stuff, because we can remove it with beach clean-ups, but it does not remain on the beach; it is taken back out to sea and reduced until it eventually becomes much more difficult to remove from the marine environment.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Europe and the USA are responsible for only about 2% of ocean litter? Although it matters not to a dolphin or turtle where the plastic it is being strangled by or choking on came from, that means that those of us who wish to address this subject need to focus on rapidly developing countries with inadequate waste disposal systems.
Mr Carmichael
Absolutely. I read recently that about 90% of the plastic in the world’s oceans comes from 10 rivers in Africa and Asia. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, though, that an awful lot of things are going to have to change, one of which is how we see and think of the marine environment. It has frustrated me for years that things that happen on the high seas are out of sight and out of mind. That applies not just to this issue but to things such as shipping standards. The way we ship oil around the world occasionally comes home very graphically when something goes wrong and there is a major oil spillage.
I come back to how I, as an islander, see the world. So many people see the sea as something that divides us from other places; as an islander, I see it as something that joins us to other places. People who take that view understand that with that attitude comes a shared responsibility for ensuring that our marine environment is as clean as it can be. However, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that what we do in this country is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Inevitably, we will need to work much more closely with people in other parts of the world. I will touch on that later.
The Environmental Audit Committee estimates that we use about 2.5 billion single-use cups, and that only one in 400 of them is recycled. Consider the report in The Guardian today about the way in which wet wipes are changing the shape of our river beds. Thames21 found no fewer than 5,453 wet wipes on 116 square metres of the Thames embankment near Hammersmith. Of course, what starts in our rivers eventually ends up in our oceans.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this extremely important debate. Before he moves off the subject of cups—this may be a matter that you wish to raise with the House authorities, Sir Edward—is it not absurd that we are having this debate surrounded by non-reusable plastic cups? Surely, we in this Parliament should lead the way by replacing them with glasses or at least reusables.
Mr Carmichael
I presume that the hon. Gentleman is, like me, a signed-up member of the campaign for a plastic-free Parliament. I was fortunate to be given a coffee glass by the World Wide Fund for Nature as I came to the Chamber. He is absolutely right—that is just one good illustration of how we have become so cavalier about our use of plastics.
We all know—we have seen the pictures—where plastic ends up. Turtles mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and eat them; plastic debris is lodged on coral reefs, which affects the health of the reef and has an impact throughout the marine food chain; and microplastics are consumed by animals as small as plankton, work their way up the food chain and are eventually consumed by us at the top.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Let me go back to the issue of wet wipes. There is a lot of misleading information on packets, which suggests wet wipes are flushable and leads users to believe that they are biodegradable. In fact, all that means is that they pass through the U-bend and end up in the system, as he described. That is an important advertising and packaging issue, which should be addressed by the makers of wet wipes.
Mr Carmichael
Although I am delighted that a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is here, this issue will impact on just about every area of public policy if we are serious about tackling it meaningfully. The Government’s role is probably the most significant, but I am resistant, as ever, to the notion that the Government can do everything for us. There are any number of interests at play and places where behaviour can be changed for the better.
There is a role for us all as individuals—in particular as consumers. If we say to supermarkets, “No, we’re not going to come to you. We will go to a supermarket like Iceland,” which has committed to reducing plastic packaging, every supermarket will soon sit up and listen. I recently got my Friday lunch in the Peerie Shop café in Lerwick, and I was gladdened to find that it now has compostable knives, forks and spoons in its takeaway section. That is not a massive expense, but it is a demonstration of commitment—and a demonstration of that café’s commitment to providing what its customers want. There is a business incentive and imperative here.
There is also a role for local government. The provision and operation of recycling facilities will be crucial. We will doubtless talk about the operation of a deposit return scheme, which I hope will increase massively the amount of material there is to be recycled. In fact, it is a bit like flushable wet wipes—there is no point gathering recyclable material if we do not have the capacity to recycle it. Among the representations I received ahead of the debate was a fairly minded one from Harrogate Water Brands, which produces water. It explained that a lot of the plastic that is described as single use is single use only because we do not recycle it, and pointed out, quite fairly, that only about half the material in the plastic bales that local authorities supply for recycling can be used for recycling, as opposed to 95% in the United States and 99% in France.
There is a role for business. I commend Sky in particular, which has not just run its ocean rescue campaign but, in its business operations, taken the goal of becoming plastic-free seriously. It has a target of being plastic-free by 2020. I was struck by the difference that will make. One company of a reasonable size—but not that big—says that by
“eliminating plastic from all Sky offices…it is estimated we will save 560,000 water bottles and 7 million coffee cups per year through our operations.”
That is a good illustration of a company responding to what its customers would want.
Then there is the role for Government—or perhaps I should say Governments. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), 90% of plastics in the oceans come from 10 rivers, and tackling that will obviously require international co-operation. That is the nature of the marine environment; UK action alone will not be sufficient.
I will have some questions later in relation to a specific international issue, but I hope the Minister will have noted Sky—a significant company but one that is not that big—and its target to be plastic-free by 2020. That goal contrasts, in a way that should raise questions, with the targets set by Government for our economy as a whole, which would take us closer to 2040. When Government action and targets are being so outstripped by corporate effort, perhaps we should consider whether we are being ambitious enough.
I welcome the ban on microbeads, although it is still not complete. A microbead that is washed off someone’s face may not be allowed to enter our watercourse or our oceans, but surely a microbead could enter the watercourse and the marine environment if it came from a suntan lotion or similar. A complete ban on microbeads would be the logical conclusion to the brave and innovative work already taking place.
I welcome the commitment to introducing a deposit return scheme, but the detail remains sketchy. I appreciate that we have yet to hear about a consultation, but we should be able to agree on the broad principles. I commend to the Minister the work of Greenpeace, which has come up with some fairly broad headings that she could do worse than include in her consultation. The first of those headings states that there should be no cost to central Government, with administration funded by the scheme, and cost savings for local authorities. Secondly, the only cost to consumers should be to those who do not return the containers they purchase and pay a deposit on. Thirdly, there should not be a cost for small retailers, for a whole range of reasons—our small shops and retailers are already struggling in the current environment—but there is a strong case for including larger retailers in such a scheme. Fourthly, it suggests charging producers an administrative fee for each container manufactured, and a one-off contribution to start-up costs.
Surely we can agree that, at its heart, a deposit return scheme should include all sizes of vessel—and, indeed, plastic, metal and glass. Only then will it be effective. The Minister will be aware that the Scottish Government have already started down this road, and that is the approach they are taking. I suggest there is a benefit to us all in having a single scheme across the whole of the United Kingdom.
James Gray
I am puzzled by the bottle return scheme. Of course, on the face of it, it is a good thing: in so far as bottles are recyclable, we can bring them back into use and that is great. However, what happens to the non-recyclable materials gathered back through those means? Surely that material will end up in landfill, as it does at the moment. What will we have achieved?
Mr Carmichael
I am not sure that I share the hon. Gentleman’s understanding of what is involved in the return scheme; of course, the consultation is there for that, if necessary. To take his hypothesis as correct, at the very least we would have succeeded in separating the different constituent parts, and that in itself is valuable.
I am conscious of time and the number of Members who wish to speak, so I will try to canter on. The last concern on which I seek the Minister’s comments is the introduction of a so-called latte levy: a surcharge for the use of disposable cups from coffee shops. The Marine Conservation Society recommends something in the region of 25p for each non-reusable drink cup, or indeed a reduction for those who bring a cup to the store themselves. There is a parallel with the plastic bag levy introduced under the coalition Government, which has been a spectacular success: there was an 85% reduction in the use of plastic bags in the first year of its operation. Is that because when we hand over £100 or whatever for our weekly supermarket shop, we think, “I’m not going to spend another 50p on plastic bags”? I do not think so. The introduction of the levy made people consider their behaviour and the impact it would have. I suggest to the Minister that a levy of the sort proposed by the Marine Conservation Society would have a similar impact and could be transformative. I commend it to her for departmental consideration.
I have some technical points in relation to the revision of the EU directive on port reception facilities and how that will impact on campaigns such as the fishing for litter scheme, an initiative run by KIMO that I have supported for many years. In view of the time I have taken—notwithstanding interventions—I will spare the Chamber my comments on that, but the Minister can expect them to land in her correspondence bag in the near future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. I will impose a five-minute time limit on all Back-Bench speeches.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. I suspect that most of us in the Chamber watched “Blue Planet II”, which reminded us—if we needed reminding—of the magic of the natural world. We were sickened by the sight of those giant, swirling plastic continents—some are bigger than France—that we have created. More than 1 million birds and 100,000 sea mammals and turtles die each year because of the plastic we continue to dump—some 12 million tonnes globally a year. We learnt that 90% of all seabirds tested last year were found to have plastic in their gut.
We have treated the environment with contempt, like a giant rubbish dump. It is hard to imagine anything more stupid. It appals all normal people. None of us wants to be part of the problem, but most of us, if not all, are, simply because it is so hard to escape plastic—it surrounds us. There are plastic cups, which have already been identified, as well as plastic water bottles, sandwich wrappers, plastic knives, forks and spoons, plastic straws and plastic stirrers, which inexplicably are still available in so many pubs. Totally unnecessarily packaging encases so much of the food and other products we buy in supermarkets.
We need to recognise and understand that as a consequence of a form of market failure. These things are used for a few seconds but last in the environment for many hundreds of years, and it is not the producers who pay the cost; we all do. This is a clear area where the market has simply failed to spot the cost of these products, which is why Government action is not only important but absolutely essential.
It has to be said that, relative to other Governments and other countries, what we have done is impressive. The 5p bag levy, which has already been mentioned, has been a tremendous success. We have banned microbeads and are therefore world leaders in that department. Our commitment to bring in the deposit return scheme for bottles and other products, and our commitments to ban straws, those absurd stirrers and plastic cotton buds are all excellent. I salute the Secretary of State for the leadership he has shown. Nevertheless, relative to the problem we face, those are baby steps, and we need much, much more.
We need to set up an urgent plan, a roadmap toward a genuine zero-waste society, and part of that must mean banning single-use plastics across the board and making it easier for the recycling business to recycle what we use. It is crazy, for example, that all local authorities have different rules on recycling. That just creates a confusing mess, and the sheer variety of plastics on offer does not help. We should be seeking to limit the range of plastics available, as Japan has done, to make it easier for things to be recycled and to make it certain that those products that are used can be recycled.
Where companies make things that cannot be recycled or repaired, they should be subject to some kind of higher tax, which can itself be recycled to pay to help those companies that are doing the right thing. That tax would, in a sense, be their paying for their own pollution footprint. Where companies are doing the right thing, we should help them. For example, the big retailers are a huge part of the problem today, but they could so easily become a huge part of the solution. The laggards need to be pressed by Government, and the pioneers need to be helped, perhaps through VAT reductions or reduced business rates, which could be paid for through those pollution taxes.
To know what is possible, we need only look at those pioneers. In January, we heard from the supermarket chain Iceland that it was to become the first major UK retailer to eliminate plastic packaging for all its own-brand products within five years. Iceland, by the way, was also the first big supermarket to ban the use of palm oil, which is devastating the world’s forests, particularly in and around Indonesia.
I will cut back what I was going to say, or I will run out of time. As has already been said, this is not just an issue for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Treasury, but an international issue, and therefore an issue for the Department for International Development. We have already heard that 90% of waste enters the oceans via just 10 rivers. That must be a priority for DFID, and I think we would find that even those people—not myself, I have to say—who are sceptical of that Department’s existence and our commitment to spend 0.7% of our annual budget on it would find this an issue that we should prioritise. I think Government action in that regard would be met with a big round of applause.
To give one example of those rivers, I discovered this morning that the Yangtze carries 1.5 million tonnes of plastic into the ocean every year. The Thames carries just 18 tonnes. That shows the sheer scale of the problem coming from some rivers, and it should be a priority.
I have something to ask the Government to do, before I add my complaint about the plastic cups, but I am going to reverse the order. I cannot tell hon. Members how many Select Committees have written to the House authorities saying, “We’ve got to get rid of these plastic cups,” how many individual MPs have echoed those demands in their own private letters, how many people have signed petitions or how many people have joined campaigns for a plastic-free Parliament. It is absurd that the cups are still here. I cannot understand it. Is it apathy? Is it incompetence? Is it lack of interest or laziness? I do not know, but there is no justifiable reason why they should still be here today. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take that message to the highest levels.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Gray
On a point of order, Sir Edward. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has just made is terribly important. It is hard to understand why the House authorities have not taken note of our calls for the abolition of plastics in Committees. Is this not a message that you, as the Chair, should be able to take to Mr Speaker and the Committees of the House, in the hope that they will finally listen to us?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I am sure that all colleagues will exercise their good judgment.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to speak in this timely and important debate. I will go back to May 2017, when Greenpeace’s ship the Beluga II visited the Bass rock in East Lothian, bringing with it water sampling equipment to test the microplastics in the area. The Bass rock is important because it is the world’s largest northern gannet colony. The children who came out to see the Beluga II were so excited, enthralled and enthused by what they saw that they took up a beach clean and took it upon themselves—aged between seven and 11—to clean up the beach. They did that having spoken not just to those who come out and advertise such things, but to the scientists who were on the ship, who explained to them the damage that the plastic did.
That work moved on in East Lothian with Surfers Against Sewage, a group that rightly has great interest in what is in the seawater for its sport. It worked with Dunbar primary school, one of only 20 schools to have been awarded the title of ocean guardian, and works year on year with beach cleans of that sort. Hugo Tagholm, the chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, has said that it is willing to provide the basic equipment for beach cleans. More importantly, it says:
“From grassroots to Government, the time to act is now.”
That is why today’s debate is so timely, because what happens in the very near future will make such a difference to our seas.
We have already heard mention of the Sky Ocean Rescue campaign. When the plastic whale, which has also visited Parliament, visited Musselburgh in my constituency, children flocked to see it. But they also went down again with the rangers of East Lothian Council to clean the beaches of plastic. I was privileged to be with them when they were interviewed by Sky. The children did not say they were doing it because Sky was there. They did not say they were doing it just for half a day away from school. They were stunned that people still dropped litter.
These primary school children understand something that, apparently, people forget as they grow older. They were aghast at what they found on the beaches. When it was suggested to them that perhaps it was teenagers who had dropped all the bottles, they said, “No it’s not; it’s adults,” and they picked the bottles up. That is testament to our young people and their understanding of and connection with the environment, which is something to be hopeful about and something we should promote.
In East Lothian, we have a charity called Fidra, which looks at the problem of nurdles. Nurdles are the small plastic balls that go to make all the plastic bottles we see. Nurdles are how raw plastic, for want of a better description, is transported around the world, and they make up an astronomically large proportion of the plastic damage in our oceans. The difficulty is that, much like the microbeads, once they get into the water, they are impossible to get out. Fidra is working hard with companies to change the way that nurdles are transported and to change business procedures, in order to prevent spillages and prevent the nurdles getting into the ocean.
Fidra also uses beach cleans to raise awareness of the matter. Working with children at Yellowcraig, a truly beautiful beach in East Lothian, over 400 nurdles were collected in just five minutes. That is a phenomenal amount to have washed up on a beach. Industrial spillage and mishandling then cause nurdles to float and travel around the world.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
I also attended a nurdle hunt in North Queensferry with members of Fidra. While there is a great sense of displeasure from children and parents that this is happening to their beach and their environment, what steps can we take to get that message through to the people who produce the plastics in the first place, to ensure that we do not have to have beach cleans, but can have a policy that prevents it from happening in the first place?
Martin Whitfield
That intervention brings me on to Operation Clean Sweep, an agreement that has come up from the plastics industry and is supported by both the British Plastics Federation and PlasticsEurope. The Operation Clean Sweep manual provides practical solutions to prevent nurdle loss for those who make, ship and use nurdles. The key message, of course, is good handling to reduce pellet loss and pellet use, which in turn goes to the type of plastic being used.
However, the work by young people, volunteer groups and charities will not be enough without political and, if necessary, legislative support. The EU is promoting the target of 2030 as the year by which member states should have phased out single-use plastics. The UK Government’s proposal of a 25-year environment plan appears to be, with all due respect, more of a repackaging of existing policies and previous announcements—I sincerely hope that the repackaging is not in plastic. It is our children who go to beach cleans, and our surfers who use the water. Through the conduit of the plastic whale and the nurdle hunts, they attack this issue with passion, enthusiasm and commitment. Unfortunately, those children will be in their 30s when the Government have caught up. We owe them more than that.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate. Like him, I represent a beautiful area of stunning coastline; it is one of only three constituencies that have two separate coastlines. I grew up in Cornwall and have noticed over my lifetime—growing up and spending as much time as I possibly could on beaches—the increasing amount of plastic being deposited from the sea on to our beaches and how that developed into something that we could no longer ignore. It is almost as though, collectively, the British public have had a lightbulb moment. For generations we have been abusing the seas that surround our country, seeing them as just a dumping site where we could throw anything, but we have suddenly come to the realisation that we cannot go on vandalising the seas that surround us.
A team effort has got us to this point. Hon. Members have mentioned the role that “Blue Planet II” played in bringing this issue to the public’s awareness. There has also been the Sky Ocean Rescue campaign. Newspapers have been involved; the Daily Mail has run a campaign on the issue. That has all contributed to getting us to this point.
I also pay tribute to the Cornwall-based charity Surfers Against Sewage, which I work closely with as chair of the Protect our Waves all-party parliamentary group. That charity has been campaigning since 1990 for us to stop abusing our seas and take action to clean them up and improve the quality of the water. It started by focusing on sewage and recently has been working to address the way plastic is affecting our oceans. Just two weekends ago it mobilised 35,000 people—I understand that it was one of the biggest volunteer mobilisations in the country—to carry out beach cleans right across our country, and they collected more than 65 tonnes of plastic from our beaches in just one weekend. That demonstrates just how much plastic is washed up on our beaches every day of the year.
Just as it has taken a team effort to bring this issue to the public’s awareness, so we now have, I believe, an unstoppable national grassroots movement, which is determined to address this issue, reduce the amount of plastic that we use and stop plastic polluting our marine environment. It will take a team effort to address it, and I believe that much of the pressure will come from consumers as they begin to demand that retailers and industry use less plastic in their packaging. I encourage every member of the British public to use their power as a consumer to force industry to make the necessary changes and cut back on the amount of plastic we use.
Clearly there is also a role for Government. We should congratulate the current Government on the action they have taken to start to address this issue—far more than any previous Government—and we should be proud of them for that. I am talking about the 5p plastic bag charge, which has resulted in 9 billion fewer plastic bags being used in our country, the microbead ban, the action to address straws and cotton buds, and the commitment to find a way to bring in a deposit return scheme to increase recycling.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining those measures, many of which came from the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I and other hon. Members in the Chamber serve. That Committee also suggested charges on disposable coffee cups, which has not come forward as a measure. What does he think about charges on disposable coffee cups—the so-called latte levy?
Steve Double
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree that there has been a team effort within Parliament. The Environmental Audit Committee has played a role, as has the APPG that I chair. Many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have played a role in sending a clear message that the Government need to take action, and the Government have responded and acted in a very responsible way to start to address that. The coffee cup challenge is a difficult one. It is very easy to say what we will do, but we have to work with industry to find a sustainable solution that will reduce the amount of plastic that we throw away and not do untold damage to our economy in the process. It is therefore right that the Government think carefully and consult on these issues; they must work with the industry.
Only yesterday, I met a company—it happens to be an Israeli company—that thinks it has found the solution to the coffee cup challenge. I hope that it will be able to bring that forward, but we also need to recognise that, in the supply chain, businesses have invested tens of millions of pounds in the current packaging system and it is therefore unrealistic to expect them to throw away that investment overnight and change the way they do things. We need to work with industry to come forward with sustainable solutions to the problem. I would love to see action taken, but we must ensure that it is the right sort of action. It is therefore right that the Government consider the issue carefully, rather than just jumping to a conclusion.
In the time left to me, I will make a point that has already been made. This is a global problem. It is very important that the UK takes a lead—that we get our own house in order so that we can take a lead internationally on the issue—but we have to work with other countries. It was good to see the progress that was made recently with the Commonwealth countries. Many of us would like to have seen more progress, but a step was taken forward, which is very welcome. We also need to use our influence around the world, through our aid budget and the Foreign Office, to ensure that we call other countries to account and that global action is taken to clean up our seas.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this issue forward for consideration; I thank him for that. All the speeches so far have been excellent. I was raised learning that the Earth is the Lord’s and all within it belongs to Him. I was taught to be frugal and thrifty—or, as the girls in my office say, as an Ulster-Scot I am tight. Perhaps some of the boys, and ladies, in this Chamber will understand what that means. I do not like to buy things unnecessarily; that is a fact. If a mistake is made printing letterheads, the paper is turned over and used for other purposes. If envelopes have lost their stickiness, I put sellotape on them and make sure that they are used. It is a matter not simply of working to keep costs down, but of being a good steward. I believe that that is my job as an individual and one that we should be doing in the House.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) referred to plastic bags. I hail from Northern Ireland: we were the first country in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to introduce charges for plastic bags. We took the lead—we did the business, and everyone else followed. It is great to lead and have others follow; we enjoy doing that. The 5p per bag protocol was perhaps hard for some people to understand, yet as time has progressed there has been no more complaining, as people have got into the routine of putting bags in their cars. People adjust and get used to it; people do what has to be done.
The same goes for the introduction of recycling as a must for the local council. Black bins are collected in alternate weeks and recycling the other week. People have to think before they bin things, which, again, is the right way to do it. What are the results, from a local perspective? The local rates were kept down directly from money saved in landfill costs. Every year 8 child enjoyed a day seeing why we recycle and the difference that it makes. As has been said, it is a case of educating future generations to think differently from us. We as adults do not have the savvy that children have when it comes to litter and recycling, but we need to learn.
Has it been worth it thus far? The report that I read in a national newspaper, which indicated that the number of plastic bags found on the seabed has plummeted, suggests that it has. There have been some good things. It is all very well to be negative and critical, but at the end of the day we have to be positive as well. However, as is to be expected, plastic bags are not the only issue facing the marine environment. We are winning the war on plastic bags, and winning hearts and minds, but more has to be done.
As hon. Members have said, 8 million tonnes of plastic makes its way into oceans each year. Experts estimate that plastic is ingested by 31 species of marine mammal and more than 100 species of seabird. More than 9 billion fewer plastic bags have been used since the Government introduced the 5p charge. That is enough to wrap around the world more than 100 times. It is an outstanding reduction of 83%—good news—but we have to do more. The deep sea is now littered with plastic items, including bottles and fishing debris. The amount of plastic in the world’s oceans is touted to treble within a decade. If that does not shock us and make us want to do something, I am not sure what will.
The annual beach survey by the Marine Conservation Society recorded a 10% rise in litter in 2017. September’s “Great British Beach Clean” collected an average of 718 pieces of rubbish every 100 metres. There were 701 items per 100 metres in Northern Ireland—the second worst in the United Kingdom, so we have a lot to learn as well. It is good to highlight this matter, but it is equally important that we bring people along with us to understand exactly why steps are being taken and why we are asking people to remember to bring their reusable bottles and containers, and to stop using straws and so on.
Douglas Chapman
I get the impression that the public are a step ahead of the Government and legislation. They are already prepared mentally and attitudinally to make the change. I spoke to our friends from Plastic Free Dunfermline, a group in my constituency that tries to make our town plastic-free. They talked about not applying levies or negative instruments on people, but being positive by encouraging retailers to provide water in the town’s shops, so that people can take a bottle and have it refilled at any point. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with such simple ideas?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. If we have too many interventions, not everybody will get in.
Jim Shannon
So that more people can get in, Sir Edward, I will not take extra time. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wholeheartedly support what he said.
Many people may knee-jerk react and resist, but we are not eco-warriors on the attack. We should be eco-educators coming alongside people, as that will be more successful. I look to the method of my local council with regard to those who persist in refusing to recycle: three strikes and your bin is not lifted. Then they know what they need to do. The gentle approach has meant that very few bins are not lifted, and people in the borough are coming to terms with recycling in a way that is not offensive but inclusive. That is the approach that the Government—I look to the Minister—should use. We have a duty of care to our environment, but also to help people understand. Our approach must reflect that.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. I stand as the Member for Stirling, a landlocked constituency, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the issue captures the imagination of constituents and matters a great deal to them.
I wholeheartedly welcome the recent Government announcement of their intention to ban the sale of plastic straws, drink stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds in England. I also welcome the Scottish Government’s consultation and proposal to ban the manufacture and sale of plastic-stemmed cotton buds in Scotland, and there are reports that the Scottish Government might also consider banning plastic straws at the end of 2019. I strongly urge Her Majesty’s Government and the devolved Administrations to work together in the development of those policy instruments. The Welsh Government have already said—
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who was about to turn to the Welsh Government, for giving way. Does he agree that Wales has been leading the way in this area as the third best recycling nation? Furthermore, it is very ambitious with a recycling and zero-waste target by 2050. Of course there is more to do, but Wales is certainly leading the way.
Stephen Kerr
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The Welsh Government are absolutely right to say that it is good for us to co-operate across these islands. Just because something is devolved does not mean that we should not work together to get the job done, and I hope that that is what will happen. I hope we will not see a divergence when there can be commonality and collaboration.
Recycling is a feasible solution, and stimulating the development of the market for recycled products is essential. In my constituency of Stirling, Graham’s Dairy is working with its bottle supplier, Nampak—also based in Stirling—to develop milk bottles that use significantly less plastic, yet maintain the same rigidity and security for the milk that we all buy. It uses a significant amount of recycled material in its bottles and that pays dividends in costs and allows its product to be more sustainable into the long term.
The innovations by Nampak to create a milk bottle that uses significantly less plastic is worthy of note, as are attempts to make a plastic that will degrade safely over a shorter period. We should never underestimate the entrepreneurial spirit and inventiveness of British innovators and entrepreneurs, and we should do everything to encourage it.
There is a lot of talk about a deposit scheme, and I am very much behind that principle. Many of us in Scotland mourn the loss of the Barr deposit scheme. Returning your Irn-Bru bottle for money off your next purchase gave the bottles value and meant that consumers were rewarded for returning them and behaving in an environmentally appropriate way—so the cycle of Irn-Bru drinking would continue. This cyclical economy for waste, in which the packaging is returned and reused, is worth aspiring to.
There are lots of details to be worked out. Packaging is complex; the materials involved are sometimes not as simple as they appear to be and can be remarkably varied. Often the complexity of the materials makes recycling almost impossible and certainly makes sorting more difficult. The issue becomes about how to control what we create and what we demand as a society. How do we simplify and amalgamate our product packaging to ensure that it is simple enough to be disposed of? The issue becomes about how we treat the packaging as a part of the supply chain and how we as consumers behave. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) said, consumers are ahead of the wave in this respect.
I conclude with an apocryphal story from the constituency of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield). Last week, it was reported that a packet of Golden Wonder crisps from 1967 had been found on a beach in East Lothian. Neil McDonald found the 50-year-old wrapper while cleaning up a beach in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. STV News reported that it had apparently survived half a century beneath the dunes and may have been unearthed by heavy winds hitting the beach. The ready-salted packet of crisps had a promotion on it to enter a competition to win a Triumph estate car. That is how they were able to date the packet of crisps to 1967.
What Mr McDonald said is worth dwelling on in this debate. He was shocked when he discovered the age of the packet and how it had been preserved. He said:
“It was buried under the sand but I could see the corner edging out. I was very surprised, it’s quite frightening how durable these plastics can be. It’s a real indicator that we need to do more to control what goes into the ocean and on the coasts.”
That is incredibly profound and I genuinely believe that by innovating around packaging, both design and material, we can create solutions to the marine plastic challenge, which can then be exported around the world, as has been mentioned by several hon. Members. By innovating to change habits and create new disposal techniques, we can lead the way on systems that can be adopted by the rest of the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. In an attempt get everybody in, the time limit will now be reduced to four minutes—with no more interventions, please.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate, which is timely and extremely important and means a great deal to me personally. I am a lifelong conservationist. I am particularly interested in birds and marine life. I am a member of my local wildlife trust and, with particular relevance to this debate, a member of the Maritime Conservation Society and a diver. I am not only interested in the things we have been discussing today, but I can see with my own eyes the beauty of the oceans and have a real personal interest in ensuring that they are clean and fit for us and for future generations.
The interest in the oceans and our environment and in keeping them clean and pristine goes way beyond those who simply use them for recreation. The “Blue Planet” programme has of course been referred to. It is intrinsic in all of us that we have an affinity for the natural world, but particularly for the oceans. Perhaps we think of the Apollo photographs with the “blue marble” floating in space, that the oceans and our part in them are all wrapped up together and that they are intrinsic to our feeling for the natural world. Whatever the reason, it none the less matters hugely to us all.
My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), is landlocked, but a great many rivers run through west Oxfordshire and of course flow to the sea. Water pollution and quality are big issues in my constituency; they matter a great deal to my constituents. The statistics bear that out: 12 million tonnes were discarded last year, 80% of which was lost on land, in rivers such as those that flow through west Oxfordshire, ending up in the sea. Only 57% was collected for recycling, although west Oxfordshire has a relatively high recycling rate—one of the highest in the country—but more must be done. We must put a stop to the problem. We must work to eradicate plastics in the oceans, for all our sakes in the years to come.
A lot has been done—I welcome everything that the Government have done. They have already taken great strides, particularly under the current Secretary of State, and things have become turbocharged: banning microbeads; the incredibly successful approach to single-use plastics introduced under the coalition Government; the bottle deposit that has been mentioned already, and which is extremely encouraging; and the ban on straws, cotton buds and stirrers.
However, there is more to do. We must do more on recycling, and the issue must be introduced to people’s education. It is a question of personal choice: we have all had the battle between conscience and convenience, when we go to buy a coffee and wish that we did not have to use a disposable cup, or water and we wish we did not have to use the plastic bottle—but we do. That is why the Sky Ocean Rescue campaign was so significant. We can all get into the habit of using those water canisters every time we go to buy a bottle. The Government are consulting, in the 25-year environment plan, on free water fountains so that wherever people are they can fill a canister for free, without having to buy water and, as a by-product, the plastic they do not want.
In addition, we must simply reduce the amount of packaging that we use. I commend Iceland for its attitude to reducing its plastic use. I echo all that has been said about working with industry. Producers have a role, and there are excellent innovators looking at ways to find better plastics, or to reduce or reuse plastic—perhaps using biodegradable materials when plastics are unavoidable.
The UK is leading the world. The Government have taken necessary and brave steps and the 25-year environment plan is a big part of what they are doing. We are on the right track, but the oceans are our shared heritage. Their health is our responsibility, and we must get things right.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate.
The marine environment stretches way beyond our 200-mile territorial waters, but that does not reduce the UK’s responsibilities. However, it is staggering to discover that, as other hon. Members have mentioned, 90% of plastic pollution in the seas comes from 10 major rivers, eight of which are in Asia, the others being the Nile and the Niger in Africa. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has said, the Yangtze is a major producer, but the Ganges produces an estimated 900,000 tonnes. That is why I welcomed the announcement by the Secretary of State for International Development of her Department’s commitment to support research and carry out waste management pilot programmes. We should also consider conditional aid. On so many fronts, it is great news: livelihoods and health will be protected, the oceans will be cleaned up and jobs will be provided for some of the world’s poorest people.
Reducing plastic loads by 50% in the rivers ranked in the top 10 would reduce the total river-based load going to the sea by 45%, according to research by Christian Schmidt. There is an estimated 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic in the world. What is at issue is not the propensities of plastic, but what we do with it. If 10 rivers are largely responsible for getting discarded plastic to the ocean, it is obvious, if we follow the 80/20 rule, what our priority should be. The US and Europe are not mismanaging their collected waste; the plastic in developing world rivers is due to littering, industrial and building waste, and poor waste collection. We in the west should, of course, reduce plastic use and lead the way on recycling, but China alone is estimated to cause 2.4 million tonnes of plastic waste. That is 28% of the world total. The US, the biggest consumer country on the planet, produces 77,000 tonnes, or 1% of the total.
Many of those taking part in the debate will reasonably ask Ministers why we are not moving faster in the matters of plastic bottles and coffee cups, and why the 25-year plan is not more ambitious. I am conscious of the time and will cut my speech short, but I shall end with something that the Environment Secretary said recently:
“When it comes to our seas and oceans, the challenge is global so the answer must be too.”
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. In passing, I wonder whether the Triumph car lasted as long as the crisp bag with the promotion for it. I suspect not.
I welcome the debate, at a time when the Government are already being proactive in addressing public concern about plastic waste and, in particular, its impact on the marine environment. The subject is close to my heart, as for 10 years as a local councillor in Ayr I undertook a weekly litter pick—land-based, not sea-based. My thanks go to Cathy, Mary, Ross, Betty and David, and many others who were a great help over that decade. I also thank the local Rotary clubs for their annual contribution to a beach clean that lifts tonnes of litter from the lovely beaches around Ayrshire. However, as has been said, that approach, though welcome, is not the answer.
Discarded plastic places the natural balance of the marine ecosystem at risk, including the lives of many marine species. Off the coast of my constituency is Ailsa Craig, an attraction for tourists and ornithologists. Among the birds that nest on the island are a colony of puffins which were recently reintroduced. It would be shameful if discarded plastic caused a decline in their numbers or indeed the numbers of any other coastal seabirds. I am advised by Plymouth Marine Laboratory that the six commonest seaborne litter items are on the increase year after year. The majority, but not all, come off the land: they are small plastic items, plastic food packaging, wet wipes, which have been mentioned, polystyrene foam, balloons and, not surprisingly, nylon fishing nets. Up to 80% of seaborne plastic has been discarded on land, having found its way into the sea via rivers and estuaries, but at some point it must have been discarded by our fellow human beings in a range and variety of countries throughout the world.
The ban on the manufacture of plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics and personal care products came into force in January 2018, with a ban on their sale to follow. That step forward by the Government is surely welcome. On 18 April 2018 the Government announced their intention to ban the sale of plastic straws, drink stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds in England. I also commend the Scottish Government. They are consulting on banning plastic-stemmed cotton buds and will have set a determined target to end the use of plastic straws by 2019. The use of single-use carrier bags has fallen by 83% since 2015, which is, again, to be welcomed.
I recently visited a holiday park—Turnberry, near Girvan. Those who run it have, of their own volition, taken it upon themselves to end the use of plastic straws, plastic stirrers and single-use cups. I commend that organisation and any other that has taken up the cudgels to improve the environment. I welcome the Government’s consideration of several initiatives, such as bottle return deposit schemes, bottle refill points and a levy on single-use coffee cups. Amn’t I pleased that I do not drink coffee! I am a tea drinker—perhaps it will apply to tea as well. They are also considering an extension of the 5p charge for single-use carrier bags.
It is important that all nations throughout the world work together with manufacturers and retailers to reduce dependency on plastics. My thanks go to those companies, such as Iceland, that have indicated support for ending the use of single-use plastic. The Government’s 25-year environment plan is to be commended. One could call it ambitious, and it is the right thing to do, but I think it could be more ambitious, and it could be accelerated, because there is an appetite among the British public to end the catastrophe happening in the oceans. The Government can exert better influence. We need, as I have said, to work with other nations throughout the world. With a bit of effort we can end this disaster.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I call Damien Moore. You have three minutes.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate on one of the most pressing environmental issues of our age. I represent the seaside constituency of Southport, which has a long-standing maritime culture, and like all those who have seen the scale of this issue at first hand, I know that it can be solved only by co-ordinated international action.
Just as coal dust in our cities was the unfortunate by-product of the first industrial revolution, plastic in our oceans and maritime environments has become the by-product of the second. It is essential that our Government—indeed, every national Government—act now. I am delighted that DEFRA now has at its helm the most prominent Secretary of State for that Department for a generation, and under his stewardship I am sure that these often under-reported issues will be given the attention they deserve.
It is terrifying that 8 million tonnes of plastic are released into the ocean each year, and with the emergence of the new tiger economies, that number is sadly set to rise. Much of the plastic that finds its way into oceans ends up in one of the main ocean gyres, where it spins around in giant whirlpools, devastating marine life, and is almost impossible to remove. The plastic that does not fall into a gyre invariably floats around the sea until it washes up on land, damaging the local ecology, disrupting tourism and presenting health hazards.
The results of the great British beach clean undertaken by the Marine Conversation Society show that litter on our beaches is up by 10%, with a staggering 718 pieces of predominately plastic rubbish found in every 100-metre area cleaned. Southport’s beach is famously big and stretches out to the horizon. If we apply that statistic to the town’s beach, I dread to think how many pieces of plastic and other detritus are covering it at this very moment. Whether or not they consider themselves to be environmentally conscientious, I am sure that all Members present will share my sadness about that fact.
I am a great believer in the 25-year environmental plan, and a UK with absolutely no plastic waste is an achievable goal, despite the amount of plastic debris discarded every day. A quarter of a century is a long time, and I would be interested to know whether there have been any discussions about reducing that time frame. My constituents in Southport are weary of the damage that discarded plastic has done to the town, the beach and tourism, and they are keen for improvement over the next few years, rather than the next few decades. As we leave the EU, we have the chance to be a world leader in environmental standards, and ridding ourselves of plastic waste is the first step. Be it bottles, bags or microbeads, plastic has destroyed our oceans, killed our marine life and ravaged our maritime environments for too long. It is my hope that we are now on the cusp of serious change.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. He made some good points about plastic waste, which is now a fashionable topic. The Government are now at a privileged moment in time in which to take further action on the pollution of our environment, and I hope they take that opportunity.
Members have demonstrated the will to work across the devolved Parliaments. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) made superb points about market failure. He reiterated that there is confusion regarding the disposal of a vast amount of products in our shops. Reducing VAT on such products would be a superb nudge to everyone involved in making and disposing of them.
I thank all previous speakers for their views on this highly important issue. I am delighted to take part in a debate on a topic about which I feel strongly, namely the scourge of plastic pollution on the environment. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) mentioned Barr’s Irn-Bru deposit scheme. How far-sighted of that company, which started in the Falkirk area—[Interruption.] I thought you would like that, Stephen.
While watching the magnificent “Blue Planet”, I was struck by how much we have to thank David Attenborough for ending his TV series with the theme of protecting our marine life. It is a subject close to my heart, and I know the public feel strongly about it, too. Many of my constituents have contacted me about it, and in my work with the Environmental Audit Committee the fight to halt the pollution of our seas by plastic waste goes on.
Scotland has been praised for leading the way in this battle. Nurdle hunt events on beaches in my constituency and East Lothian have allowed people to see how many tiny pieces of plastic litter our rock pools and sand. Because of that, and other awareness-raising events around the country, people have increasingly added their support to combating that creeping threat to waterways. We welcomed the successful UK ban on microbeads, which is a positive move in the ongoing war against pollution. However, the ban covers only products that are designed to go down the drain, which does not even include cosmetics, never mind consumer products. More must be done.
As you know, Sir Edward, many individuals and companies are undertaking good initiatives. For example, on Sunday 29 April I was invited to attend the 100th anniversary of the Falkirk and District Boys Brigade service at Larbert Old church. The Very Rev. Dr John Chalmers, who was a former moderator, spoke and his message was very clear. His speech was captivating. It was about where our planet came from, how it began, and he spoke about “great radiance”, and how we must look after this planet. Those words were not lost on anyone attending the service, especially the young people present. They get the message, and so should decision makers in this place.
Scotland’s decision to charge 5p for a plastic bag was taken up across the UK—I might have a disagreement here with my friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and that was another good move for the environment. Sadly, after Brexit we have no guarantees from the UK Government that Scotland will still be in charge of its own laws for protecting our clean water and land. We must keep pressing for answers, and we will.
On my visits to local supermarket giants Asda and Tesco, it was encouraging to see their work to reduce plastic in their products and packaging. Ordinary items such as cotton buds cause real problems for marine life. Through time, they are gradually broken down into small plastic fragments that are scattered through our waterways. That is a massive problem, and we must all do our bit to help reduce it. The Co-op ceased using microbeads in its products in the ’90s, as did Falkirk’s Scottish Fine Soaps Company.
There is more good news, and creative thinking, in a scheme that involves authors and illustrators, including Quentin Blake and Robert Macfarlane, from the publisher Penguin Random House. That new campaign centres on reducing the use of plastics in the book industry. Authors4Oceans asks publishers, book shops and readers to reduce the amount of plastic they use by finding eco alternatives to the bags, straws, bottles and single-use cutlery that ends up at the bottom of the sea. Even its jiffy bags are going to be plastic free.
The alliance between big business and the public is what gets things done and brings about change. The rising tide of plastic waste in the ocean has been described by the UN oceans chief as a “planetary crisis”. How can we disagree with that? There is increasing public appetite for urgent action. It is a horrific fact that in some parts of the sea there is now more plastic by weight than plankton, and that impacts on the environment, wildlife and people. The quantity of plastic in our oceans grows by about 8 million tonnes per year, and plastic production is set to double.
DEFRA’s marine litter monitoring, which measures the number of items found on the sea floor, found an increase of 150% last year. Meanwhile, the UK approach to this crisis remains rather inward-looking. Let us get away from this silo-thinking. Unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, the UK seems to lack a clear plan. Although the UK marine strategy acknowledges plastic as a problem in the context of marine litter and as a danger to wildlife, the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into plastic bottles criticised it for its weak analysis. The EAC identified the need for more research, and outlined a basic environmental monitoring programme. Actual measures were sparse—surely the precautionary principle would suggest that we act as well as research the problem. The only monitoring of floating plastics under the marine strategy is a DEFRA initiative to measure the prevalence of plastic items in the stomachs of dead seabirds, especially fulmars, that members of the public have found washed up on the beach. A fulmar is roughly the size of a small chicken, and it only eats plastic that looks like fish eggs—I have here some nurdles; these are what kill the birds—so that plan will not detect items such as floating water bottles.
Marine issues are transnational, and the EU’s integrated maritime policy provides the framework through which the UK and its neighbours strategise and legislate for the future of their seas. What will happen to that co-operation post-Brexit? Amid the uncertainty, we have an onslaught of words and announcements, including consultations on charges for single-use plastics and a deposit return scheme for England. As hon. Members know, the Scottish Government have already committed to such a scheme. Local authorities in England and Wales can issue on-the-spot fines for litter louts, but what about fly-tippers who refuse to pay up?
The Government’s Waste and Resources Action Programme has signed up major retailers and manufacturers to its plastics pact and promises a “resource revolution”. That is good, but it does not go far enough, because there is no enforcement mechanism. The UK Government are taking a soft approach by refusing to implement practical solutions recommended by the EAC such as the 25p latte levy, and instead they seek voluntary agreements with coffee chains.
The UK Government have sought only voluntary agreements for manufacturers and retailers to reduce plastic packaging. Like the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), I would like to use the nudge principle and colour code all plastic bottles and coffee cups in green, amber and red, to make it simple, so that when people have the thing in front of them, they can put it into the appropriate coloured bin. For example, action on microbeads was limited to a narrow class of products, against the advice of the EAC. There is too much reliance on citizen participation, though it is great to clean up litter and collect research data. Austerity is forcing local authorities to cut essential services that are needed to help them meet litter-related targets.
Over the years, I have felt that my concerns with environmental issues have often fallen on deaf ears. I do not feel that any more. I think the public are behind us and we are finally realising that there is no such thing as throwing something away on our poor, choked planet. I will conclude by saying that if you want to change the world, you get busy in your own little corner. The EAC has already done that and it has served this Parliament well.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate. Like other hon. Members, on both sides, he articulated incredibly well how taking action on plastic waste will require a variety of approaches, not simply legislation.
Like the constituencies of the hon. Members for Witney (Robert Courts) and for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), Halifax could not be any more landlocked, but this is still an issue that many of my constituents feel strongly about. This debate is timely. Although the Government have made some bold announcements about their policies on plastic waste, like other hon. Members I am keen to ensure that the talk is backed up with decisive and urgent action.
Like the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the shadow DEFRA team has also sought to engage with the House authorities on the prevalence of single-use plastics across the parliamentary estate. We, too, have found that engagement challenging. We are keen to pursue it and make some progress. I join my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) in saying that so often it is children and young people who, on occasion, get a bad reputation for engaging in litter and plastic waste, but often they are among the most concerned about the issue, and are involved in some of the most positive examples we have seen in clean-ups and taking action, which is delivering a benefit to coastal communities.
I am pleased to see the Minister in her place and I am hopeful that she will provide a positive response to many of the issues raised in the contributions, which I thought were outstanding. We heard in shocking detail about the true scale of the plastic waste crisis. Greenpeace estimates that 12.7 million tonnes of plastic end up in our oceans every year—equivalent to a truck-load of rubbish every minute. The waste includes everything we might expect from our throw-away society, from plastic bottles and bags to fruit stickers and disposable razors. We are becoming increasingly aware of the impact this can have on our sea life, with large plastic pieces poisoning whales or entangling turtles and smaller pieces entering the ocean food chain as they are eaten by smaller fish.
Like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Falkirk (John Mc Nally), I pay tribute to the BBC’s “Blue Planet II” series, which inspired both wonder at the beauty of the world’s oceans, and horror at the way they are being desecrated. The BBC’s natural history unit and David Attenborough deserve huge credit for highlighting exactly why our marine environment must be protected. Since the series was broadcast, it has been heartening to see the war on plastics go from something of a fringe issue to dominating the mainstream political agenda. People across the country are switching to reusable bags, bottles and coffee cups, and retailers are being challenged on social media for examples of excessive and wasteful packaging in their stores. It is good to hear that many events such as this year’s tennis championships at Wimbledon are going straw-free, after handing out 400,000 last year.
The Government have taken steps in the right direction. We are happy to support those initiatives, which play a role in reducing the plastic waste entering our oceans. We have supported the microbeads ban and have continually called for action on straws and a plastic bottle deposit return scheme. We welcome the approach of addressing plastic waste not simply as a national problem, but as an international problem that requires international co-operation—a point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight). However, we are keen, where appropriate, to push the Government to go faster and be bolder wherever possible across this policy area.
Labour has a keen record of protecting our marine environment. I must mention that one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government was the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. This created a system for improving the management and protection of coastal ecosystems. It is in this tradition that the shadow DEFRA team has been working on a number of campaigns to tackle plastic waste and protect our sea life.
The Minister and I share a passion to see plastic straws become a thing of the past. Last year, I wrote to the top 20 bar and restaurant chains in the country, urging them to adopt a “straws on request only” policy and asking them to stock biodegradable straws only for those who do require them. The response was positive and several major chains responded with a commitment to remove straws from their businesses. Upon realising that plastics have crept into tea bags, Labour’s DEFRA team sent letters to the top tea bag producers, urging them to consider plastic-free alternatives. Responses are coming back from these firms and it has been reassuring to see the appetite for action on this specific product, which is just one of so many products that we will need to consider redesigning.
We recognise that the priority for marine pollution at present is stopping plastics getting into the oceans. This will of course require changing consumer behaviour and business practice, as well as improved product design. It will also require Government leadership to encourage recycling and incentivise making single-use plastics unavailable. Yet our concerns about this Government stem from the fact that they have failed to bring forward a single piece of primary legislation on any of their announcements on the environment since the last election. The deposit return scheme for plastic bottles really highlights how the Government’s environmental policy is quick to get the headlines, but much slower to take action in reality. The Secretary of State has now confirmed that a consultation on the specifics of a deposit return scheme will have to wait until the conclusion of the ongoing single-use plastic tax consultation by the Treasury.
The Minister will already be aware that, as a country, we use 13 billion plastic drinks bottles every year, but more than 3 billion are still not recycled. Why is it taking Government so long to introduce a deposit return scheme, when 700,000 plastic bottles are littered every day? We are told to expect a date of 2020, but with so much uncertainty at present and timelines sliding across a range of DEFRA policy areas, when will we see a commitment that a deposit return scheme will be introduced?
It is a similar story with coffee cups. Some 99.75% of disposable coffee cups used in Britain are not recycled. In 2011, it was estimated that we threw away 2.5 billion coffee cups a year in the UK, and the figure will have inevitably increased since then. A poll for The Independent found that 54% of the public support a latte levy of 25% on all drinks sold in disposable cups. Businesses are taking the lead, as we have heard, with Starbucks trialling a 5p surcharge at 35 locations across London, and Pret a Manger, Costa Coffee and Greggs all offering discounts for bringing a reusable cup. The Secretary of State seemed to be taking serious action on the issue. As hon. Members may remember, in January he highlighted the issue by handing out reusable coffee cups to all members of the Cabinet. Yet once again, after a few good headlines, the action failed to materialise when the Government rejected the latte levy in March. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what steps, if any, the Government are planning to take to tackle the problem of disposable coffee cups.
To add to this inaction in preventing plastic waste, we are also concerned about the Government’s approach to recycling the waste that is already produced. Progress on recycling must be driven through a comprehensive framework. Hon. Members will be aware that the EU has brought forward a target of 2030 for phasing out single-use plastics. Compare those ambitious targets with the Government’s 25-year environment plan. While the EU is outlining exactly where targets need to be met, the Government’s plan states that they will be developing ambitious new future targets and milestones, but that it will take 25 years to tackle single-use plastics. I am glad that the Government have now agreed to support the EU targets. However, it is concerning that, as we leave the EU, we stand to lag behind our neighbours on this issue.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention that cuts to local authorities have impacted on their ability to collect waste in a timely and efficient manner, as we have heard. An increasing number of councils are opting for collections every three weeks, with many introducing increased charges for bulky waste or garden waste collections. Although some of the Government’s work in this area is certainly welcomed, we would all like to see efforts go much further.
There is undoubtedly an international element to this work, as we have heard. I hope that the Minister can explain why, despite the profile given to the issue of marine pollution and plastics at the recent Commonwealth summit, only four Commonwealth countries joined the Government’s clean oceans alliance.
To conclude, we look to the Minister to allay our fears and show that the Government are about actions as well as headlines. I hope that she will commit to taking the boldest steps to combat the consumption and littering of single-use plastics, which do so much harm to our cherished marine environments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate. I am pleased to inform the House of our progress in addressing the global issue of plastic pollution in the maritime environment. The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) talked passionately about wanting to introduce biodegradable straws, and I am pleased that we will be able to do that in due course. We must be able to prevent and tackle waste wherever it appears, which is why it is important to work on a domestic and a global scale. We work with multilateral organisations, such as the G7, which is developing a plastics charter, and the UN on the clean seas initiative. Through the International Maritime Organisation, we collectively oversee the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, which is of similar importance.
At the Commonwealth summit two weeks ago, the Prime Minister outlined her key priorities for oceans. The 53 nations set out a Commonwealth blue charter, which highlighted the key things for tackling issues affecting the blue sea. It was important that we could work together to find an interest in how to develop the responses to some of those challenges, particularly those that focus on improvements to oceans and plastics.
During the Commonwealth meeting, we announced with Vanuatu that we had set up an agreement in which Commonwealth member states will join forces in the fight against plastic pollution by pledging action and enterprising approaches, such as the global ghost gear initiative, which seeks to encourage the greater removal of one of the most dangerous forms of marine litter. Seven countries have come forward so far in support of the alliance: New Zealand, Australia, Kenya, Ghana, St Lucia, Fiji and Sri Lanka. Engaging companies and non-governmental organisations will be essential to meet the challenge of plastic pollution.
The Commonwealth clean oceans alliance will work in partnership with the World Economic Forum, Sky, Waitrose, Coca-Cola, Fauna and Flora International and the World Wide Fund for Nature to share expertise and experience and push for global change. The Prime Minister also announced £61.4 million in funding to boost global research and to help countries across the Commonwealth stop plastic waste entering the oceans.
Our deposit return scheme has been highlighted. It is key that we want to boost recycling rates and reduce littering of those bottles. As has been said, it will be subject to consultation later this year. One of the challenges of the DRS is that in this country we use more plastic material in the on-the-go environment than any other country around the world. It will take some time for us to come up with the context to put forward because we have to recognise that the process that individuals use, and the way the scheme is processed, is quite different in Norway, Sweden and Germany, which I went to see. We need to consider how we can bring the scheme in line with transport activities. On-the-go activity needs to be considered to ensure that, instead of people throwing plastics away to be disbanded or having always to take them back to their homes or to a particular supermarket, there are potentially ways open to submit them at a rail station or something similar nearby.
We have already committed to reforming our producer responsibility schemes to better incentivise producers to be more resource efficient. We are already talking to industry and other groups about how we might reform the packaging waste regulations to encourage businesses to design their packaging products in a more sustainable way, to encourage the greater use of recycled material in those products, and to stimulate the increase of collection, reprocessing and recycling of packaging waste. As part of the upcoming resources and waste strategy, we will set out options for the kind of packaging waste producer responsibility system that we think will work best to deliver our ambitions.
Earlier this year we announced our world-leading ban on microbeads in rinse-off personal care products, which will finally come into force before the end of next month. Furthermore, we have announced that, subject to a consultation later this year, we will remove the sale of plastic straws, plastic drink stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds in England. We will consider, however, that straws may be required by some consumers who suffer from disabilities and other medical conditions. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland highlighted, Scotland has also announced a consultation on those matters. We are keen to continue to work with the devolved Administrations so that we share ambitions to take things forward. We will recognise that as we take steps forward.
Our plastic bag charge has been in place since 2015. To give credit to the other nations, England was the last to introduce it. We have had huge success since then, with more than 9 billion bags being taken out of circulation. We have announced that we will take further action on all plastic bags, and in the short term, newsagents have started to take proactive action. Recent research by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science showed a decrease in the amount of plastic bags found on the UK’s seabed.
We will continue to look at ways to reduce plastic waste. Improving and encouraging the removal of high-harm material such as ghost gear should be encouraged. In his spring statement, the Chancellor launched a call for evidence to seek views on how the tax system or charges could reduce waste from single-use plastics. We need to get better at understanding potential forms, sources and types of impact of different types of marine litter. The Marine Management Organisation is looking at evidence in English seas for that. To improve understanding about the origin of litter and its potential extraction, we are working through the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation to improve capability to mark fishing gear, which supports our guidance in UK waters. Ropes, lines and pots are marine litter of the highest harm type. To reduce that threat, the UK co-leads an action group with Sweden within the OSPAR convention to develop and promote best practice for the fishing industry and competent authorities.
The Government cannot do it alone. We support initiatives such as Fishing for Litter, the beach cleans run by the Marine Conservation Society and Surfers Against Sewage, and the other work that people do every day to clean up our seas and look for new ways to reuse and recycle what is recovered. We are pleased that Morrisons has recently announced that it will sign the global ghost gear initiative. We are delighted to be supporting the ground-breaking UK plastics pact that was announced last week, which brings together more than 40 companies, NGOs and the Government with the aim of creating a circular economy to tackle plastic waste.
I hope that I have provided the House with a satisfactory outline of what we are doing to reduce plastic waste in the marine environment. We will continue to work with other countries, NGOs, industry and experts from across the board to go further.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I hope Alistair Carmichael will have 30 seconds at the end.
Holly Lynch
I appreciate that the Minister is not feeling very well this afternoon, and I commend her for persevering none the less.
Mr Carmichael
I thank the Minister for her attendance and engagement with us. It is apparent from the debate that there is broad agreement across the House. We accept that the Government have done a lot in this regard, but we look to them to do more. The more they do, and the faster they do it, the more support they will get across the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government policy on reducing plastic waste in the marine environment.
Ticket Touting: Musical Events
(5 years, 12 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
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered ticket touting and musical events.
Thank you very much, Sir Christopher, for calling me to speak. It is really good to renew our acquaintance after all the years we spent together on the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I congratulate you on your recent knighthood. I also refer people to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It should be the easiest thing in the world: simply buying a ticket to go and see a rock concert—I have you down, Sir Christopher, as a grime fan. When you try to secure your Stormzy ticket, it should be straightforward, but swimming through shark-infested waters would probably be an easier and safer thing to do than trying to buy a ticket for a popular musical show.
From the first click of the mouse in their quest to secure a ticket, customers are exposed to any number of touts, profiteers and spivs, who are determined to exploit them and maximise their own return at the customer’s expense. Customers will come into contact with an out-of-control, all-consuming, rip-off machine, which operates from the artist’s management and promoter all the way down to the venue and ticketing agency, and then all the way down to the tout and the unsuspecting fan. It is a business model designed to maximise profits and exploit its consumer base, and it has become one of the biggest consumer crises that we face in this country today. Quite simply, our ticketing infrastructure is irredeemably broken and beyond repair.
Let us have a cursory look at how this system has been created and designed. Touting has always gone on; it was probably going on in the Colosseum in the Roman empire. As a young lad trying to secure my Clash tickets, I certainly saw touts outside the venues, selling tickets for a few pounds extra. So touting has always happened, but the way it is designed just now is almost on an industrial scale, and it is riddled with all sorts of pernicious arrangements and invidious relationships.
The situation was probably defined in 2010, when the largest live music promoter in the world, Live Nation, bought the largest ticket agency in the world, Ticketmaster, creating something close to a monopoly on the live music scene. In addition, Ticketmaster just so happens to own two out of “the big four” secondary sites, Get Me In! and Seatwave; the touts like to do most of their business on those four sites.
What has been created, therefore, is a vertically integrated model that works in almost perfect partnership and symbiosis, whereby everybody gets their cut and their share. I will try to describe it as best I can. Live Nation, which is the largest music promoter in the world, ensures that venues employ Ticketmaster to sell the tickets for the artists that it represents. Tickets then go on sale, but they are hoovered up on an industrial scale by the touts and the scalpers. They are then put up for sale by the touts on the secondary sites owned by Ticketmaster, at hugely inflated prices.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
My hon. Friend will be aware that I have a long-standing interest in this issue. Does he agree that the measures announced by the UK Government to outlaw the so-called ticket-bots cannot come soon enough and have been too long in the waiting?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and she is absolutely and utterly right. Last week, I listened to the presentation by the Competition and Markets Authority at the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse, which was hosted by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). These measures have been far too slow in coming; the Government need to get a move on with them. I will come back to that point later, because what the Government are doing is important, but there is lethargy at the heart of their response.
I was trying to describe how all this works. We have Live Nation putting on the shows and Ticketmaster selling the tickets at the venues, which are all hoovered up by the touts. The tickets then go on sale on the secondary sites owned by Ticketmaster. Google is then incentivised to promote those secondary sites by placing them at the top of their searches. So what happens in this perfect model is that the touts get their hit on the secondary sites and Google gets a share, but critically Ticketmaster and Live Nation secure their secondary cut from their secondary sites.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. We have had numerous debates on this issue over the years, but this one is extremely timely, with the “bot law” coming in just last week, and following the meeting that we had with the CMA. He mentioned Google. Does he agree that most people are driven to these sites by Google? If he does, does he also agree that Google has a role to play—by not giving these sites top billing and by ensuring that consumers realise that these markets are secondary markets and not primary ones?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely, and what Google actually does is breach its own certification rules, which suggest that it must ensure that such sites are designated as secondary sites. Google has a big role to play in this, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention it.
This business model is almost elegant in its exploitative design. Last year, Live Nation made over £1 billion just from its secondary sites. There is also good anecdotal evidence, which I will try to relay under parliamentary privilege, suggesting that the players at the very top of the music business tree—at management level and at promoter level—have a working relationship with some of the biggest touts in the world, to ensure that the wheels and the cogs of this huge, exploitative machine are properly oiled and working at maximum efficiency.
Everywhere throughout this broken infrastructure, relationships and models of exploitation such as those I have mentioned are the norm. StubHub is another one of the “big four” secondary sites. It is owned by eBay, which purchased it in 2007. StubHub now has a global partnership with AEG, which just so happens to operate the O2 and Wembley Arena. That means that, by default, the parasite-infested StubHub is the official resale partner of the O2 and Wembley Arena, which are two of the most prestigious venues in the United Kingdom.
However, the daddy of them all is the truly appalling and exploitative Viagogo. I do not know what arrangement Viagogo has with Google, but if you were to look online for your Stormzy ticket, Sir Christopher, you would be directed to Viagogo to try and purchase it.
Our ticketing infrastructure, therefore, is a broken monolith of misery, where tech giants are in cahoots with touts, who are in cahoots with the promoters and managers. But I will spend just a couple of minutes on Viagogo. How a company that exists exclusively to exploit people and to rip them off is allowed to continue operating is simply beyond me. If anybody is watching this debate at home, I say to them, “Do not buy tickets from Viagogo! Go nowhere near them! You will be ripped off totally! Do not touch them!”
At the all-party group meeting last week, I listened to some of the unfortunate victims of Viagogo. Viagogo is so exploitative that a self-help group has emerged among its customers—that group has thousands and thousands of members, who are ordinary, honest people just trying to secure a ticket for a friend or a grandchild, or as a rare treat for themselves. They had no reason to believe that the simple fact of trying to buy a ticket would expose them to such shark-infested waters and such danger. Why would they? Here was “nice Mr Google” directing them to these sites, so that they could find tickets. But that is where the horror starts, as the victims of Viagogo are exposed to all sorts of hard sells, tricks and exploitative practices.
Mrs Hodgson
I am intervening because I want the hon. Gentleman to join me in congratulating Claire Turnham for her amazing work. She set up Victims of Viagogo, originally because she was a victim herself and wanted to try to get her money back. After that long fight, however, she put out the information she had gathered, in order to help others. She has now helped thousands of people to receive hundreds of thousands of pounds in refunds. So will he join me in welcoming Claire’s work?
Pete Wishart
I have no hesitation in doing so, and I also commend the hon. Lady herself for her diligent work over the years in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse. In fact, it is in my speech to congratulate Claire Turnham, whom I met last week and who has done a fantastic job. She has managed to reclaim thousands and thousands of pounds for the Victims of Viagogo, but why should she have to do that? It is not the job of individuals—drummers, guitarists and singers—to protect the public; it is the Minister’s job. That is your job, Minister. It should be you who is protecting people—not individuals such as Claire Turnham, who are having to do that difficult job.
I heard about the emotional impact of being ripped off and realised how stressful and difficult it is for people to try to reclaim the money they have been swindled out of. I heard that health, relationships and work have all seriously suffered. As a musician, I heard about people being put off attending gigs for the rest of their lives because of the experience they have suffered from these parasites and companies that exist solely to rip people off.
Patricia Gibson
My hon. Friend has been very generous with his time. He talks about the vast number of people who are exploited by these big businesses moving in and hoovering up tickets. Does he agree that it looks like the only way to stop this practice is to legally cap the price of resale tickets?
Pete Wishart
I have got an even better and more elegant solution than my hon. Friend’s, and I beg her to be patient; I will get to it. The issue has to be tackled properly. There is no point mucking around, doing things tentatively. We have to grab the bull by the horns. If she gives me a few minutes, I will get to that point.
I want to explain my renewed interest in the matter, Sir Christopher, because I know you will be absolutely fascinated. My former band, Runrig, put tickets on sale for their last ever concert, which will be at Stirling castle later this year. As the last ever concert, it was obviously going to be popular. There was no way that supply would ever satisfy demand, so it was going to be a target for the touts. Within minutes of tickets going on sale, I was inundated with Runrig fans angry, frustrated and disappointed with the experience of trying to secure a ticket. I was provided with screengrabs of tickets available on the secondary site, Get Me In!, at four times the face value of the tickets that the secondary site owner, the official agent Ticketmaster, had just put on sale 12 minutes earlier.
Runrig did everything possible to spare their fans from the touts, but it is almost impossible to evade their parasitic reach. Since then, I have watched through disbelieving eyes the misery extended to other live music events scheduled to take place this summer. Probably the biggest ticket of the year will be the Rolling Stones. They are playing at Murrayfield in Edinburgh. It will be a really popular show, and it is another huge opportunity for the touts. I saw tickets on sale for 480% above face value, even though face-value tickets were still available. People were directed through Google to the sites and encouraged to buy from them.
I pay credit to the Rolling Stones and the Daily Record, which has been absolutely fantastic—particularly the journalist Mark McGivern, who has pursued this matter resolutely. The Daily Record reported that the Stones were offered a cash incentive to put their tickets on sale to an agency that has pretty invidious relationships with secondary sites. It is to their immense credit that Sir Mick Jagger and Keith Richards turned that down, but does that not demonstrate how far up the chain the issue reaches that such matters are discussed in band meetings? It shows the callous disregard for music fans from those at the very top of the music business. Given Government inaction, it has been left to the artists and musicians to try to develop solutions to protect their fans. It should not be the job of singers, musicians and guitarists to protect ordinary people from consumer affairs issues. That is the Government’s job. Ministers should be doing that.
Bands have attempted to put all sorts of tough terms and conditions on their tickets to try to keep them out of the secondary market, and artists are looking at ever more innovative solutions to protect their fans. I pay tribute to artists including Adele, Ed Sheeran, Noel Gallagher, Bastille and in particular the Arctic Monkeys, who have deployed a number of anti-touting strategies, but we need Government to take the lead.
I do not know which hon. Member or hon. Friend suggested banning bots, but the Government are starting to do something. They are in the process of banning those anonymous bots that hoover up tickets, and they are now starting to ensure that recalcitrant secondary companies comply with existing law. At last the CMA has given notice to Seatwave, Get Me In! and StubHub, but they have been given nine months to comply. The biggest culprit of them all, Viagogo, has not even responded to the Government, but they still allow it to do business. We have had the Waterson report and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but that is regularly broken and ignored. It has failed to protect people and it is tentatively enforced. Much stronger action is required.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), I question the need for a secondary market at all. Why is there one? If someone cannot go to a concert they have a ticket for, they should give it back to the venue, which can then resell it to someone who can go. What is wrong with a simple arrangement such as that?
We usually hear from people—we have seen it in a couple of articles—that this is all about tickets finding their natural value, as if there is a sort of stock market where tickets find their real value at the hands of the touts reselling them. What utter tosh and rubbish! Since I secured this debate, I have even had touts getting in touch with me who say that they are some sort of misunderstood public servants. They have even set up their own self-help group called the Fair Ticketing Alliance. Someone will have to patiently explain to me how snapping up hundreds of tickets, then selling them back at twice, three or four times the price is really in the consumer interest. That is the thing about the touts: they will never stop, and they will always remain one step ahead of any measures to deal with them.
Touting is a hugely profitable business that will not be given up lightly, but it is what it is doing to live music that concerns me most. It is now threatening the whole music industry. The anti-tout campaign group FanFair Alliance—I pay tribute to the excellent work it is doing through Mark and Adam—conducted an opinion poll. Two thirds of respondents who paid more than face value for a ticket on a resale site said they would attend fewer concerts in future, while half would spend less on recorded music. The FanFair Alliance is spot on in concluding that touting is doing considerable damage to one of our great export industries, in which we lead the world and which supports 150,000 jobs.
The Government have been reluctant and slow to legislate on behalf of music fans and artists, but they cannot continue to ignore the damage being done by a dysfunctional infrastructure that is broken beyond repair.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am lucky to have venues in my constituency from the Barrowland right across to the Hydro, but does my hon. Friend agree that if people are paying more money for their tickets, there will be less money to spend in the neighbouring venues? Cities will lose out as a result.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a dynamic hit on all associated industries and businesses. If money is put into the hands of the touts and agencies, it is taken out of the hands of the music industry and those in it. Come on, Minister! Let us reclaim the music. Let us make going to a live show a safe environment. Let us make buying a ticket a reasonable experience, where we will not be exposed to profiteers, touts and spivs.
This is an exploitative marketplace. It is one of the biggest crises we have in consumer affairs, and it is destroying our music industry. It is no good pussyfooting around any longer; it is time to act. Join the rest of us, Minister. Let us reclaim the music and make it safe for fans to buy tickets online.
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate. The Government, along with brilliant groups such as UK Music and the British Phonographic Industry, have consistently championed the British music industry and the incredible talent that makes it such a success story and a brilliant export for this country. We have produced the Beatles, the Stones, Adele, Amy Winehouse and so many more. The live music industry is a vital part of the ecosystem, contributing £1 billion to our economy in 2016.
Our live music scene is clearly thriving, but it is far from easy for fans to experience it. We have all experienced the frustration of waiting for tickets to go on sale—our fingers hovering over the keyboard, only to find that all the tickets have been mysteriously snapped up in seconds. Given the time constraints of this job, I have slightly fallen out of the practice of trying to get tickets for events in recent years, so I was absolutely appalled when I heard about the practices now going on from my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams). It is so frustrating to see tickets reappearing on secondary sites almost instantaneously, at the huge mark-ups that have become commonplace.
The secondary market has a place. Real fans, who are sometimes unable to attend an event, should have the means of making sure that their tickets do not go to waste. However, the Government recognise that the process of distributing and buying tickets often causes momentous public frustration and concern. We are determined to crack down on unacceptable behaviour in the ticketing market, and to improve fans’ chances of buying tickets at a reasonable price. There is absolutely no inertia in the Government, and I was sorry to hear the tone of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire.
We are determined to get on top of this issue. I will outline recent measures that we have taken, but first I will address specific concerns about the relationship between primary and secondary ticketing sites. Competition is fundamental to that relationship, and competition decisions are made independently of Government, and of Ministers, by the Competition and Markets Authority. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to make his points directly to the CMA. I assure him that there is no lethargy in the CMA or in Government about these matters.
We have already taken several measures. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 imposed a duty on sellers and secondary ticketing facilities to provide buyers with certain information about tickets, such as their face value and any restrictions limiting their potential use. Section 105 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 introduced a provision for an additional requirement under the CRA for ticket sellers to provide a unique ticket number, where one has originally been given, when putting a ticket up for resale. I am pleased that that provision is now in force, and that some event organisers are looking at how it can be used to improve access and protections for the ticket-buying public.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate; he has certainly sold more tickets to his public performances than I ever have. The Minister made a specific point about having a unique identifier for consumers. What consultations have taken place with people in the industry, and industry experts, to ensure that that is carried across? Such events can be really beneficial for our constituencies—particularly those like mine, where we used to host T in the Park.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are in constant contact with the industry. My officials have been in touch with the major event organisers UK Music to get the message out there that this is a powerful tool, which event managers and primary ticketers can use to oblige secondary sites to include the unique number on anything that they offer for resale.
I am also pleased, because I had personal involvement in this in my previous job at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, that last week I laid the draft regulations under section 106 of the Digital Economy Act, making a provision to ban the use of bots, and the purchase and resale—for profit—of more tickets than provided for by caps set by event organisers. I hope that that will be successful as well. Of course, the legislation has to be properly enforced.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Will the Minister tell me why the reselling of music venue tickets, which as we have heard is hugely damaging to the industry, is not comparable with sports tickets? It is actually illegal to have secondary sales on those.
Margot James
I think the hon. Lady is slightly mistaken. I believe it is only professional football that has that protection, for historical reasons. The rest of sport is dealt with in the same way as the music industry.
I welcomed the CMA’s announcement last week, as part of its ongoing enforcement investigation, that it had secured commitments from three of the largest secondary ticketing platforms to provide additional information. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that the one secondary site that has not yet co-operated is Viagogo, which is controlled from abroad. I believe it is based in Switzerland, which presents an extra challenge. I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, advising customers not to use Viagogo’s services until it comes within the law. The CMA is concerned that all ticketing sites, secondary and primary, accept their responsibilities to consumers.
The Government are also giving approximately £15 million to National Trading Standards for national and cross-boundary enforcement. I welcomed the NTS’s announcement at the end of last year that its officers had conducted raids on a number of properties across the UK, resulting in four people being arrested under suspicion of breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. I congratulate National Trading Standards and local trading standards officers on their excellent work.
In addition, the Advertising Standards Authority has recently taken action against the main four secondary ticketing websites, banning the misleading presentation of pricing information on those websites. Companies will have to show prices in a clear, transparent and upfront manner before consumers make their purchasing decision. Hopefully, that will put an end to the drip-pricing practice that has been commonplace.
Clearly, enforcement bodies are taking the matter seriously. We are prepared to go after those who flout the law or abuse the ticketing market. The ticketing industry and online platforms need to take action, and we are attacking the situation on a number of fronts.
Google recently introduced new rules for ticket resellers advertising through its AdWords platform, requiring them to be certified. To apply for certification, they will need to comply with a number of rules to improve transparency, and stop implying that they are a
“primary or original provider of event tickets”.
We are getting at them through Google as well, and industry is becoming increasingly adept at using technology to improve the ticketing experience, exerting greater control over the transfer of tickets through the use, for example, of blockchain and “ticketless” tickets attached to fans’ mobile phones.
Mrs Hodgson
I welcome what the Minister has said. She has outlined the plethora of instruments and laws that we now have. As someone who has worked on this for 10 years, I feel that it is all starting to come together. I know she takes this issue seriously, but will she commit to keeping a very close personal eye on it? As those of us who have fought Viagogo and the secondary market for years know, they are slippery characters. I doubt they will ever comply, so we will be back here revisiting this issue.
Margot James
I thank the hon. Lady and congratulate her on her work over the years, and on her chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group. I will stay across this issue. I have exactly the same suspicion: that the company that we have already mentioned in no uncertain terms will drag its feet and fight all the way. We will have to be across that, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s continued involvement in helping us. I also welcome the work that the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers and sports bodies have undertaken with the CMA to look at ways to ensure that terms and conditions are considered to be fair, particularly in instances where tickets were put on sale many months before the performance.
I recognise that there is no magic bullet to solving the worst excesses of the secondary ticketing market; it requires concerted and consistent effort. I have laid out our efforts as they stand. I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about how we are now pulling together a number of strands to deal with the issue. We are making good progress, but I have no doubt that there is more to do. We must ensure that the UK is a vibrant place for fans to experience great music.
Question put and agreed to.
Access Rights to Grandparents
(5 years, 12 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
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered grandchildren’s access right to their grandparents.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. Since announcing that this debate was happening, I have been inundated with emails, letters and calls from grandparents and grandchildren from across the country expressing their support, and many colleagues from across the House have told me that they have been dealing with cases on this issue for many years. I extend a special thank you to Dame Esther Rantzen and to Jane and Marc Jackson from the Bristol Grandparents Support Group, who first brought the issue to my attention. I thank the Minister, as we have had several conversations about this issue over the past few months.
This is not the first time that this issue has been debated in the House of Commons. A similar debate took place about a year ago. Unfortunately, because of purdah rules close to the election, the then Minister was unable to give the full response that I think he expected to give. A Green Paper was mentioned. I hope that the new Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer)—will be able to give a fuller response today. We will ensure she has time.
As I said in a question to the Prime Minister late last year, divorce and family breakdown can take an emotional toll on all involved, but the family dynamic that is all too often overlooked is that between grandparents and their grandchildren. When access to grandchildren is blocked, some grandparents call it a kind of living bereavement. Unlike some other countries, grandparents in the UK have no automatic rights to see their grandchildren, and vice versa. I count myself lucky that I had a very good relationship with my grandparents when I was growing up—I went on holidays with them and saw them virtually every weekend—but I am well aware that not every family is fortunate enough to have that family dynamic.
The estrangement of grandchildren from grandparents happens for a wide variety of reasons: divorce, bereavement, marital breakdown or just a falling out between family members. However the estrangement has come about, rarely is it anything to do with the grandchildren. That is why I have deliberately worded the motion for the debate today so that the emphasis is on children’s rights as well as those of their grandparents. They are the innocent victims in family breakdown. The loss of the relationship with their grandparents is usually the result of a disagreement among the adults, and the children have had no say and no control over the matter.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, for children going through the trauma and upset of a family breakdown or a divorce, access to grandparents can often provide the stability they really need?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have received volumes of precisely those sorts of comment in the emails sent to me over the past few weeks. It is a compelling point.
Large numbers of children in family breakdowns are left very sad and confused about the sudden loss of contact with their grandparents, which in many cases goes completely and utterly unexplained. The children are then left feeling that they have been unloved by their grandparents or believe that their grandparents simply did not want to see them anymore.
One grandson who was denied contact with his grandparents from the age of 10 said to me,
“as a child, you are powerless to insist that you see your grandparents, however much you may want to. I feel a sense of deep loss, guilt and regret. I truly hope that my grandparents still knew of our love for them, and that we were powerless to do anything.”
Another grandchild referred to their parents’ decision to sever ties with his grandparents after a family disagreement as “an abuse of power”. While grandparents may have friends, partners and support groups to turn to and lean on, young children, as my hon. Friend has said, are often left to deal with the emotional toll of the separation from their grandparents by themselves. The situation undoubtedly also has an impact on the family dynamic and the relationship between the children and their parents.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking passionately. My constituent, Issy Shillinglaw from Tweedbank, has been campaigning outside the Scottish Parliament for many years, every single week, for the law in Scotland to be changed. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the same issue exists in Scotland and that there is also a jurisdictional issue? Sometimes parents move south or north of the border and there is that extra challenge in ensuring access is achieved in different parts of the United Kingdom.
Nigel Huddleston
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point. I focus today on English and Welsh law, but the laws are very similar in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I know that campaigning groups have been set up to argue the same case as we are making in England and Wales. The jurisdiction element causes great confusion, which I hope the Minister will also address.
I have heard horrendous stories about children being put up for adoption despite the grandparents wanting to care for them. They cannot, however, afford the legal costs to pursue the issue through the courts, which I will come on to in a minute. There are cases where grandparents are denied access to their grandchildren for perfectly legitimate reasons and in the best interests of the child, and I am not seeking to block that. Safeguarding children should be paramount. As the Prime Minister said when I raised this issue in Prime Minister’s questions,
“when making a decision about a child’s future, the first consideration must be their welfare”.
She also stated that
“grandparents...play an important role in the lives of their grandchildren.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 1035.]
With this debate, I am trying to draw attention to the growing number of cases where grandparents are denied access to their grandchildren for apparently little or no legitimate reason.
I have focused on the impact of family breakdown on the grandchildren. I turn now to how the breakdown of relationships can impact on the grandparents. As I said earlier, some of the grandparents who have contacted me have said that being cut off from their grandchildren is like a living bereavement. One grandparent poignantly said that the grief does not have
“the closure or finality of death”.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept and agree that time is not a healer? The cases I have dealt with have gone on for decades and the hurt grows rather than diminishes.
Nigel Huddleston
I do agree. Unfortunately, in the letters and emails I have received the stories go back years and years, and in some cases decades. They are absolutely heartrending. Many hon. Members will have received similar and seen people in surgeries over the past few years. The length of time is horrendous.
Another common feeling is, of course, guilt. Many grandparents feel that they must have failed their children somehow for the relationship to have deteriorated to such an extent, and they are ashamed that they were not able to hold their family together. One grandfather said:
“I have been to the blackest places you can imagine and felt total despair and loss of confidence in myself as a father.”
Hon. Members could be forgiven for assuming, as I perhaps did when I first started hearing about these cases, that some drastic event must have taken place for family breakdown to have happened, but that is often not the case. Too often, the family rift arises from a simple tiff that snowballs out of control. As one grandfather said,
“there is an inevitable feeling that no one cuts people off for no reason but it can happen for the slightest thing, it doesn’t take a full blown argument, just a wrong word or a badly timed comment”.
Another said that,
“a lot of the time, the grandparents have no idea what the problem is”.
I have heard some truly heartbreaking stories from grandparents detailing how their emotional anguish has led them to consider, and in some cases attempt, suicide. One grandmother who considered suicide said that
“the only thing that stops me is hoping that my daughter will have a change of heart and let me be part of my grandson’s life again”.
Sadly, three grandparents known to the Bristol Grandparents Support Group felt unable to continue their lives without seeing their grandchildren. I was shocked to hear from one grandparent who told me that seven members of their support group had committed suicide.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to raise this very important issue. Does he agree that when parents divorce, they do not divorce their children? The law now has a supposition that the parents should both be as involved as possible in their children’s upbringing when cases have to go to court because they cannot be agreed in mediation.
Does my hon. Friend not think that it would be equally appropriate to have a presumption that grandparents should be involved as much as possible in the upbringing of those children, unless—and only unless—there is a problem with the welfare of that child?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point—he is very knowledgeable about these issues. I will come on later to the asks and the potential resolutions. He has absolutely hit the nail on the head—that is exactly what we need. That also involves safeguarding. I hope the Minister will respond to that point.
That this is a growing issue is evidenced by the growing number of grandparents support groups across the country. One has been recently established in my patch, in Worcestershire. The Bristol Grandparents Support Group has dealt with more than 6,000 grandparents in the 11 years since it was formed. Unfortunately, one experience that many alienated grandparents have in common is that they have sometimes had a visit from the police. I have heard from a number of grandparents who have tried to send birthday cards or Christmas gifts to their grandchildren and found themselves being visited by the police and accused of harassment. As Jane Jackson of the Bristol Grandparents Support Group said,
“grandparents are living in fear that if they drop a present at the door, then officers will come and march them to the cells”.
Of course, genuine cases of stalking or harassment are extremely serious and need to be dealt with accordingly, but it seems that our anti-harassment laws are being used as a weapon in family disputes. I hope the Minister will tell us how we can overcome that.
What can grandparents who have been cut off from their grandchildren do? If appealing directly to the parents’ good will does not work, the first step is to go through mediation. If that does not work, the next step is for grandparents to apply for a child arrangements order. Increasing numbers of grandparents are taking that route. Ministry of Justice stats show that 2,000 grandparents applied for CAOs in 2016, up from just over 1,600 in 2014. Unlike parents, most grandparents must take the additional step of seeking leave of the court before they can even make the application for the order. I know that is not intended to be an obstacle for grandparents, but clearly it is. I urge the Minister to consider introducing an automatic right for grandparents to seek contact through the courts.
As well as being emotionally draining, the whole process can be time-consuming and costly. Some grandparents have told me that they have spent three years and thousands of pounds going through the process. Time is not always on their side, and many are on fixed incomes and are dipping into their savings and pensions to pay for legal costs, as legal aid is rarely available in those cases.
Once a child arrangements order has been granted, enforcement can be an issue. One grandmother told me that she and her husband spent nine months going through the courts, had three court hearings, and were finally granted an order of contact, but as her daughter chose to ignore it, she had still not seen or spoken to her granddaughter.
What else can be done? I am calling for the Government to introduce an amendment to the Children Act 1989, to enshrine in law the child’s right to have a relationship with their grandparents by adding the words “and extended family” or “and any grandparents” to the section on parental involvement in relation to the welfare of the child, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As he is aware, on 31 January 2017, my constituent, Lorraine Bushell, held a lobby day here in Parliament. I welcome the right of the child to see their grandparent, but is my hon. Friend aware that such a procedure already exists in France? We can learn from that country and make it happen for our constituents.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That is a good precedent. Changing the law also changes the culture so that deliberately restricting the access of one family member to another becomes socially unacceptable. The legal change that France has already pursued is very important, as is the social tone that comes with it. That is a very important point.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I, too, am very grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It is clear from the number of hon. Members here to support him that this issue affects not just his constituents but the constituents of every single Member of Parliament. He mentioned the law. Going through a court process is painful, time-consuming and costly. Will his proposal ensure that families will not have to go through that painful and costly procedure?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. One of the important considerations is the need to ensure that children’s welfare is paramount. Some kind of court action is probably required, but we can make it a hell of a lot easier. I am calling for an amendment to section 1(2A) of the Children Act to provide for the court to presume that the involvement of a grandparent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare, unless the contrary is shown. It is important to note the phraseology. That kind of amendment would not grant grandparents the right to involvement in the child’s life if a case be made that it would bring harm to the child in question.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. I have been supporting constituents in Aberdeen South who have been denied access to their grandchildren, and I have been struck by the role of social media. Facebook posts can be used as a weapon, and grandparents sometimes feel punished by them. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling for UK Government action not just in England and Wales but in Scotland to address these points?
Nigel Huddleston
I will indeed stand united with my hon. Friend in calling for similar action in Scotland. This issue affects all nations of the UK, and I hope we can act with one voice.
There are unintended consequences to any change in the law. In the previous debate on this issue, questions were asked about what a change in the law would mean, in terms of clarity about who had the ultimate right over children and grandchildren. The Minister is extremely capable and is surrounded by a very capable team at the MOJ, so I am fairly confident that we can find a form of words that will work. I do not want every single iteration of unintended consequences to prevent us from doing the right thing.
I hope that this debate will raise awareness of the anguish that grandparents and grandchildren across the country feel, and that my brief summary of just a fraction of the cases I have come across demonstrates to the Minister that the status quo is simply not acceptable. I wish to conclude with the words of a grandparent who sent me an email just last night. She very eloquently said:
“My story has been going on for 15 years…The pain I have and still feel is indescribable and affects every aspect of my life…dreading Christmas, Easter, birthdays, mother’s day, summer breaks…all the times when you would hope to see the grandkids. Instead, just pain and heartache—a life sentence. So although at 70 years of age I will probably die before I’m forgiven whatever it is I’ve done, you may be able to help the hundreds of poor souls suffering the same torment.”
I wish to say to that lady that I will indeed do what I can to help, and I call on the Minister to do the same.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on securing this important debate and championing this really important issue. He referred to my constituent, Jane Jackson, who set up the Bristol Grandparents Support Group and has been campaigning for a very long time on this issue.
I seek to make only a short contribution today, to share the words of Jane Jackson, because her story speaks for itself. She said:
“Ten years ago, I lost contact with my granddaughter after my son’s separation and divorce.
To not see our granddaughter was heartbreaking and, as is often said, a ‘living bereavement.’ Contact was stopped overnight. The last time we saw her, at the age of seven, she told us she had been told to ‘dump her family in Bristol.’ That was the last time we saw her. You go through the stages of grief as you do when you actually lose someone, except you are grieving for someone who is still alive.
Not being able to tell her how much she was loved was beyond words. I just had a constant knot in my stomach, a huge void.
She was my first grandchild, my first granddaughter, and she always will be.
She is the person I first think of in the morning and last thing at night. Does she think we don’t love her anymore?
I have a memory box for her, with all sorts of things in it—pieces of a jig-saw. It includes a tiny bear she gave me that says, ‘The best granny’. I certainly don’t feel that way. There are so many questions and no way to find answers.
The acid drip feed of alienation is a very powerful thing, and I have no doubt that a very bad picture of us has been painted.
The emotions felt when this happens are so destructive.
Because when you become a grandparent, it holds such promise of the future, you being able to watch the new generation growing, giving them your experiences of life and to be a support through the highs and the lows.
I decided I wasn’t prepared to go down a dark spiral of depression and so set up Bristol Grandparents Support Group. I had to turn a negative into a positive.
At my first meeting we had 6 grandparents. To date, I have now been contacted by over 6,000 grandparents across the UK, and we are now a registered charity with groups around the country.”
For Jane Jackson to turn that heartbreaking series of events, which for many of us is difficult to understand, into the positive of establishing a charity such as the Bristol Grandparents Support Group, engaging with those throughout the country suffering similar pain, and achieving such wide reach over so many years, deserves tribute from all of us. I have every confidence that the Minister will tell us how she and the Government in which she serves will seek to make the changes that so many people are rightly crying out for across the country.
I shall finish with an update, which I received from Jane only recently. She said:
“Our granddaughter contacted her Dad a couple of weeks ago and has been messaging me. She is coming to Bristol over the bank holiday weekend, which is going to be very emotional.
The little girl we last saw at age 7 is now a young woman of 17. We now start to build up trust and to start a brand new relationship. She has told me that she never forgot us and knows we love her—words I never, ever thought we would hear. It is early days and it could all change in the wink of an eye, but I have already told her how much she is loved, and that is the most important thing.”
I pay tribute to Jane and to people in her position throughout the country. I wish them the very best for this bank holiday weekend. I support the efforts of right hon. and hon. Members across the House in seeking to bring joy and love back to those who have suffered so much dark and pain in the past.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) for organising the debate and for his excellent and moving speech. I thank the other contributors for their moving speeches too. At a time when politics and public opinion often revolve around Brexit and adjacent matters that are seen as huge, it is important to recognise that our constituents are directly affected by other, personal problems that require our attention, such as grandparents’ access to children.
The bond between children and their grandparents is an essential one, yet, as we have heard, the latter lack clear legal rights to the former. In the event of divorce or family dispute, grandparents need to make an application for permission to see their grandchildren under a court order. At the hearing, the court assesses the relationship between the grandparent and the child. It is heartbreaking that a bond between close relatives has to be deemed to be significant, or not, by a legal entity, especially when the two parties are usually victims of a family rupture.
I have been contacted by a number of grandparents in my constituency who have sought my help after being denied access to their grandchildren. Colleagues have related similar experiences. To that end, I met Marion Turner of the GranPart support group, which is based in Northampton and Milton Keynes. The group offers such grandparents help and support to deal with the pain and loss, and it provides free legal advice from solicitors. The information it provides online and via telephone about the complexities of application for leave of court, child arrangement orders and so on is of great comfort to grandparents at what is a hugely stressful time.
I am grateful for the support given by that group in this matter, but I believe that there is still a need for a justice reform to treat the problem at the root, instead of people having to try to ameliorate the consequences case by case. To that effect, a few months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), whose constituency neighbours mine, with me and others, sent a letter to the Minister of State for Courts and Justice, who at the time was my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), calling for a legislative change to allow grandparents to have legal access to their grandchildren. Since then we have awaited developments. I therefore join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire in asking the Minister—who is now, I hope, of some standing—to produce a long-awaited Green Paper, treating the matter with the attention it clearly deserves.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on securing the debate. We talked about it last Thursday, when we were away with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. When I heard what he was planning to say, I mentioned that I was keen to come along and support him. I have constituents who think the same as he does, which is why I am here: first, to support him and, secondly, to look to the Minister for her thoughts on how we can make things happen.
The issue is close to my heart. I am thankful for a wonderful daughter-in-law who allows me to bring my grandchildren to church and Sunday school, to tag along at family dinners when time permits and, with my wife, to enjoy family holidays with them. Such occasions with children and grandchildren are always precious, whenever they may be.
Looking to the past, I find that my sons always had a great advocate not only in their mother, who is truly a warrior mum, but in their grandparents, who simply adored them. No breakage in my grandmother or my mother’s house, even of special china or collectibles, was so bad. If it was my children who broke them, their grandparents would said, “Don’t worry about that”—it was not the same when I was young, but that is by the way. Even when it came to writing on the wall, it was never vandalism but artwork, and not a word was said, other than, “That’s all right.”
I was often amazed that the parents who believed firmly in the “spare the rod and spoil the child” doctrine when it came to raising me and my brothers and sister were suddenly converted to saying, “It’s better they are spirited,” or, “There’s no harm in them,” or, my personal favourite, “You’re far too hard on them.” That was grandparents; they see things that wee bit differently. Words that were never applied to me found a home when it came to the boys, and now to the great-grandchildren.
Why is that? It is because the job of a grandparent is to love, to love some more and to love some more again. Hon. Members have referred to that in their contributions. I heartily support what they have said, and what others will say after me—I am conscious that others wish to speak, so I shall not go on for too much longer.
Discipline is for the parents; joy is for grandparents. As a grandparent now, I probably see that better than ever. For that reason, my heart aches when I think of the more than 20 decisions a day being made under the children order behind closed doors in courts in Northern Ireland. It grieves me greatly to see what is happening. Rather than mediation, under legislation in Northern Ireland families battle their way through the courts for access to children and grandchildren. An analysis of data from the family proceedings courts, the family care centres and the High Court found that 10,206 contact and residence orders had been made over the past three judicial years. Those orders can relate to more than one child. That is what is happening in Northern Ireland.
We have that system, which I wanted to speak about if I could in a short time. By comparison, Family Mediation NI, the largest provider of pre-court family mediation in Northern Ireland, received Government funding over the same period to assist only 750 families. That is just scraping at the edge of things. I understand that the Minister has no responsibility for the issue in Northern Ireland, but I wanted to give a Northern Ireland perspective in the debate, because it ties in with what the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire and others have said, and includes Scotland and Wales—throughout the United Kingdom. It is important to put that on the record.
There is no automatic right to apply for visitation for a grandparent, and that must change. We need to legislate to ensure that grandparents have their right to see and sow in the life of their grandchild, which is why I wholeheartedly support the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire and the themes and thoughts raised by other Members in speeches and interventions. I spoke on this issue the last time it came to the Floor—perhaps he secured the previous debate too—and I was later contacted by a lady who was not my constituent but had heard the debate. She thanked me for speaking out on her behalf as a grandparent. She was being denied access solely because of an argument between her son and his former spouse; it had nothing whatsoever to do with her or her family.
In conclusion, as a grandparent and someone who could not imagine life without my grandchildren, I ask the Minister to take the issue into consideration and to take the steps to make the changes necessary to allow grandparents basic rights to family life and love. That is all such people ask for: the chance to love their own flesh and blood, and not to be caught in the middle of a conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with them yet so deeply and irrevocably affects them.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on raising this important subject. I do not intend to speak for long, because I know others wish to contribute.
My motivation for speaking and interest in the issue stem from the wonderful organisation GranPart that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) mentioned, which was set up by Marion Turner in both our constituencies. It is a very important support and self-help group for grandparents who find themselves in this appalling situation. I have gone to visit the group a number of times and have heard their stories. The emotions there are very raw. Some of the cases have only just started, but others have been going on for many years. It has been mentioned in the debate that time is not a healer—some of these cases go on for far too long. I have heard the stories; I absolutely agree with the analysis that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire provided and I support his proposals for reform.
I do not have grandchildren or children, but I was a grandson. I think back to the incredibly important and influential role that my two grandmothers played in my upbringing; I cannot imagine what my life would have been like without them and cannot imagine that similar level of love and support being denied any grandchild. They passed away many years ago, but I still think of them regularly. Particularly in here, if I have a dilemma to resolve, I often ask myself, “What would gran have said?” in this matter. The answer often comes more quickly than if I had not asked that question. To deny any grandchild that support and love is absolutely wrong, where the grandchild is innocent in whatever the dispute is.
From what I have seen in GranPart meetings, the current access arrangements do not work. There are legal ways of getting access but they are too cumbersome and the barriers are too big. Many of the grandparents I have met do not want to go down that road, either because they cannot afford it or because they just do not want the anguish. It is a barrier that should not be there—there is a problem to address immediately.
In the debate last year and other conversations and correspondence that have happened, there has been talk of a broader family justice Green Paper that looks at all aspects of the issue. There are other issues that I am not as familiar with, which also need to be addressed, but I make a plea to the Minister not to delay in making a reform and improvement here, in the context of a broader review of family justice. This is a stand-alone issue.
The grief that grandparents are suffering is here and now. It is real. Surely we have the bandwidth in this place and in Government to address it in isolation. I am not denying that the other matters are important, too, but they can be looked at later on. I ask the Minister to have a separate look at this issue. Again, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important subject.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will not delay the House for too long on this matter, because I have spoken about it in the past. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on securing this debate. As I mentioned earlier, my constituent Lorraine Bushell had an event here in the Houses of Parliament, when we were joined by Esther Rantzen. At that time, the meeting was packed; today, a number of people are in the Public Gallery to listen to what we have to say on this subject.
I want to make a plea to the Minister: I previously brought this issue to the attention of the Government and I hoped it would be in the Conservative party manifesto. I cannot recall whether it was—but even if it was not, I make a plea to her to make this issue a priority. Many grandparents are of an age that means that time is of the essence. They are not able to go down a legal route; many people would find that difficult not only financially but emotionally. People do not want to go down that route, because whether it is in a divorce court or between families, it is very painful for all those involved.
I raised an issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire that my constituents raised with me: the resolution is not that the grandparents have the right, but the children. The child should have the right to access to their grandparents. We could incorporate that into our law in this country, based upon the legal system in France or whatever. That would allow the possibility for children to be able to have that relationship with their grandparents.
Other Members have made reference to the relationship for them and for their grandparents; we all treasure and remember that relationship. My grandparents are no longer alive, but I often think that being a grandparent is often a second opportunity. When people are younger, perhaps they do not have the time that they would like to spend with their children because they are busy at work. It is a second opportunity to do the things that they were not able to do, perhaps because they did it wrong or they want to do it differently. Who knows? We must not allow this opportunity to go by. I repeat my plea to the Minister to take action on this issue sooner rather than later.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) for securing the debate. I am conscious that it focuses on the situation in England and Wales, which is why, as I indicated to you, Sir Christopher, I will keep my remarks short, to allow the hon. Gentleman time at the end to conclude.
I thank grandparents for the work that they do—in particular kinship carers, who are huge part of my constituency. The number of kinship carers who are grandparents is massive. Before taking part in the debate, I reflected on my own experience. My mum and dad split up before I was one year old. My dad was pretty much off the scene from that point. It was probably then that my mother was faced with the dilemma of whether to go and visit her ex-mother-in-law and take me with her. To my mum’s credit, she did that. That must have been quite a difficult thing to do; I respect it and I think we would all want that.
The Members from north of the border, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), mentioned the situation in Scotland. It is only right to put that on the record. The hon. Gentlemen made the point that under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, grandparents do not have an automatic right to see their grandchild, but can apply for a court order to get that access.
It is important to place it on the record that the Scottish Government are committed to reviewing the 1995 Act; the consultation on that begins this month. I hope that hon. Members will feed into that consultation and encourage their constituents to do so. My only word of caution is that it is paramount that the needs of the child are put first. For example, it is possible that contact with grandparents could allow a parent who has been deemed unfit to see their child to have contact with the child. That raises some child protection issues. I understand the need for us to get this right. I hope that the consultation will tease that out and we can get to a point that balances child safety and the most important thing: people having a relationship with their grandchildren.
I am grateful for the opportunity to sum up on behalf of the Scottish National party and I hope that any remaining time will be given to the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire to make his closing remarks.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on securing the debate. We have heard touching stories today that demonstrate just how important the relationship between children and grandparents can be. Experiences of our own grandparents in our formative years, and of actually being a grandparent from some of our more experienced colleagues, make it clear that this relationship can be incredibly significant and often unique.
Grandparents can enrich the lives of children and provide one of the closest and most loving experiences a child can have. The relationship can be important in other ways, too. Grandparents can provide vital help and support for parents, particularly in recent years as increasing childcare costs have pushed parents to rely on informal care from family members. It is difficult to overstate the role of grandparents for many families.
Whether through our own experiences or through those we hear in our constituency surgeries, we know that family relationships can simply break down. Of course, the welfare of the child comes first and we should endeavour to ensure that that remains so. But the impact on the grandparent can be devastating. Many are distanced and lose contact, and they are understandably distressed by the experience. That can be made worse when they feel they have no effective form of redress to apply for access.
As it stands, child arrangements orders, established by the Children and Families Act 2014, determine where and with whom a child lives. They determine who can access a child, spend time with them, visit them and speak to them on the phone, and those people are named in the order. However, before applying for a child contact order, grandparents must seek leave from a court. In 2010, the Labour Government produced a Green Paper that considered that legal requirement for grandparents and, acknowledging concerns that it may be an administrative barrier to justice, vowed to assess the extent to which that was the case.
My party lost the 2010 election, and the condition to seek leave from a court was supported by the coalition Government on the basis that it filtered potentially vexatious access claims. Nobody objects to the prevention of claims that may harm a child, but does the Minister agree that an updated review may be important to understanding the impact of the requirement to seek leave, which may be an administrative barrier to justice? The Government promised earlier in the year to publish a family justice Green Paper, which would provide a further opportunity to assess the necessity of that requirement. Can the Minister tell us when that Green Paper will be published, and will she guarantee that the requirement for grandparents to seek leave from a court will be addressed?
For grandparents who succeed in their leave application and then find themselves negotiating an unfamiliar and costly legal system to gain access to their grandchild, the removal of legal aid is a further barrier. Early legal advice is vital to ensuring that grandparents are best prepared to navigate complex legal requirements, yet cuts to legal aid have removed the right to representation in many areas of the family court.
The impact that an absence of advice can have on an application is demonstrated when objections are raised and the process moves to a full hearing. We simply have no way of knowing how many grandparents who find themselves without those vital resources are left unsuccessful or deterred from applying due to a lack of legal access. Does the Minister agree that cuts to vital legal aid present a barrier to justice and may leave grandparents without contact with their grandchildren?
Arbitration and mediation are, of course, more amicable, preferable and cheaper routes, and they have been found to work in many cases, but we acknowledge that family disputes may not be that simple and that, sadly, the courts are sometimes the only appropriate course. It is imperative that we provide a legal system that protects both the welfare of the child and access to justice for grandparents seeking to navigate complex and unfamiliar procedures.
I am sure we were all touched by the stories we heard from hon. Members today; I certainly was. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is incumbent on us all in this place to ensure that the justice system is accessible and open, and absent of obstacles that may prevent loving grandparents from seeing their beloved grandchildren.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) on securing the debate and continuing to highlight this really important issue.
Grandparents play a significant role in family life. There is something special about the bond between a grandparent and a grandchild. The loving relationship that is formed often enriches family life. Grandparents provide stability when it is needed. They can give a sense of history and show how important it is to belong to a family. They can give familial support when it is needed, such as when it is difficult for more immediate family members to be called upon. My grandparents—in particular my grandmother—taught me many things. She passed on her values.
I, too, recognise the work of Marc and Jane Jackson from the Bristol Grandparents Support Group and of Dame Esther Rantzen. As my hon. Friend mentioned, I had the opportunity to listen to their points on this issue at a meeting he arranged with my predecessor when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Justice Secretary.
Hon. Members have made important and powerful points during the debate, and many have written to me about this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) pointed out that grandparents often support grandchildren when there is family breakdown. The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) said that time is not a healer. In his impassioned speech, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) described the grief of his constituent, whom I met, and the work that that family has done to support so many other people. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us of the precious moments that he has had as a grandparent and that grandparents can have with their grandchildren.
My hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) mentioned the great work that has been done by a support group in their constituencies. My hon. Friends the Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) reminded us that other jurisdictions are grappling with this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) reminded us that the law in France has already moved on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire told us some terrible stories about the effect on grandparents of an inability to see their grandchildren. He quoted grandparents and grandchildren directly, not only underlining how important the issue is but giving them a powerful voice in this debate. I commend him for doing so. He made an important point that children are the innocent victims in family breakdown, and that the best interests of the child must always come first, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon reinforced. My hon. Friends were right to emphasise that point. Children are at the heart of our family laws and our family justice system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire recognised and made clear the fact that there is a legal route for a grandparent to gain contact with their grandchildren. Under the current legislation, a family court can make a child arrangements order to determine who a child can live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Some 2,000 grandparents go down that route every year. Let me describe how it works. A child arrangements order can provide for face-to-face contact—long visits and short visits, including overnight stays if appropriate. If necessary, it can also provide for contact to be made by other means, such as email, telephone or letter. The court has flexibility when considering whether to make a child arrangements order and, if so, on what terms.
Whether the court orders that a grandparent or other family member should have involvement in a child’s life depends on a number of factors. One or both parents may oppose such involvement. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service may be asked to provide a welfare report on the beneficial impact of the involvement of a grandparent or other family member, and any risk of harm from ongoing parental opposition to such involvement and exposure of the child to ongoing conflict. That report can also include the wishes and feelings of the child. As I said, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration at all times.
Given the dreadful stories we have heard about the impact of this issue on people’s lives, it is clear that the system could work better, and I am keen to look into how we can improve it.
Michael Tomlinson
We are fortunate indeed that the Minister has a good deal more time than Ministers normally have to respond, so I would welcome a lengthy response. The system she has outlined—the legal system of going to court—is complex and heart-wrenching. People should not have to go through that. Will she directly address the point my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) made about a presumption, which we hope would avoid the need for people to go to court in the first place?
Lucy Frazer
As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point that he expects me deal with, and I was just about to come to that. He made a very important point about out-of-court procedures. We need to look at the expensive and difficult court procedure, which sometimes increases conflict. That is not just the case when grandparents apply to court; in family law as a whole, courts can provide resolution for people who really need it but also increase conflict, particularly in family situations.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution I referred to Family Mediation NI, which has the specific task of trying to sort things out before they get to court. It was clear to me from a Northern Ireland perspective that had more money been available to it, many of those cases would have been sorted out beforehand and would never have got to court—I think that is what the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire was saying. If we can get to the point where we can try to mediate and solve problems rather than get into litigation, with all the nastiness that brings, that is where we want to be.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is critical that we solve these issues early on, before they get to court. We are reviewing legal aid generally, but legal aid can be available for mediation for early legal help. In that context, there is a fees remission scheme in relation to the application to court where the threshold is higher for people over 60. However, would it not be better if people did not go to court at all?
A number of issues have been raised and ideas put forward about how we can improve the system. One, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire and by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), was about the fact that grandparents have to apply for leave. Some people see that as an additional hurdle, but experience shows that grandparents do not usually experience any difficulty in obtaining permission when their application is motivated by a genuine concern for the interests of the child. That is because a person can seek the court’s permission at the same time as they make their substantive application simply by ticking the box on the relevant form, and there is no need to pay a separate fee. That can be part and parcel of the hearing.
The leave requirement is not designed to be an obstacle to grandparents or other family members; it is meant to be a filter to sift out applications that are clearly not in a child’s best interests, such as vexatious applications aimed at undermining one of the parents involved in a dispute over the child or continuing parental conflict. Leave was examined as part of the independent family justice review led by David Norgrove, which in its final report, published in November 2011, recommended that the requirement for grandparents to apply for leave should remain as it is because it
“prevents hopeless or vexatious applications that are not in the interests of the child.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire also identified the fact that it was unfortunate that sometimes children were placed for adoption, despite the fact that a grandparent might be willing to care for them. Grandparents can apply for special guardianship orders, and the local authority should give preference to placing a child with a family member. He also identified, as picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), that there should be a change in the law in relation to presumption. We can look at that. He identified, and it is important to recognise, that some people think that elevates the grandparent’s involvement into a right, whereas, as I have identified, the family justice system puts the child, not the grandparent, at the heart of its consideration. As he accepts, there may be some unintended consequences that we will have to look into.
Edward Argar
The Minister is rightly highlighting the importance of the child being at the centre. She also said that she is willing to look at some issues again to avoid the involvement of expensive lawyers—I pay all due respect to lawyers; she is a distinguished lawyer herself. However, will she indicate when we might see some of those proposals and ideas come forward from the Ministry?
Lucy Frazer
As a new Minister, I am looking afresh at a number of issues. This point, which has been raised by many people, is one of a number of family justice measures the Department is looking at—this morning I had a meeting on another family justice issue of concern. We are looking at these matters very closely. The challenge is that one size does not necessarily fit all. These are important issues but, as I mentioned, we must also look at the out-of-court settlement procedure. I will look at this issue carefully, working with the Department for Education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire said at the end of his speech that he wanted to raise awareness. He has done that in the past, and he has certainly done so by calling the debate today. I commend him for his campaigning efforts, and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. Finally, I send Marc and Jane Jackson every best wish on reuniting with their first granddaughter.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the Minister for that response. Her tone is appreciated across the whole House. I know that she is diligent and that she is looking at a range of things, but I would like this to be quite high on that pile. I am sure she knows I will continue to hassle her until we get a response.
I appreciated several comments the Minister made, in particular the recognition that the system could work better. I recognise that family law is horrendously complex and that therefore there are no easy answers. We will be very willing to work with her and anybody else on ensuring that we look very carefully for any unintended consequences, because we all want to avoid those. We would all love to have a situation where we did not have to have such debates, or to have family breakdowns ending up in court, but the reality is that that does happen, so we have to deal with it. As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that we can help make the processes as easy and painless as possible for all involved.
Finally, I thank many of those in the Public Gallery who are here today, some of whom I know have travelled a considerable distance to be here, and who include representatives from all over the country. I thank them and I thank colleagues. I look forward to making progress on the issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered grandchildren’s access right to their grandparents.
Written Statements
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingent Liabilities
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)
I am today laying a departmental Minute to advise that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is retrospectively notifying Parliament about contingent liabilities not previously disclosed, due to procedural errors. Her Majesty’s Treasury has retrospectively approved these contingent liabilities.
The Minute describes the contingent liabilities that the MOD holds against 10 Defence Equipment and Support contracts (DE&S). It is usual to allow a period of 14 sitting days prior to accepting a contingent liability, to provide hon. Members an opportunity to raise any objections. Regrettably, this was not done ahead of contract award in these cases and I sincerely apologise for our failure to do so. The purpose of the Minute is to regularise the position with Parliament. The contracts remain fully enforceable and the associated contingent liabilities will be reported in the 2017-18 Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) annual report and accounts.
Failure to notify these contingent liabilities prior to the award of the associated contracts has been reported to the Public Accounts Committee. The Department has noted the Committee’s concerns about this situation and fully accepts the need to follow the correct approvals and reporting procedures. DE&S has put in place a series of measures to address this issue including staff briefing; mandated training; improving the clarity of internal guidance and procedures; and additional controls in the approvals process, to ensure compliance.
The following contracts have a very low risk of the contingent liability being incurred. The liability is assessed as unquantifiable due to the nature, scope, range and scale of possible scenarios that might occur, which means that it is not possible to provide a realistic estimate of cost:
Supply of Cased Telescopic Cannon and ammunition—liability against consequential and indirect losses until 9 July 2018.
CTAI Common Cannon and ammunition project—liability against consequential and indirect losses until 3 June 2019.
Design authority support for Cased Telescopic Cannon—liability against consequential and indirect losses until 31 March 2019.
Supply of 40mm Cased Telescopic Cannon—liability against consequential and indirect losses until 15 July 2022.
BAE Systems Dreadnought design contract—liability against submarine design work until 26 April 2023.
Babcock design contract (submarines)—liability against contractor’s personnel at defence establishments until 26 April 2023.
UK/France test facilities (2010) and sub contract—UK liability for dismantling and decommissioning costs until 2065.
The following contract has an agreed amount of contingent liability up to £1.4 million against a breach of intellectual property rights which expired on 31 March 2018 and a further unquantifiable element against a breach of environmental liability until 31 March 2025:
Land equipment service provision and transformation contract.
If the liability is called against any of these contracts, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
The following contract had an agreed amount of contingent liability up to £7 million against damage to Ministry of Defence property which expired on 28 February 2018. No liability was called against this contract.
Support to combined arms tactical training system.
[HCWS664]
Counter-Daesh Operations
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
As part of our counter-terrorism strategy, the UK is playing a leading role in the global coalition to defeat Daesh—a unified body of 75 members. We have committed nearly 1,400 military personnel to the region to provide support to local partners.
In the air, the RAF has conducted more than 1,600 air strikes in Iraq and Syria—second only to the US—and provides highly advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to coalition partners. These strikes are undertaken in the collective self-defence of Iraq as part of the global coalition to defeat Daesh, and at the request of the Government of Iraq. On the ground, British soldiers have trained over 60,000 members of the Iraqi security forces in engineering, medical, counter-IED and basic infantry skills. As a result of the coalition’s action, Daesh has lost more than 98% of the territory it once occupied in Iraq and Syria, and 7.7 million people have been liberated from its rule.
We do everything we can to minimise the risk to civilian life from UK strikes through our rigorous targeting processes and the professionalism of UK service personnel. It is therefore deeply regrettable that a UK air strike on 26 March 2018, targeting Daesh fighters in eastern Syria, resulted in an unintentional civilian fatality. During a strike to engage three Daesh fighters, a civilian motorbike crossed into the strike area at the last moment and it is assessed that one civilian was unintentionally killed. We reached this conclusion after undertaking routine and detailed post-strike analysis of all available evidence. There are limits on any further details that can be provided given ongoing operations and consequent national security issues. As with any serious incident the wider coalition also conducts its own investigation and will report in due course.
These events serve to remind us of the consequences of conflict and of the heavy price that the people of Syria have paid. It reminds us that when we undertake military action, we must do so knowing that it can never be completely without risk.
Such incidents will not weaken our resolve to defeat Daesh and rid the world of its poisonous ideology of hate and intolerance. The UK’s commitment to the global coalition against Daesh and to the people of Iraq and Syria will remain as strong as ever.
[HCWS665]
OSCE: UK Delegation
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
My hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) have been appointed as full members of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (David Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Laurence Robertson). My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) has been appointed as a substitute member.
[HCWS666]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Temple-Morris
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of my very good friend the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, on 1 May 2018. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Creative Industries: Skills Shortage
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how their Creative Industries Sector Deal, announced on 28 March, will address the skills shortages in those industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the creative industries sector deal committed over £150 million of government and industry funding to unlock growth in the UK’s world-leading creative businesses and address the current and future skills needs of the creative industries. As part of this, government will fund the skills package, featuring an industry-led creative careers programme—reaching 2,000 schools and 600,000 pupils—and support for apprenticeship standards. Industry will expand its voluntary skills investment fund and work with governments to ensure high-quality work placements for students. Additionally, the BFI is rolling out its £20 million future film skills programme to tackle skills shortages in the film industry.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank the Minister both for his response and for the Government’s recognition in the sector deal of the importance of the creative industries. The Minister clearly understands that skills are the lifeblood of any industry. Does he agree that the demise of the teaching and take-up of creative subjects in schools and further education is very worrying? Will he encourage his colleagues in the Department for Education to promote STEAM, not STEM, and explain to them that the creative industries are powered by creative subjects? What we need is that old request: joined-up government.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, no one is suggesting that STEM subjects are the only ones that matter. Indeed, I completely take the noble Baroness’s point that the arts are very important, especially for the creative industries. We expect a broad and balanced curriculum to be provided for schools. I am informed by the Department for Education that there is no evidence that a greater emphasis on STEM subjects has had a direct impact on the take-up of the arts in schools. Between 2010 and 2017, the proportion of pupils in state-funded schools taking at least one arts subject remained broadly stable and the percentage of time spent by secondary school teachers on teaching music, art, design and drama has also not changed significantly. However—to give the noble Baroness some comfort—the Secretary of State recently met the Secretary of State for Education to discuss this, and another junior Minister in my department met another junior Minister in the Department for Education on 27 April. Joined-up government is going on, and we are well aware of the sector’s views on this subject.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to hear the support for the creative industries and the contribution they make to growth in the UK. The other considerable achievement of the creative industries is in social mobility. I cannot think of any greater engine for social mobility than them. The key to that is some of the world-leading establishments, such as RADA, the BRIT School in Croydon and the National Film and Television School. I would welcome hearing from the Minister that the Government recognise the importance of those and other institutions in feeding the creative industries and avoiding the skills shortage that may loom in 20 years’ time.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
It is important to make the point that the creative industries are a tremendous success story. We are not talking about a rescue package, if you like, in the sector deal. They are growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. As far as my noble friend’s points are concerned, of course we understand, as I said, the importance of the arts. That is why, for example, the Department for Education announced £96 million of funding to give talented pupils the opportunity to attend top music, drama and dance schools. That takes government funding for music and creative arts programmes to almost £500 million. In fact, it is the second-highest amount of funding for a sector by the Department for Education after PE.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, in my capacity as champion of outreach at Imperial College, I go to a phenomenal number of schools around England and sometimes to Wales. What I find is that a huge number of students are not able to do, for example, an arts A-level with a science A-level because there is insufficient money in the system for schools to provide that, yet that is what gives them a compass in science to see how valuable it is in practice in wider society. Could the Minister recommend that to the department—it seems an important issue—to see whether we could not fund it rather better in future?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, this is the third question that should be given to the Department for Education, but I completely understand the noble Lord’s point. What I have said is that we do not think that there should be a limited amount for, for example, STEM subjects, important though they are. We understand the basis of a broad-based curriculum. As I indicated, in DCMS we are talking to Department for Education Ministers. We represent the views of our sector, which is very vociferous on these subjects. We understand them and are taking a lot of effort to do so, and are relaying them to the Department for Education.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, 47% of the workforce in the creative industries is self-employed, compared with 15% of the workforce as a whole. The creative sector deal declares that it wants to protect access to global talent. Could the Minister tell the House whether the Government plan to consult the industry on the introduction of a freelance visa to ensure that the most talented creatives can work in this country?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We are only too well aware of the importance of foreign talent, who sometimes come to this country for relatively limited periods of time to work in the creative industries. The noble Viscount is absolutely right that a lot of the jobs in the creative industries are for a limited period. We are working with the Migration Advisory Committee to look at issues surrounding immigration. Again, as part of the joined-up government we referred to, we are talking to the Home Office to make sure the sector’s requirements are known.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, there is much to welcome in the sector deal, but meeting the training skills for the anticipated 600,000 extra jobs means that the apprenticeship levy scheme must be fit for purpose for the creative industries. Is the Minister aware that the Skills Minister has already acknowledged that the scheme is causing particular concerns and problems within the sector, which wants greater flexibility? The sector deal promises simply to monitor the scheme. Your Lordships’ Communications Committee has asked for a comprehensive review. Will the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that we will get that comprehensive review?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I believe that the Department for Education is looking at how the apprenticeship levy is working and bedding down. We understand that there are particular issues for the creative industries. That is why the sector deal includes support to help quickly develop 20 new apprenticeship standards. We will work with the Institute for Apprenticeships to prioritise those standards for the creative industries. I can confirm that, as part of the sector deal, an employer representative from the creative industries will sit on the Department for Education’s apprenticeship stakeholder board. I cannot commit the Department for Education, but it is certainly looking at the particular problems that pertain to the creative industries.
Plastic Packaging
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been working with WRAP, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and industry to develop the UK plastics pact, announced last week. The pact seeks to eliminate single-use plastic packaging by 2025 and ensure that 100% of plastic packaging is reusable, recyclable or compostable. In addition, government and industry are investing in research on plastics innovation and the development of more-sustainable products.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Minister will agree that it is no exaggeration to say that we are poisoning our planet. Will he confirm that 70% of the rubbish on Britain’s beaches is plastic? Will he also confirm that, by 2050, the weight of plastic in the oceans will exceed the weight of fish, and that micro-plastics have been found on the tops of mountains and in the polar regions? I appreciate what the Government are trying to do, but are we not facing a desperately urgent crisis which requires more urgent action nationally and internationally?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I entirely endorse all the instincts that the noble Lord has expressed in terms of our need to take action both at home and overseas. Just at CHOGM, there was a strong desire within the Commonwealth countries to deal with marine pollution. Through the UN, the G7, the G20 and CHOGM, we have been working extremely hard, because this issue must be dealt with internationally. At home, we fully recognise that we need to advance the necessary changes. That is why our resources and waste strategy to be announced later in the year will represent an important way forward.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will know of my passion for this issue. I even have an eco-coffee cup in turquoise blue that I use every morning, which saves me 25p. I am delighted at the way in which this issue has gone up the agenda so strongly—it means that we can make a big difference. But how is my noble friend getting on with boosting recycling in local authorities by bringing in soon a single system for recycling, and by ensuring that all plastics have their recyclable quality marked on the product?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend has said, which is why the four-point plan that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced is precisely about reducing the amount of plastic in circulation, addressing different plastics in use, improving the rate of recycling and making it easier for people to recycle. That is why we need to work with local authorities. There are some very good examples, both rural and urban, of local authorities increasing their rates of recycling, and I applaud them.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, besides local authorities, the Government need to make extra effort with producers to give them guidance about using only one sort of plastic, where that is practical, because it is the mixed plastics that are so difficult to recycle?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this is where I think industry is working much more effectively than very often we appreciate. Indeed, industry has committed to finding solutions to ensure that the recycling of all black plastic packaging is sorted out by the end of this year. Clearly, with innovation, we want to ensure that the plastic we are producing is readily recyclable.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
My Lords, it is good that we are making such progress on the issue of plastic and food packaging but it is important to think holistically about this. In the UK we throw away about 235 million items of clothing every month, 60% of which includes polyester. Bishops know a thing or two about dressing up, and churches and charities know about recycling, but will the Minister say what steps are being taken to address the use of polyester in human packaging?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I may have needed notice of that very intriguing question. However, it goes to the heart of what I would call wise and sustainable use, and it is why I actively encourage natural fibres. The use of wool is a very good idea.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in the all-party group. Will the Minister accept the urgent request of industry—the sector represented by the Food and Drink Federation—to have a holistic approach to this so that every form of plastic is dealt with in the measures to be drawn up by the Government?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as I say, I think that industry is absolutely seized of this. I could take noble Lords through the companies involved in coffee and coffee cups, and the number of them that are now dealing with rewards, with water filling stations in their coffee shops, et cetera. I think that what we are looking at now is the beginning of a considerable revolution in the way we do things.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, one of the consequences of the Government’s Brexit policy is that all pallets importing food into the UK or exporting it from here will have to be disinfected at the frontier if they are made of timber. Will the Minister encourage the use of recycled plastic for pallets so that this does not have to happen? It would also save some of the trees that are used in pallets.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, wearing my other hat as Minister for Biosecurity I know that the noble Lord will well understand some of the dangers that we have had from pests and diseases coming through in timber packaging. I take the point very seriously indeed. We need to look at all sorts of innovative ways of reusing and recycling plastic. He has given a very good example of the reuse and recycling of materials.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, is it not a question of physician, heal thyself? Should not this House and the Parliamentary Estate look very carefully at its lack of progress in dealing with plastics and other products? Plastics can only be recycled twice, so when one talks about continually recycling plastics, it is not accurate. Would it not be better to look at products such as the bottles being developed by Choose Water, in Scotland, that use no plastics?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is incumbent on us all, whether it is the Government, this House or Parliament. That is why I am very pleased that the Services Committee is looking at this precise point. When I think of the many plastic cups that I see in all our Committee Rooms, I think that we undoubtedly should lead by example.
NHS: Cybersecurity
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the response of the National Health Service to cyber attacks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, as the lessons learned review into the WannaCry attack by the Chief Information Officer for Health and Care set out, the NHS responded well to what was an unprecedented incident. However, a number of areas for improvement were also identified. Consequently, several immediate actions were taken to improve the cyber resilience of the NHS. They included updating and testing incident plans and investing more than £60 million to improve security in local IT infrastructure.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the measures that have been taken, but the noble Lord will know that recently the Public Accounts Committee has identified that his department and the NHS were wholly unprepared for what was a relatively unsophisticated attack, and that many trusts failed to act on warnings that they had been given to patch exposed systems. I understand that the committee said that, extraordinarily, at the time it took evidence some trusts had still not patched up their systems. My understanding is that that is because those systems were linked to the use of medical equipment, and in patching up the systems they could have damaged a lot of the service-giving infrastructure. That suggests that the NHS is in a very poor condition indeed to deal with this kind of threat in the future. Can he reassure me that the recent announcement by the Secretary of State will really do the job?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The PAC review found that the use of Windows XP was at the heart of the problem, as an unsupported and unpatched system. Several things have happened as a consequence. First, XP usage has gone down from 18% in 2015 to 1.7% now. We also have a customer support agreement with Microsoft now and are transitioning to Windows 10, which is of course fully supported and much more secure. We also have a system now called cursor collect. The notifications that go out, called cursor notifications, are due to be acted on within 48 hours. That exposes the fact that we did not have a way of tracking that. We now have a way of tracking that and enforcing action at trust level. So there is a much higher degree of security than there was. Of course, no security is ever perfect and our vigilance carries on.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, in Scotland it is possible for your records to be transferred from one hospital to another or from your GP to your hospital without any consequences at all. One of the concerning things about the Public Accounts Committee report is the systemic failures in IT overall in NHS England. One example is where regional hospital A cannot receive data from district hospital B, even if it is a simple blood test, because they use different systems; the consultant I spoke to said that he actually advises people to use faxes. This is our NHS in the 21st century.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is highlighting a historic problem about interoperability between different bits of the NHS in England. That is absolutely fair enough. I would highlight two things that we are doing. First, the National Data Guardian for Health and Care has defined 10 data standards that should apply to both security and interoperability between different systems, and those now apply in all key NHS contracts, including the standard NHS contract. Secondly, we have launched a programme to appoint up to five local health and care record exemplars, which will provide interactive and interoperable data for patients for their direct care—so that the issue we have at the moment of data sometimes falling between different institutions will not happen any more.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, obviously data security is absolutely vital, but so is the collection of data. If we are going to move forward it is so important that we collect that data for research and treatment. Can my noble friend the Minister give us some kind of indication of how we can make sure that the general public feel happy to give their data to the health service?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My noble friend makes an excellent point. Not only is it critical that data is joined up for direct care—quite rightly, patients are amazed when that does not happen—it is an absolutely essential resource for research into new treatments. One thing we are doing to try to provide that reassurance to the public, which has not always been there, is introducing a new data opt-out at the end of this month to provide that reassurance for patients who do not want to be part of it. We are focused on providing that resilience and security so that they can be confident that, when the NHS holds their data, it uses it securely, safely and legally.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, one of the lessons learned following the WannaCry attack was that the weakest links in the NHS had to be identified. The Minister has already referred to the upgrading of software that was found to be weak. What work is being done to identify other areas in the NHS that would be open to cyberattacks?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Lord makes an excellent point. One thing we are now doing is more intelligence-led penetration testing based on work that the Bank of England does, which is to probe in a safe way any weaknesses and to make sure that they are dealt with. The CQC has also added data security to its well-led criteria for inspections. We have now demanded that a board member of each trust takes responsibility for cybersecurity. Indeed, for a trust to be rated as well led, it has to demonstrate that competence.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, one of the things that happened when this occurred made it clear that NHS trusts did not follow the instructions they were given to patch their systems. Is the Minister assured that, if this were to happen in future, trusts would follow, without exception, the instructions given?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am absolutely assured that they would perform much better than they did that time. I do not think I can give the assurance that every single one would do it, because there are still capacity issues in some trusts. The investment that we are carrying out is designed to deal with that. It is a much better performance, but we need to make sure that we are always vigilant for weakness in the system.
Health: Cancer Nurses
(5 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the shortage of more than 400 specialist cancer nurses reported by Macmillan Cancer Support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome Macmillan Cancer Support’s report, which acknowledges the fact that the number of specialist cancer nurses has increased by nearly 1,000 full-time equivalent posts, or by 30%, since 2014. There is more to do, however, and Health Education England is working closely with Macmillan and the cancer alliances, so that we can achieve our aim that every cancer patient has access to a specialist cancer nurse by 2021.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. The census also pointed to the facts that there are vacancy rates as high as 15% for chemotherapy nurses in some areas, that the proportion of specialist cancer nurses who are over 50 years old continues to climb, and that almost one in 10 specialist cancer nurses comes from the European Union. We know that there has been a cliff edge for recruitment from the European Union. I want to ask two questions. First, will the Minister assure the House that this census will be used by the Department of Health and Social Care, Health Education England and the cancer alliances to inform their strategic workforce planning? Secondly, will he explain what steps the department has taken to assess the level of funding required to deliver the recommendations contained in the Cancer Workforce Plan, including the long-term strategy?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right that the Macmillan report highlights some challenges around vacancy rates and the age profile of cancer nurse specialists. It was explicitly set out in the cancer workforce strategy that it would have a phase 2 of planning once the census had been published. This census has been published, so there is an absolute commitment by Health Education England to work with Macmillan and the cancer alliances to bottom out how many more staff are required to meet the standard that we have set out—for every patient to see a cancer nurse specialist by 2021—and how many extra people we would need to recruit for that, and therefore to deliver the funding that would enable that to happen.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the General Medical Council. What assessment have the Government made of the effect on cancer services of the repeated refusal of visas to overseas doctors qualified to work here, and who have been recruited by the NHS to work here, but not being allowed to enter the country because of Home Office policies? Given the severe shortages of doctors across the board in the NHS, not just in A&E, is it not time that the cap on tier 2 visas for doctors was lifted?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness will know that the NHS benefits from many of those visas issued under tier 2, which obviously has great benefits for our workforce. It is in the long-term interests of this country that we recruit more of our staff, wherever possible, from the domestic workforce. On that basis, Health Education England has committed to increase the number of cancer consultants by more than 20% between 2016 and 2021, as well as increasing the number of radiographers and others.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend really think it necessary that specialist cancer nurses are educated to degree level? If he does think that, given that because of their levels of remuneration most of the student loan will not be paid back, would it not be a good idea to consider writing off those student loans for those nurses who stay for a period within the health service?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
What comes to life in the cancer workforce strategy and the Macmillan report is the complexity of the workload that these nurses carry out, so a very high level of qualification is required. One thing we do not have at the moment is a national competency framework, which is being designed. Funding for nurses is obviously a topic that we come to often in this House and it is worth noting that the income point at which repayment of the loan starts has been increased by this Government, to make sure that lower-paid nurses and other staff are alleviated from that burden.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, how many nurses from overseas have applied to work in the National Health Service and have been refused permission on the grounds of the arbitrary target set by the Prime Minister, as exemplified by the 100 Indian doctors who wish to work here and have fallen foul of this arbitrary rule?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I do not believe that nurses would have fallen into that category as nursing is named as a shortage profession in the immigration system, but I would have to check those figures and I will write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the failure to screen nearly half a million women for breast cancer is a scandal. When it is coupled with the report of Macmillan Cancer Support, it has really been a bad few days for cancer. Immediate action is required on both counts. Is it the Government’s view that this shortage of cancer nurses is due to local budget constraints or to workforce planners’ failure to act on the demographic trend of the ageing workforce?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, regarding the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State earlier today about the errors in the breast cancer screening programme, I take this opportunity to apologise wholeheartedly and unreservedly on behalf of the Government, Public Health England and the NHS for the suffering and distress that has been caused to women by this flaw in the screening service. We will have an opportunity to discuss this at greater length tomorrow, when I will repeat the Statement.
The shortage that has been described is based on an analysis of vacancy rates. The number of cancer nurse specialists has actually increased by 1,000—that is 30%—in the last three years alone. That is a huge increase. Of course we know that we need to do more, but it is worth recognising the great steps forward that we have made in cancer treatment in this country.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, can I take the Minister back to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman? In his answer, he made the rather odd observation that it was in the long-term interest of the service that we should recruit our workforce domestically, and no doubt that is at least an arguable position. However, we are not talking about the long term here: we are talking about the immediate term. In the interest of joined-up government, could he go back to his colleagues at the Home Office and ask them to look again at whether they have made the right decisions in this case?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I reassure the noble Baroness that we have lots of discussions with the Home Office about the recruitment of international doctors and nurses. I reiterate the point, however, that it is our intention to increase the number of training places for doctors and nurses from this country.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 2nd May 2018
(5 years, 12 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(b) Amendment for Report, supplementary to the fifth marshalled list (PDF, 49KB) - (2 May 2018)
18:35 - Division on Amendment 88 - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 242 - Amendment 88 agreed.
Lord Patten of Barnes
“Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
(1) In exercising any of the powers under this Act, a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must—(a) act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and(b) have due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.(2) Nothing in section 7, 8, 9 or 17 of this Act authorises regulations which—(a) diminish any form of North-South cooperation across the full range of political, economic, security, societal and agricultural contexts and frameworks of co-operation, including the continued operation of the North-South implementation bodies, or(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature—(i) physical infrastructure, including border posts,(ii) a requirement for customs or regulatory compliance checks,(iii) a requirement for security checks,(iv) random checks on goods vehicles, or(v) any other checks and controls,that did not exist before exit day and are not subject to an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland.”
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
My Lords, a number of other noble Lords have added their names to my new clause. It is perhaps appropriate to say—as the number of Members in the Chamber is declining—that I have to begin with a confession. Some noble Lords might be rather surprised that what I say will sound remarkably like a statement of government policy. That is because it largely is. I have read very carefully the Government’s position paper on Northern Ireland and Brexit; I have read the other seminal documents—the Mansion House speech and so on—and my speech, I hope, will reflect what I understand to be the Government’s policy both on a frictionless border and on the relationship between the border and the Good Friday agreement.
If at the end of this debate the Minister, with his customary civility, says “What’s the problem? We’re going to do all this anyway. Why bother to put this new clause into the Bill?”, my response will be that while I totally expect him to honour his word and do what the Government have said, I think the Prime Minister and others, such as the Minister, need some support at this moment when a number of their colleagues and Conservative Party Members in the other place, who are very keen on the over-the-cliff, on-to-the-rocks Brexit, are making it rather more difficult for the Prime Minister to square circles than should be the case.
We have debated these issues. We have debated the relationship between the Good Friday agreement and the border on a number of occasions: at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. On Report we passed an amendment on a customs union, which has significant relevance to this. I am not going to go over all that ground again. The vote on a customs union led to the present-day custodians of constitutional propriety calling for fire and brimstone. They were fresh, of course, from their views on the independence of the judiciary, and I do not think any of us take any of that too seriously.
I will not go through all the arguments that were used in those debates. In the debate on the customs union, I will be telegrammatic. I think a number of noble Lords found it difficult to discern the cornucopia of trade possibilities that await us once we have left the customs union. I think it is also true that a number of noble Lords thought that we would have our work cut out to try to replicate some of the existing trade agreements that the European Union, with us as a member, has made elsewhere, for example, with South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam and others. I think it is fair to say that a number of noble Lords pointed out that there are 44 non-EU members of the Commonwealth which have trade agreements with the European Union and that 49 of the poorest countries in the world have access to European markets without any tariff or control over quotas.
During that debate we enjoyed this spring’s parliamentary game: hunt the virtual border. We travelled around the House, we looked under Benches, we looked under the Woolsack, but nobody could find the virtual border. We went from continent to continent looking for it. Since then, I have heard one or two people suggest that it has been discovered and is the border between Switzerland and France, two countries which, I am happy to say, have not been at war for 200 years. That has been referred to as a model of a virtual border for us. Well, if you look up the facts, you discover that the average minimum waiting time for a lorry going from France into Switzerland or the other way is between 30 and 45 minutes, that they have to go through customs checks and, in addition, they have to fill in two lots of VAT forms. Just to make the position absolutely clear, I am indebted—I think this is probably the first time he has been mentioned in this House—to Mr Cyril Kinsky of Wiltshire. He wrote to the Times last week about the frictionless border and noted that he had recently been in Switzerland and had travelled into France to shop at the local French supermarket. He had bought four chickens—poulet fermier, I am sure. He had brought them back into Switzerland, where he had been stopped and hit with a heavy fine. I hope the chickens were tasty. They were certainly not frictionless.
Why is there such a problem that we address in this new clause? There is a problem because, as the excellent Northern Ireland position paper makes clear, the current substantive position in Northern Ireland and the Republic—that is, the existence of a frictionless border—is not to be changed by Brexit. The Prime Minister, perhaps as well as or more than anyone, understands the problem. Two days before the referendum, she said, in effect, that you can be in a customs union and not have a border but outside a customs union you have to have a border. That situation is made much more complicated when you look at the provisions and rules of the World Trade Organization.
Lord Spicer (Con)
I rise having just torn up the speech that I was going to make, as a result of the very eloquent speech that we have just heard, made by the former Hong Kong governor and present chancellor of Oxford University, and a person with whom I entered the Conservative Party on the same day. We entered the research department together on exactly the same day in the 1960s.
It was a very eloquent speech, but it had one flaw. What I agreed with, and why I have torn up my other speech, is that my noble friend is quite right in saying that we cannot mess about with this question of whether we leave or not, or whether there is a border or not. He is absolutely right in saying that we cannot have a sort of fantasy border. If you leave, what it means is that you depart one set of rules and one market to go to another market. He is quite right in saying that at that point, you acquire a border. I absolutely agree with that.
The question is whether the whole future of this country is to be dependent, as his speech seemed to imply, on one issue—our relationship with the Republic of Ireland. Is our whole future to be dependent on that? I have to say that I do not think that it should be. There are ways around it, and they do not include having a fantasy border. For instance, if we have a border between two different markets and we do not go down the path, which was one of my noble friend’s alternatives, of the Republic joining us, what we must have, in the normal way in which these things are done, is a bilateral agreement between Britain and the Republic of Ireland. We should probably do that—make the final agreement—after we have come out, because we will then be totally in charge of our destiny and be able to make whatever agreements we want and the European Union, with which the Republic of Ireland will have to make its peace, will be less inclined to obstruct such a bilateral agreement.
There is no reason why we should not have a bilateral agreement—and there is no reason why we should be particularly nice to the Irish Republic, as it has not been particularly nice to us in recent months. It is absolutely right, however, that we should try to maintain the good will and the pleasant relationship that we have had in recent times, but we can do it in the normal way in which these things are conducted. We do not have to have the whole of our policy towards the European Union obstructed by this one element. My noble friend suggested that to do this, we should turn our backs on what the British people have asked us to do and voted for us to do, which would be an enormous decision for us to have to make and quite wrong, in my view. A lot of what my noble friend said is good sense in terms of the actualities of the border and us leaving a market, but I think that his conclusion is the opposite of the right one.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee, I and others spoke about the importance of paying attention to the voices and rights of the children and young people of Northern Ireland in our considerations, not least because they had no say in the referendum but will live with the consequences long after the rest of us. Indeed, just on Monday, my noble friend Lady Massey reminded us how important it is to consider children in all aspects of our discussions on Brexit. From a meeting that I and others had with some children and young people from Northern Ireland in March, and reading reports of conferences that they themselves had organised, it is clear that they are really anxious about their future rights as citizens of the island of Ireland and about how their lives will be affected on a daily basis if the border issue is not resolved. As one briefing put it:
“Children in NI, and not just those living close to the border, live their lives ‘across’ what has become an increasingly seamless border”.
We owe it to these children of Northern Ireland to provide the certainty of writing the rights and protections into the legislation.
More generally, I and others have also emphasised on a number of occasions the centrality of human rights protection to the Good Friday agreement and, therefore, the importance of ensuring non-diminution of human rights in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit and the maintenance of the equivalence of rights between Northern Ireland and the Republic. On a couple of occasions, I have also raised the fact that civil society organisations in Northern Ireland have asked for movement on a Bill of rights, promised in the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements, as they believe that Brexit makes it even more important now than before. The Minister, who has always been extremely charming and helpful in his responses, has not responded on this point. If he is not able to respond today, I would be grateful for the promise of a letter from him on that. The Minister has otherwise been consistently positive and reassuring on the questions of the Good Friday agreement and the border, which is of course very welcome.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, said in his marvellous opening speech, I do not think there is anything in this amendment that the Government could not agree with. But warm words in this context are not enough. The children, young people and civil society organisations of Northern Ireland are looking for something stronger. That must mean writing such commitments into the Bill itself. That has both practical and symbolic significance. That is why I believe it is crucial that we pass this amendment on behalf of our fellow citizens—children and adults—in Northern Ireland, who are looking to us for firm, legally binding assurances about their future rights.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I put my name to a similar amendment in Committee and, as those who were there will recall, spoke very strongly in favour of it. However, when I saw the draft of this amendment, before it was tabled, I was unhappy about two things. One was that the commitment to entrench the principles of the Good Friday or Belfast agreement had been excised from it; I really do not understand why that is. It is referred to only in oblique ways, by referring not to the agreement but to the Act, which is not the same thing. I think that is a missed opportunity and I do not really see any good reason for it.
However, my main reservation about the amendment concerns proposed new subsection 2(b)(iii). It effectively suggests that one could not accept a requirement for security checks. The noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, has spoken about security and how it can be counter- productive if done in particular ways. I remember very well all the watchtowers and so on that he called to mind; I spent quite a lot of time flying round in helicopters watching soldiers taking them down. But this does not talk about watchtowers; it talks about security checks.
As legislators, we are not expected to be able to predict the future beyond what can reasonably be understood. Donald Rumsfeld advised us about “unknown unknowns”. But there are potential things that are not so unknown at all. Around the time we were coming up to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, Mr Gerry Adams was interviewed by the German magazine Der Spiegel. He was asked whether he felt that terrorism and politically motivated violence was ever justified now. He said that yes, he believed that it was, and Sinn Féin went on to defend him in that stance, some 20 years after the Belfast agreement. In the last month we have also seen a new organisation, the Irish Republican Movement, announcing that it wants to get operational again because it is not happy about how things are going.
I therefore do not ask myself what the situation is with security now, well before exit day, when thankfully we have peace and a considerable deal of tranquillity and agreement within Northern Ireland and between the north and south, which is marvellous. I ask myself how things might develop over the next year or two, when there are those who are unhappy about Brexit and those who want to promote it. That is not the Brexit we are talking about, of Britain exiting the European Union, but the Brexit that is Britain exiting the island of Ireland and leaving Northern Ireland. There are those who are still prepared to use physical force to bring that about. Do they have any significance?
We are likely to see an election in the Republic of Ireland in the next 12 months, between now and Brexit day, and it is wholly within the bounds of possibility that Sinn Féin will be a member of a new coalition. Possibly it would not be with Fine Gael—although who knows? Anybody who would predict politics in any part of the world at the moment must be a courageous individual. But with Fianna Fáil, that is entirely possible. So the backstop protective position is that if there are no security checks near the border, it will be okay because we will be able to negotiate that with the Irish Government; and if it were the current Irish Government, I rather suspect we would be able to do that quickly. But I would not feel the same sense of confidence if there were the possibility of a Sinn Féin coalition Government.
Of course, if there was a major outbreak of violence, it might be possible to sit down and have that negotiation. However, what would happen if our security services had good information that a real danger was coming from across the border, not just to Northern Ireland but to this part of the United Kingdom, and they needed to get into negotiations with the Irish Government to introduce certain kinds of security checks which had not existed for some years and do not exist now? Are we confident that that could be addressed promptly, and that Sinn Féin would say, “The British security services have said this—that is absolutely dependable; we know we should act with responsibility in that regard, and we will act promptly and immediately against other Republicans”? Maybe it would, but “maybe” is not sufficient.
In February 1996 a huge bomb broke the IRA ceasefire, here in this city, in Docklands. Two people were killed, 100 people were injured and £150 million of damage was done. Where did that bomb come from—the Home Counties, Wales, Scotland or west Belfast? No; it came from the South Armagh Brigade of the IRA, from the border area we are talking about. I simply want to have the confidence—and I do not see it in this component of this otherwise excellent amendment—that if our security services were clear that the Irish Republican Movement or some other organisation had decided to create a bomb to do damage in my part of the United Kingdom or in this part, they would be able to act freely and with the alacrity necessary to ensure that a disaster does not happen.
That is why—I say this with deep regret, because I support the spirit of the amendment—this wording is not entirely wise. I have talked to a number of colleagues, who say, “Don’t worry, John: it’ll be fine, because other legislation will let us get through that”. But that is not what it appears to say, and if there are other ways round it, it will simply justify in Irish minds that phrase “perfidious Albion”: we say one thing but we mean something different because we have a legal way round. That is why, with regret, I fear that I cannot support this otherwise excellent amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the amendment was moved with eloquent brilliance by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I want to add a few words based on my nine and a half years’ experience as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the close interest that I have taken in Northern Ireland, and specifically the border, since then. Before I do, however, and with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, whom I admire greatly—I mean that genuinely—may I point out to him that he may have misunderstood the words of the part of the amendment that he just referred to? The amendment does not allow an intergovernmental requirement for security checks. There is absolutely no question that security checks will be required from time to time. I have been in security checks myself from time to time in Northern Ireland and they have been put in place and removed ad hoc extremely quickly. I have seen them happen at extraordinary speed within minutes. So I ask the noble Lord if he would not mind having another look at that part of the amendment before encouraging other noble Lords, if there is a vote, to vote against it or by voting against it himself.
I have spent time in Northern Ireland, including time with Sinn Féin Members of the legislative Assembly. I regret very much that Sinn Féin MPs do not take their seats in the other place. They could make a very useful contribution on the subject of Northern Ireland and Ireland in general. I disagreed with an awful lot of what they did before, but my observation from the time that I have spent with them, including, on one occasion, making the journey from Belfast down to South Armagh and observing how the person in question operated as an elected representative in that part of the world, is that they have committed themselves to the constitutional arrangements which appertain in Northern Ireland. That is because of one event: the Good Friday agreement and all that has flowed from it. A large number of institutions have been built as a result of that agreement. If we look at the membership of the legislative Assembly when it sits, particularly at the identity, experience and backgrounds of today’s Sinn Féin Members, most stand as elected representatives whose integrity could be compared to almost any other legislative body in Europe. We have come an incredible distance over those years.
On the present situation, I have heard all the encouraging words from the Government—and rather less encouraging words from the European Union—that there will be a resolution of the Northern Ireland situation. But it has not happened. In my view, we are no nearer to a solution being presented by the Government than we were in Committee or a year ago. The situation today, on Report, requires us to vote for this well-constructed amendment because this will tell both our Government and the European Union that this is a subject that cannot be neglected. Indeed, this subject should never have been part of Brexit. It is something that should have been negotiated in the first week so that we were not sitting in your Lordships’ House worrying—and this is the greatest worry of all—about Brexit as we approach, rather more quickly than we would have wished, 29 March next year.
We must give every bit of encouragement to an early solution of this problem that does not involve any of the difficulties that we have talked about time and again in this House. If the matter is put to a vote, I encourage noble Lords to go with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and to follow his eloquence into the Content Lobby.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, a few weeks after the result of the referendum was announced, I ventured to suggest to your Lordships’ House that the question of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would suddenly become crucial to the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. On that occasion, several noble Lords told me not to worry; I was told that, like all things, it would find its own place further down the line on a coming day.
With what I hope is self-imposed humility, my feeling now is “I told you so”—not because of a line on the map that could be easily seen in any atlas, but because of the symbolism of what that line stood for in the development of the island of Ireland, particularly Northern Ireland. That line is no longer our border; it is your border. It is our collective border with the EU, so some of the significance of what has worried us in continuous Brexit debates takes on a new light for one simple reason: the people of Northern Ireland are not on their own in worrying about the consequences of the border. It is of equal concern, as it should be, to the people of Scotland, Wales and England—the United Kingdom—and because of that, a growing apprehension is developing in Northern Ireland that, if I may say so, we will be left to carry the can. In the light of what has already been said, this is an extremely dangerous apprehension and situation. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Patten—not only today but previously —connection with the symbolism of the border touches on culture, politics, social media and education. It covers the entire breadth of the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland.
When I began my professional career more years ago than I care to remember, it would have been unimaginable to talk about the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic as we do today. Progress has been made, due not only to political understanding and growing maturity on both sides but, equally, to our having come through the chequered history of the past 30 or 40 years. There is a lot more hanging on this debate than simply the security and arrangements on the border. The reversal—or the danger of the reversal—of all that has been achieved is at stake. The peace process is still a growing infant. The absence of an Administration at Stormont makes it very difficult for one aspect of progress—the cross-border institutions—to work at the moment. A lot of us put faith in those institutions because they were doing practical things in practical ways but now, with the Administration at Stormont absent, it is difficult.
On first glancing at the wording of the amendment, I would have said, “I have no problem with that. I am delighted to support it because it’s saying the things that the people of Northern Ireland want to hear”. Then, I paused. I am still pausing because I have come to the debate in what I call a listening mood. I am listening not just for the constant, ongoing repeat of Her Majesty’s Government giving us assurances. That will not change. It is copper-fastened. It is not that assurance I am looking for from Her Majesty’s Government, but the assurance that says, “We understand that some of the institutions and achievements of your peace process are worth protecting, supporting, keeping in place and allowing to develop”. I want to hear that from the Minister. I do not want to hear the usual repeated reassurance, which, because it is repeated so often, loses a lot of its impact. I look to Her Majesty’s Government to say not just to this House but to the people in Northern Ireland that there are certain things we will stand over.
I turn to the words of the amendment. I ask myself: what is wrong with it? Why cannot I, with my experience over the years, say that this is marvellous, I want to support it and see it through and backed up? It is simply this. Just the other day, the chief negotiator of the European Union visited Ireland. I think he is still there. In the course of a press conference he said that the EU will not allow the conversations to go on until there is sufficient movement by the United Kingdom on the question of the border. I once tried to teach jurisprudence to those who were prepared to listen. As at least one of your Lordships will remember very well, I tried to get through to the students that the secret of success was often to look at the meaning of words. In any negotiation there has to be compromise and give and take. Did the chief negotiator mean that there will be a lot of give and take once we move on the border, or was he saying, “We will move if you move”? Was he going even deeper? Was he warning us that, “Unless certain requirements in the control and operation of our border are met according to our terms, we will not continue to help you to get Brexit”? This might be unimaginable to those who see the road to Brexit as paved with gold, but I suggest that there is a lot more to it.
I say to the Minister, who has impressed us all with the way he has handled the sensitivities of post-Good Friday Northern Ireland: reassure me. Tell me that I am worried unduly that there might be a gap in the words of the amendment from another person I greatly respect. What can he say to me, who has come through so much of the past with and among the people of Northern Ireland, as Primate not just of the Church in Northern Ireland but with responsibility for the whole of the island? I can honestly say that I know a little of what I am talking about.
I have one final point to add to the Minister’s growing vocabulary of life in Northern Ireland. There is a wonderful town, the town of my birth, called Lurgan. Out of that town have emanated a great many wise sayings. The one in my mind at the moment is: call a spade a spade. When you talk, call a spade what it is—a spade; when you talk, tell the truth, because you believe it; and when you pontificate, make sure that you do so with sincerity. So, Minister, I, for one, am listening.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. I share his concern about some possible dangers in the situation, although not perhaps in quite the way he expressed it—but I shall come back to that later.
I recall a question that was asked of a leading member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party shortly after the beginning of the inter-party talks. The interviewer asked him whether he was confident that Sinn Féin and the republican movement would stick with the political process. The reply was: he trusted the circumstances that led Sinn Féin to that point. My interpretation of it was they were not necessarily coming of their own good will; they had not had a damascene conversion; they were coming because the circumstances left them with this option. I agree, too, with the comments about how Sinn Féin Members elected to the Assembly have carried out their functions and it would take a very unusual situation to move them away from where they are.
I point to these circumstances because I think that it is a mistake to link this process, this legislation, with the maintenance of peace in Northern Ireland. I do not see a connection in the terms that have been said and I am dubious about whether this should be addressed as any more than scaremongering, and scaremongering on a fairly limited basis.
However, there are things to worry about. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, referred to what Monsieur Barnier has been saying and saw various ways of interpreting that, the third of which was the bleakest and, I think, the nearest to the truth. That is because pressure has been coming from Brussels and Dublin for some time for a significant change to be made to how Northern Ireland is governed. The drive is there to get Northern Ireland into a special situation: linked permanently to the European Union and with the union with the rest of the United Kingdom to that extent weakened. That is what Barnier openly called for a couple of days ago; it is implicitly what Coveney said in a newspaper article a week or two ago, where he called on the British Government to abandon some of their red lines in pursuit of peace and prosperity—so the threat is there as well. If that goes down the way—here I should say that our own Government have rejected this proposal; some of it was published some time ago—there is a danger that the things being said today and how the vote goes may strengthen the hand of Barnier in his demands on us and weaken the hands of our own Government. There has to be careful consideration of that.
I have not yet mentioned the amendment. I had thought of going through it in a little detail, but I shall confine myself to just one bit, subsection (1) of the proposed new clause. That reads,
“a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must—
(a) act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998”.
I am all in favour of that. I am all in favour of acting in accordance with the terms of the agreement; I have a personal affection for that agreement. I will not go into detail on that, because it would take too long, but it is something I would like to see.
Then we come down to the very last line of the amendment. It talks about various things,
“not subject to an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland”.
What is missing? There is something very important missing. There is no reference to the people of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Executive. Do not dodge that by saying, “Oh, the Assembly is not sitting at the moment”. There is a very important principle here, which is at the heart of the agreement. The heart of the agreement contained what we call the principle of consent with regard to the people of Northern Ireland, their future and the institutions they create.
A long time ago, back in the 1970s, Governments tried to impose an arrangement on the people of Northern Ireland, through the Sunningdale agreement. Another long time ago the Anglo-Irish agreement was made, without reference to the views of the people of Northern Ireland. Both were huge decisions and big mistakes by the British and Irish Governments which prolonged the political instability, and the violence as well. When we got to the agreement, thankfully by then the two Governments had learned the lesson and the negotiations fully involved the people of Northern Ireland and we, collectively, took control of that—“ownership” is the term used. This amendment would deny us that.
Some people have gone around suggesting that Brexit might damage the Good Friday agreement. Brexit is not going to damage the Good Friday agreement; this amendment will, because it excludes the people of Northern Ireland. If future arrangements are to be made over the Northern Ireland border it is obvious that you have to have the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives closely involved in that. If not, you are going to make the same mistake.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
On that last point, surely the reference to the UK and Irish Governments contains the basic assumption that there will be extended talks with the Northern Irish Government, and it refers to the fact that the British and Irish Governments are the official guarantors of the agreement.
Lord Trimble
In the examples I mentioned, going back to 1985 and 1973, there was no consultation by Her Majesty’s Government with the unionist elected representatives. The Irish Government, of course, consulted closely with nationalists, so there was that imbalance. In any event, I come back to the amendment and I think that the proposed new clause has the wrong approach and should be looked at again.
I have one other point and it is simply this: we made the agreement 20 years ago; it was a bit rough at times for a short period afterwards but it has settled in. There are still some difficulties but I am quite sure that those difficulties will be overcome and these institutions will survive because they have the wholehearted endorsement of the people of Northern Ireland. In doing it, we also helped to change the relationship between Belfast and Dublin and, indeed, between Dublin and London to a certain extent as well: relations between them in recent years have been very good. They have been extremely good and I am delighted, but the behaviour at the moment of the Irish Prime Minister and Coveney, backed up by the European Union, is actually destroying that relationship and doing considerable damage to it. I know that we cannot directly affect that, but the message should go out very clearly to Dublin and to Brussels that they are not to continue to damage the basis of our institutions in pursuit of some petty objective, such as getting yourself elected as the head of a European body in Brussels.
That is where I want to stop. It is hugely important that the Government stand firm on this proposal to move to what is called the backstop and against a situation where Northern Ireland is to be moved away from the rest of the United Kingdom and permanently attached to Brussels, as far as these things are concerned. That is the wrong way to go.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment, moved so compellingly by the noble Lord, Lord Patten.
The land border between the United Kingdom and Ireland is a state border—for tax, excise and legal jurisdiction. It is also a border across which public services connect, public agencies operate, people make their daily commute, livestock graze and goods flow back and forth without restriction. The levels of integration across the Irish border are among the closest in the world, bringing material economic benefit to the island—particularly to Northern Ireland—and, even more importantly, a remarkable transformation of a border that fewer than 20 years ago was a highly securitised boundary, close to which hundreds of people lost their lives. Soldiers, police officers, customs officials, farmers, factory workers, musicians and teenagers were all killed near the border because of a conflict about the border.
The 1998 Good Friday agreement and the Act that followed it, which is referred to in the amendment—I point that out to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—brought that conflict to an end by making the border a point of co-operation, without raising questions about the sovereignty or constitutional integrity of either the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. This was made much easier by the fact that common EU membership of the United Kingdom and Ireland had already removed many of the barriers to such co-operation and movement. This was because the EU came to form a customs union and create a single market, both of which transcended state boundaries. Thus from the quiet rural hamlets of Fermanagh and Monaghan to the busy border towns of Newry and Dundalk there is no need for customs controls, no tariffs payable, no need to pay VAT at the border, and no checks for quality, standards or regulatory compliance.
As a line of soft integration between the UK and Irish jurisdictions, the Irish border has faded into relative insignificance, allowing Irish and British citizens—nationalists and unionists—both to feel quite comfortable in Northern Ireland. Given the bitter sectarian and violent history, this is a remarkable achievement. But it is also a fragile one, and we ignore that at our peril. To withdraw from the EU is to remove Northern Ireland from the conditions that currently make the Irish border so frictionless. Finding a resolution to the border conundrum while respecting Brexit must somehow preserve those connections and protect those benefits of co-operation. This is an economic necessity as well as a political imperative.
In their joint report with the European Union of December last, the UK Government repeated their commitment to protecting the operation of the 1998 agreement and to the avoidance of a hard border. Indeed, they went so far as to preclude,
“any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls”.
The amendment would bring into legal effect the commitments the UK Government have already made to the European Union and to everyone. In Brussels, a means of doing so in legally operable terms in the withdrawal agreement is currently being negotiated. It is essential that we do likewise in passing this amendment to the Bill.
Any customs partnership must be tight and seamless enough to avoid such checks while ensuring that the border is not a back door into the EU’s single market. Any technological facilitation must not entail physical infrastructure, random checks or compliance checks at any point. The amendment will provide much-needed security and legal certainty, with no fudges, creeping barriers or sly erosion of the finely honed balance. It will ensure that cross-border movement, north-south co-operation and day-to-day, mundane integration will continue to happen unimpeded. It does not tie the Government’s hands on the precise solution, except to insist upon what everyone says they want anyway: namely, a border as free, open and invisible as it is today. In my view this can only mean reproducing in some form the customs, trade, rules of origin, standards and regulatory arrangements that we now have across it.
It is our responsibility to ensure that Brexit does not mean the emergence, at any level, of any new conflict about the border, because that would be both economically catastrophic and politically lethal. That is why this amendment is so vital.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Patten on a most impressive and, if I may say so, entertaining introduction to this subject. Having enjoyed listening to his speech, I think anyone who saw this amendment would say, “It’s all pretty obvious, isn’t it? There’s an overwhelming case and it must be right”. But then we had a little opening into the world of Northern Ireland in the contributions that came from one or two of those who are more closely involved directly with the Province and understand some of the background to it. The noble and right reverend Lord—a former Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland—and the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Trimble, have spoken and they have echoed some of my concern about this. Everybody wants to see the concept that is contained in this amendment; my concern is about putting it into legislation in this form.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, raised the details, as do I. We are back in the same country that we were in during our discussion on the proposed clause on the meaningful vote. That amendment got longer and longer as dates were added into it that would complicate it. My noble friend Lord Callanan shakes a rueful head as I say that. The complications introduced seemed to me to make the position of the Government in their negotiations increasingly difficult. I echo the surprise about the activities of Monsieur Barnier, negotiating with different bodies within the United Kingdom. I do not know whether he asked permission to do that and whether it was agreed but I thought that was open to question, in the circumstances.
Looking at the situation, the amendment has all this detail set down. Is it all exactly right? Will it all be held tight or will it be subject to legal challenge thereafter? All sorts of complications arise within this. I have devoted quite a few years of my life, both in Northern Ireland and in defence, to trying to see what we now see as the much happier, and hopefully continuing, life in Northern Ireland. I have written too many letters of condolence to people—there are others here who carried similar responsibilities and know what I am talking about—about those who stood to try to ensure a happier future for people in the Province and for everybody on the island of Ireland. I am therefore determined to see that, whatever comes out of Brexit, we do not undermine the important advances that have been made. However, then I look at the details of this amendment.
I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, glossed a bit over the arrangements and problems that I had over the Anglo-Irish agreement, which was of course the start of the peace process and led on to the further discussions in which we introduced the principle of consent. There was one item that I had to stand on continually. I was challenged by unionists who said, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will remember well, that we had sold out to the Irish Government and no longer was Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom, a sovereign country. They said that we had let joint authority be introduced and that the Irish Government were able to rule part of Northern Ireland in that respect. All that time, with some personal embarrassment and threat to myself on certain occasions, I stood to make it absolutely clear that joint authority was not contained in it. We would listen with good will, attention and interest to any representations the Irish Government wished to make. They had a perfectly legitimate interest in the interests of the nationalist community of Northern Ireland but, in the final analysis, joint authority did not exist. The United Kingdom Government have the responsibility for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we maintained that position.
I am not a lawyer, so I tried to consult the Convenor of the Cross Benches on this. I see the last line of this amendment introducing something like a touch of joint authority. I spent a lot of my life persuading and assuring people in the Province that we would not have joint authority, but we seem to have it here. This is exactly the problem that I tried to raise on the meaningful vote issue and I raise it on this as well. Although the intention is good and the ambition absolutely right, we now start the complication of drawing up a very specific and long, detailed amendment. That is not the way to go. We make our position absolutely clear: I expect the Government to achieve those objectives, and I would look very hard indeed and wonder what my vote would be in the final analysis. There will be a final parliamentary vote at the end of these proceedings if we do not get a satisfactory outcome that we all wish to see for Northern Ireland, but this amendment is not helpful.
Lord Carswell (CB)
My Lords, I have lived all my life in Belfast. That is rather a long time: even longer than my old and valued, noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames has. During those years, I have been backwards and forwards across the border many, many times, without let or hindrance. That is why I want to focus—just for the purpose of my remarks this afternoon—on subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause. I am not going to touch on the rest of it: there are many good things in the rest of the new clause, but I will say nothing about them. However, one thing is very clear: people of good will all agree on the ideal of the smoothest possible operation of the passage of people, goods, livestock and vehicles across the border. However, that good will needs something more: it needs good sense. When that criterion is applied, I fear that it is rather more difficult to accept the portion of proposed new subsection of (2)(b) that deals with this. It would, in effect, have the consequence of fixing everything in aspic: not a stone to be moved, not a blade of grass to be bent unless the two Governments agree.
Recent history does not give us any great confidence in that. I say with regret that the approach of the EU negotiators to this issue has been rigid and intransigent to the point of being obstructive. I am equally sorry to say that the Government of the Republic have thrown themselves in line with that. That is most regrettable because their predecessors were taking a very much more constructive, co-operative and sensible line. When the present Government took over, they immediately reversed that policy to being equally difficult—if I may put it as politely as possible—as the EU.
What the amendment really appears to involve, if the Governments do not agree, is the status quo, which in effect means a full customs union: either the whole United Kingdom with the EU or Northern Ireland alone with the EU. I am afraid that I would find it equally impossible to support them. I hope that sense will prevail and that it will triumph over experience, but, as with all the old phrases about hope and experience, it is difficult to be entirely confident. If it does not, what will happen? I am talking about this imprecise and unfortunately misleading phrase of a hard border.
I ask your Lordships to look at three facts. First, it would not involve some sort of iron curtain. I lived through times, personally and professionally, with a real hard border during what we called the Troubles, with checkpoints manned by armed soldiers, border posts, watchtowers looming over the countryside—dreadful things—large numbers of roads closed off, bridges destroyed and roads cratered to stop access. There is no suggestion, and should never be, that we want to return to that or will do so. Going back before we joined the EEC as it was, I remember the border. It was an ordinary border between states. There were customs officers, you had to have a triptyque for your car and there were inspections, but they were not terrible obstructive or difficult to negotiate. With the greater volume of trade these days, we will want to do something better than that and, if possible, not return to that.
Secondly, the passage of persons has never been a problem—the common travel area sees to that. When I was a youngster in the 1940s and early 1950s, I rode my bicycle up and down to Dublin many times, and nobody looked sideways at me. In the 1970s and 1980s my dear late mother sat happily on the train travelling down to visit my brother who lives in Dublin. That is not a problem and should never be.
Thirdly, as noble Lords have mentioned, the Provisional IRA war ended 20 years ago, and it has stayed that way. Most of the perpetrators of dissident violence are dissident republicans who, in various manifestations, have been causing violence in smallish quantities compared with what it was, but it is still there. The source of discontent leading to violence in the first place was nothing to do with the border and its arrangements. It was a wholly different fons et origo. I am not going to go into it now, but it was focused on discontent which had many sources and many problems in it from other directions. I am sorry to say that those who talk up the risk of a resumption of violence are misguided. It is an emotive argument, another project fear, which was roundly described a few days ago by a highly respected, very experienced and very independent-minded commentator in the Belfast Telegraph as “quite simply scaremongering”.
We need to look realistically at what could be arranged even in the absence of agreement between Governments. Technology is advancing at a dizzying rate. The possibility of resorting to it has been dismissed airily by the EU negotiators, and I am sorry to say that the Irish Taoiseach has run along with that and dutifully repeated their sentiments by talking about magical thinking. One of the things I have seen practically no mention of during the whole of this affair is an important document which emanates from the EU itself. A report by Lars Karlsson, a senior customs officer in Sweden, was commissioned by the policy department of the EU Parliament. It goes into very great detail about possible technological devices and concludes that a border arrangement can be managed,
“that serves both sides of the border with maximum predictability, speed and security and with a minimum burden and cost for traders and travellers”.
The report says it could be done,
“using a combination of international standards, global practices and state-of-the-art technology”.
It is much too long and too complex to try to summarise now, but I commend that report to your Lordships’ attention. I am quite sure there could be an extended argument about its viability, and I would not dispute that, but it requires consideration.
I cannot say whether it received any attention during the negotiations with the EU, but it is the EU’s own document and it deserves attention. Perhaps ideally to get to the situation that the report suggests requires governmental agreement and we may be going round in a circle. Indeed, it might not produce as easy arrangements as many people would like. But it shows that it is not necessary to resort to the complete status quo and not necessary to adopt the customs union which would be, in effect, the result of this amendment. Perhaps we should all remember, in this aspect of the withdrawal as well as others, that the best is the enemy of the good. I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I almost hesitate to take part in this debate because I do not have the specialist knowledge and understanding of many who have spoken about Northern Ireland. But I do know a little about sectarianism because I was born and brought up in the west of Scotland. Although there was never violence, none the less, there was deep division. Some of that may have been alleviated, but from time to time it still expresses itself, not least when two football teams play against each other.
I want to go back to the terms of the amendment, because I hope I may be able to alleviate the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Alderdice. It is important to consider the whole terms of the proposed clause. It begins by saying:
“In exercising any of the powers under this Act”—
so it confines its application to this Act and not to any other Act. Subsection (2) says:
“Nothing in section 7, 8, 9 or 17 of this Act authorises regulations”—
among which my noble friend picked out with anxiety subsection (2)(b)(iii) relating to,
“a requirement for security checks”.
It is only if a Minister of the Crown, with the authority and powers conferred on them by these sections proposes to act, that these other matters arise. That does not preclude in any circumstances, nor could it, the exercise of other powers for the purpose of security.
The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, knows more about this and was properly rewarded for his enormous contribution to the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland. He talks about the very last two lines of the amendment:
“that did not exist before exit day and are not subject to any agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland”.
Many individuals, like the noble Lord, argue fervently that the United Kingdom as a whole left, or proposes to leave, the European Union and therefore the reference to “Her Majesty’s Government” is entirely consistent with the position which says: “Irrespective of the views of the people of Northern Ireland, who after all voted to stay, none the less, it is the Government of the whole of the United Kingdom to which are accorded both the responsibility and the power”.
If this matter were easy, why has there not been a solution? I think I am correct in saying that I do not believe any of those who have spoken have offered a solution. We know that the Cabinet is divided. We know that that Robespierre, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, has already issued yet another of his threats. We know that the Government are deeply divided. If this is a simple issue, perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us precisely what the solution to this matter is that the Government now endorse. I think I can argue with some force that they have had plenty of time to get to that conclusion.
As has already been said, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the Good Friday agreement is a fragile piece of agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, shakes his head. From time to time there are terrorist outrages in Northern Ireland, and were it not to be fragile in any way one would not have expected the kind of attacks that we have seen on prison officers and members of the police. I believe the agreement combined both symbolism and practicality, and I support the amendment because it does exactly that.
It is said that those of us who talk about risk are overstating the case. I want the House to remember for a moment how many people on both sides of the argument died, and how many people’s lives were materially affected by the Troubles. I have one illustration in mind, which is entirely personal; other noble Lords will have equally valid and compelling illustrations. I remember the three young privates of the Royal Highland Fusiliers who, on the promise of sexual favours, allowed themselves to be persuaded to go to a flat where they were executed by being shot in the back of the neck.
A huge price has been paid for this agreement, and nothing should be done that has the effect of undermining it. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I rise with a considerable amount of hesitation because I am very conscious of the level of experience in this House on matters pertaining to Northern Ireland, not least my noble friend Lord Patten, who spoke with considerable eloquence in introducing his amendment.
I utterly reject the views expressed in some parts of the media that noble Lords, including my noble friend, should not be allowed to express their views on this issue. That is what we are here to do, it is what we should do, and we should not face the opprobrium of the media in so doing. The issue is whether we get the balance right between advising and scrutinising this important piece of legislation as opposed to blocking it and thwarting the will of the people. That is an issue that I am sure my noble friends have very much in mind as we debate this amendment and all others.
I stand shoulder to shoulder with all noble Lords who wish to see the Good Friday agreement remain intact as we leave the EU. None of us, whether we voted to leave or whether, like me, we voted to remain, wishes to see Brexit undermining that agreement, nor do any of us wish to see Brexit undermining the union of our nation itself. I would find it very difficult—I almost say impossible—to vote for any withdrawal agreement that contained a backstop whereby in the event of no deal a new border or unacceptable new barriers were to arise between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. My fear is that come the autumn the agreement on the future arrangements will be fudge, but it must not and cannot be fudge containing the poison pill of that backstop. People voted to leave the European Union; they did not vote to break up the union that underpins our nation.
The doublethink of the December agreement, in which paragraph 49 says one thing and paragraph 50 another, cannot be allowed to seep into the final agreement, but there is clearly a risk that it might. Given that risk, if this House were to pass the amendment in the name of my noble friend, it would seem odd not to pass another one preventing this Government from creating such a border in the Irish Sea or creating new barriers to trade between one part of the United Kingdom and another in the event of no deal. For if we treasure the Good Friday agreement, as we all clearly do, surely we treasure the union just as much. Would it not be odd for Parliament to stop the Government from erecting new borders on the Irish border only to leave them free to erect them in the Irish Sea? After all, this too is government policy, and it would be unacceptable.
However, I argue that now is not the time to do any of this. We should not pass the amendment nor anything else on this sensitive topic for two simple reasons: first, the Bill is one of process; and, secondly, we must remember where the negotiations stand. We are hurtling towards a reckoning. The EU appears to reject the Government’s concept of a free trade agreement, rejects their approach to customs, is insisting on frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland and is committed to this dreaded backstop as a contingency. Meanwhile, our Government are rejecting membership of a customs union and rightly refusing to accept the EU’s definition of a backstop. As of Monday, this Parliament may be given the power to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
We are approaching a deadlock. The Brexit negotiating chamber is, I fear, beginning to resemble the Little Ease in the Tower of London: so tiny that there is no room to move. As a remainer, I believe that we must honour the referendum result and negotiate an agreement to leave the EU that is in our national interest. The key word in that sentence is “negotiate”. As my noble friend said, in any negotiation there must be compromise. If your Lordships agree on that, it surely follows that we must give the Government room and space to make compromises. The more we put constraints on what the Government can and cannot do in any eventuality, the more it will hinder the Government’s room for manoeuvre.
Rather than put this into legislation, I simply ask your Lordships to think of this. Would it not be better to reserve judgment until we see what the negotiations actually produce? To vote against the amendment is not to vote for a hard Brexit, it is certainly not to vote against the Good Friday agreement, it is simply to vote to give the Government the space they need to negotiate, and then we can and we must decide.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, we are told that unless we remain in the customs union, there will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which would be contrary to the Good Friday agreement and endanger peace in Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, spoke to us illuminatingly just now about the reality of the historical border.
The future of Northern Ireland and of peace in Northern Ireland is of course hugely important, and we have very serious responsibilities with regard to Ireland, but the future of Britain, the future interests of Britain and the future economic opportunities for Britain are just as important—I would contend, more important, as the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, said earlier. The intransigence of Monsieur Barnier and of some remainers, and their ruthless exploitation of the border issue in order to coerce us into remaining in the customs union is inappropriate. Neither should we be coerced by the threat of hypothetical violence, should some border changes need to be made.
As someone who has had family members on both sides of the border and spent a great deal of my life in Ireland, I am fully aware of how terrible the Troubles were and of the extraordinary blessings of peace that the Good Friday agreement has brought about. One of the virtues of the Good Friday agreement is that, through it, the people of Northern Ireland have learned to live with complexity and uncertainty. With the spirit of compromise advocated by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, with pragmatism, good will and the smart use of technology, a workable solution can be found. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, was somewhat dismissive of the possibilities of creating a virtual border, but I understand that the Cabinet sub-committee is, quite rightly, looking at that very issue this afternoon. I think it would be wise of the Republic of Ireland to look equally seriously at that option, which would be very much in the interests of the economy of Ireland.
There are other possible solutions to this problem. This is perhaps not the moment to elaborate on them, but I just note—my noble friend encourages me. One possibility would be for us, when we are no longer members of the European Union and not in a customs union, to decide to abolish tariffs. That would be good for our own people and would very satisfactorily address the border issue.
Another solution—I would not wish events to play out in this way, but it would be entirely within the letter and spirit of the Good Friday agreement—would be for there to be a referendum in Northern Ireland, in which the people of Northern Ireland could decide for themselves whether they wished to be reunited with Ireland. After all, 56% of them voted to remain; it would be an opportunity to test how serious they are about that. If that was the decision that they took, that, too, would solve the problem of the border. I emphasise that it is not a resolution that I would like to see—but it is nonsense to say that there are no policy solutions other than staying in the customs union.
I finally note that it is a curiosity to me that Amendment 88 effectively gives the Government of Ireland a veto on the list of policy options in relation to the border that is set out in the amendment. Since this Government of Ireland take their instructions from the EU, it effectively gives a veto to the EU. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned in the debate on the customs union the other day that he has experience of international negotiations. I would just ask him whether he really thinks that it is wise to legislate to give to the people you are negotiating with a veto on crucial issues that you are negotiating on. I do not think that that is sensible, realistic or appropriate, and I do not think that we should support this amendment.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to comment on proposed new subsection (2)(a) and (b) of the amendment and to speak in the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. As a number of noble Lords have said, it is quite true that you could construct a backdrop, to use the phrase of the moment, which says that these amendments do not mean quite what they appear to mean. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is much more serious in saying that it is the nature of Irish political culture that, if we do not at some future point live up to the terms of what apparently is in these amendments, with their strong hint of joint authority between the Irish Republic and Great Britain, we can be certain that Irish public opinion will take the view that, once again, we have betrayed them and raised expectations. You can be absolutely certain about that. I absolutely accept the good faith of those Peers who have said that, no, it does not mean that, if you read it this way—but it does not matter, because you are dealing in this case with Irish politics.
I want to disagree in one small respect with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, when he said that a Fianna Fáil/Sinn Féin coalition was more likely than one with Fine Gael. Actually, most commentary in Dublin says that they are equally likely propositions. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, made the point that, if you know anything about Irish history, you will know that it is ridiculous, a Fine Gael/Sinn Féin coalition. But we are living in new times; history does not matter—it is the current moment. In the last few weeks, in the Irish press, an email correspondence has been leaked between the Taoiseach’s office in Dublin and Sinn Féin, on a most sensitive matter, showing an intimacy of spirit, which nobody would have believed possible from a Fine Gael Government, and which certainly would not have happened a few years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was a distinguished Minister in Northern Ireland.
So we are now living in new times. I remind this House that the recommendation of our own Select Committee on Europe is that this matter should be dealt with by negotiations ongoing between British and Irish officials—that was going on under the previous Prime Minister in Dublin and was stopped by the new Prime Minister. When noble Lords ask why we are making so little progress in solving this problem, not the least of the reasons is that the recommendation made by our own Select Committee of quiet negotiations between British and Irish officials has been vetoed by this current and new Irish Government. We are living in new times, and historical considerations—much as I hate to say it as a former professor of history—are not actually relevant. This is the sharpness of the current moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is also quite right to say that, although there is a great deal of spirit behind this amendment which one can fully respect, the failure to mention the actual Good Friday agreement as opposed to the Act is a problem, because the Act does not signal in a way that the Good Friday agreement does that the Good Friday agreement was dependent on the agreement between the parties. One great achievement of that agreement between the parties was, for example, the new north-south arrangements for co-operation in agriculture, and one of the most remarkable things about the current moment is the tacit and explicit acceptance by the Democratic Unionist Party, which opposed these things at the time and now accepts them. When they say that they do not want a border in the Irish Sea, they have no opposition whatever to the ongoing north-south co-operation that has carried on. It is, therefore, hobnail boots to put it into this amendment; it is unnecessary and over the top and, once again, has the flavour of joint authority. As the noble Lord, Lord King, says, the whole success of policy since 1985 has been based, at least partly, on separating out the British Government’s intentions from the concept of joint authority.
My final point is on technology. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and indeed other supporters of this amendment are very sceptical about the possible role of technology. I heard his witty reference to the non-frictionless chickens. Last year, however, Bertie Ahern—the former Irish Taoiseach with intimate experience of the peace process—said that the solution was technology on the border plus turning a blind eye to certain forms of smaller trade. That is the former Taoiseach, not a Tory Brexiteer. The Swedish former deputy head of customs, Lars Karlsson, who has been referred to already, gave evidence to the relevant Select Committee in the other place and said that it was possible not to have any infrastructure on the border—key to the technology report. I know that noble Lords dismiss this as magical thinking, but I am certain that there are noble Lords in this House who will have their lives extended by some technological operation that today is magical thinking. We live in a world that is transformed daily by magical thinking and new technological developments. The reason I say this is the vagueness of the phrase “border arrangements” in this amendment. I do not think there is a legal backstop to this. What do we mean exactly by border arrangements?
One possible technological solution, which has been discussed on both sides of the border, is that you carry out any check that may be necessary—which, by the way, would be a really tiny quantity, if you know the amount of checks currently carried out on all our borders—maybe 20 miles in on both sides. This may or may not be a good idea, and it may be the case that there is no technological solution. That is not my point. Does this amendment mean that we cannot discuss any possible technological solutions that may or may not be available? I think that those who tabled the amendment have to explain what they mean by border arrangements. Does it just mean something that happens on that narrow tiny span of the border, or does it cover other possible developments, some of which might be quite benign but might at any rate be worthy of consideration? It is the ambiguity of that term that worries me.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I have my name to this amendment with considerable misgivings, but the misgivings will perhaps shed some lights on why I think it is nevertheless important. Very early on after the referendum, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at a meeting at which I was present that there would be no return to a hard border. This has become a stock phrase, a mantra, but is deeply ambiguous. Some people imagine, “Oh well, at least we are not thinking of going back to the worst of the Troubles, with the particular sort of border there was then”. I am sure it did mean that, but when I asked the Secretary of State how, her answer was, “By passports”. We have been talking about goods and what may be installed at borders to deal with the movement of goods. I believe that, if we are thinking about the principles of the Good Friday agreement, it is the movement of people and respect for people that is really much more important. That answer of “passports”, illuminating as it was, does not tell us who has to have a passport or when they have to show it and to whom. We will need answers to these questions if that “no hard border” intention is to be redeemed. In short, I do not believe that the intention is adequately served by talking about technologies for observing the movement of goods. I am sure that they are interesting and revolutionary—and I am equally sure that we have many people in the island of Ireland who would know how to get round them and subcontract to people below the radar.
If we are to retain the confidence and esteem of people in the island of Ireland—in the north and in the Republic—the important thing is that people feel that the deeper things are honoured, which of course include what we still refer to as the common travel area, with the particular rights it gives to citizens of the Republic in this country. Those rights must be preserved. They are fundamental to the economy of the island of Ireland, and are woven into the fabric of our lives. These people are not foreigners. An old phrase from the former Soviet Union, “near abroad”, comes to mind. This is hardly “abroad”—it is very near abroad. We know these people. But here is the rub: “By passports”. Many of them live here, were born in the Republic and do not have passports, because when you go by boat you do not need one; or they have not been there in a while, or not by air. Passports, biometrically adequate ones, are quite expensive. We have to face the reality that many people will not be able to produce the documentation they need to exercise what amounts to almost dual citizenship. This is nothing to do with the fact that some noble Lords have taken out an Irish passport. I will myself, because I have a birthright to it, but I have never bothered—it has not been important. That is the situation, and we have to think about those people who cannot document that they are Irish. If Brexit happens, I presume that we will not wish to extend the same rights to work, to NHS treatment and to vote, which Irish people get here, to people from other countries who come perhaps via the Irish Republic.
Therefore, we need to have—I am sorry—passports or ID cards for everybody in this situation. This is the human rub that we need to think of before we start wondering about new technologies for the goods which, after all, do not move independently. So let us go back to thinking that the point of this amendment, ultimately, is respect for the principles of the Good Friday agreement, which has made such a difference to life in Northern Ireland, and which means respect for all the people who might be affected by change. We do not want another version of Windrush for Irish citizens living here.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, over a number of months we have listened to many speeches in this House on the Irish border. While I listened to them I wondered whether the speakers were serious about trying to resolve the issue or whether it was another way of stopping Brexit. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, opening the debate, and heard some laughter around the Chamber. I can assure noble Lords in this House that this is no laughing matter. The question of how the Irish border issue might be resolved is a serious one. If your Lordships listen to the Peers from Northern Ireland, there is almost unity of purpose today. We are on the ground in Northern Ireland and we know what people are thinking on this issue.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Order. A large number of Peers still wish to speak and we should hear them.
Lord Robathan
Thank you. The vexed history of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland is known very well by most of the noble Lords in this House. We have heard some very good speeches from the former Lord Chief Justice, the former Primate of All Ireland and former Secretaries of State. The whole history of Northern Ireland is scarred by bad faith, a lack of good will, which we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Carswell, and by intransigence. No side in any debate in Ireland—and no Government indeed—has a monopoly on that intransigence.
We heard from the distinguished historian, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, a short time ago. I was going to mention him anyway. I am not sure if one is allowed to put in a plug for a book, but I will. I read his book Churchill and Ireland only last month. I commend it to everybody in this House. First, it is very readable. Secondly, it shows that, over a period of 50 years, intransigence and a lack of good will led to division, death and conflict. Today, again, we have intransigence in Northern Ireland, where there is no Assembly and where the two sides cannot come to an agreement. I have to say that I blame that on Sinn Féin.
Let us look briefly at the current situation with the border. We heard a little from the noble Lord, Lord Carswell, about bicycling down to Dublin. I spent the best part of a year of my life in Northern Ireland, often in uniform but subsequently working in the Northern Ireland Office for the previous Government. Just over three years ago, I went down to south Armagh with some people. Noble Lords may think that everything is normal in south Armagh, but I was in one car with armed police, I recall that there were four other cars around to check that there were no ambushes and there was a helicopter overhead. This is still bandit country.
I mention that because the big issue at the time was the smuggling of diesel and then the washing of the red dye out of diesel, which by the way causes the most appalling environmental damage. People smuggle diesel because red diesel is very cheap, especially in the Republic, and it is brought up to the north, washed and sold at a cheap rate in Armagh. Smuggling of fuel continues to go on—the diesel has slightly changed—and there is smuggling of cattle. I read that 10,000 cattle in the last three years were stolen in the Republic, smuggled across the border and sold in the north. Members of this House may know Slab Murphy, who was notorious in Northern Ireland. He was closely involved with the IRA. He was basically a racketeer who made a great deal of money. I am glad to say that he finally went to jail a couple of years ago.
To cross the border, there are already different currencies. There are variable duties in the south and north. There are customs officers who actually work on the border. They do not sit in posts, but they work checking things. There are random checks. I was on one or two with the police. There are no fixed posts and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hay, has just said, nobody wants fixed posts. We do not need them. But there are already, as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of the amendment, security checks and random checks.
The head of Irish Customs, Niall Cody, said on 25 May last year that it is “practically 100% certain” that there will be no new customs facilities along the border. He added:
“We are not planning customs posts”.
He said that in the Dáil.
I am indebted to the son of my predecessor in the House of Commons—my noble friend Lord Lawson—who wrote an article recently and drew my attention to the following in an address by Michael Ambühl, who was Switzerland’s chief negotiator in its trade agreement with the EU. He said:
“We have a smoothly operating frictionless border with the EU, though we are not a member of the customs union. That is even though 2.2m people and 23,000 lorries cross the borders between us and the EU every day”.
So what is the problem? Perhaps some of the chickens pay a little bit of duty, I do not know. The problem is the lack of good faith and, yet again, intransigence. I am told, as we have already heard, that Monsieur Barnier is encouraging the Taoiseach in this enterprise. I worked with the Government of Enda Kenny, which was very much on the side of and emollient towards the UK. They wanted to work with the UK. I would say that Mr Varadkar is cutting off his nose to spite his face.
Nobody wants a hard border, yet the Government and the Labour Party have a manifesto pledge to leave the customs union. Why do we not get on with it, to the mutual benefit of everybody? Others may attribute motives, but Barnier has said in the past that he wants to educate the British people, which means teach us a lesson. I see bad faith in Barnier and I see intransigence. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man, with good faith and good will—unless you do not want a settlement, which I fear is the case with the noble Lords who proposed the amendment—to come up with a decent frictionless border.
Noble Lords who are tempted to support the amendment should consider, as has been alluded to, that we should not use Ireland and its history as a stick with which to beat Brexit or as a pawn. Let us instead give Ireland, north and south, and its good people—nationalist, unionist, whatever they may be—what they really want: co-operation, friendship, prosperity and the ability to trade and cross the border happily.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long. I want to make one or two points. First, my noble friend who has just spoken talked about intransigence and he exhibited it. I would remind him, very gently, that whatever happens after 29 March next year, the Republic of Ireland will remain within the European Union and we are therefore dealing with a very sensitive issue. I would also remind him gently that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union.
I do not wish people to interpret from that that I am party to anything that the Daily Mail would refer to as wrecking the Bill. That is my final point, as touched on—gently but elegantly—a little while ago by my noble friend Lord Bridges. Your Lordships’ House is merely fulfilling its constitutional role in examining and scrutinising the Bill. We have every right to pass amendments. As those of us who seek not to wreck but to improve have said time and again, the ultimate decision will rest with the House of Commons. It is right and proper that the responsibility ultimately lies there, but that does not deprive us of our responsibility to scrutinise carefully. It does not recognise the reality of the British constitution to talk about playing with fire or to call for an elected second Chamber; think what impasse there would then be between the two Houses. It does not serve the constitutional debate to make threats of that sort, which have come up during the debate in both articles in the press and speeches in this House. We have a duty and we seek to perform it, as we should, but at the end of the day, the responsibility lies at the other end of the Corridor.
If your Lordships’ House did not vote against government measures from time to time, it would have no point or purpose. I say to some noble Lords on my side of the House, who have been cross with myself and others, that if we were dealing with a complicated Bill, brought in by a Government led by Mr Jeremy Corbyn, would we say, “Oh, we don’t want to vote against that”? I rest my case. I am sorry to have detained the House, but those points needed making.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Patten, introduced the debate with his customary excellence and good humour. However, while I took the points he made very well, I felt concerned about the direction of travel and the linkage between some of the points we were trying to debate. The amendment has a number of issues that concern me, the most obvious one, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord King, being the last line. With so much reference to the Belfast agreement, the four Members currently in the Chamber involved in that negotiation—I am one of them—will know that it is so sensitive because it challenges the fundamental principles of consent, which is one of the reasons why the referendum in 1998 was successful. We actually achieved that point. If we take a power that is currently exercisable only by the Government of the United Kingdom and share it with the Republic of Ireland, that will change the dynamics of the whole situation. Effectively, it would create a form of joint authority.
I have other issues with the amendment. It refers to:
“Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements”.
Perhaps we will need new border arrangements to avoid the pitfalls we have all drawn attention to during the debate. I also feel we are in a unique situation. Everybody agrees with the ultimate objective. Therefore, it should be not a source of division in this House but something on which we can come together to send a clear message not only to the Government, but to our colleagues in the European Union and in the Republic.
During his visit to Northern Ireland and the Republic this week—which, incidentally, was announced to us through the press release of a Sinn Féin MP, not even a Sinn Féin MEP—Michel Barnier, according to Sam Coates in the Times, did the following:
“During a visit to Ireland, Michel Barnier urged Theresa May to reconsider introducing a border in the Irish Sea”.
We assume that that matter is resolved; I fear that it is not. Within the document agreed on 8 December and the subsequent agreement referred to by my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley there is a fundamental conflict. We are saying on the one hand that we want regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland as this backstop and on the other that we do not want any difficulties between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Unless Brexit does not take place and we reverse our decision to leave the European Union, those two things will be mutually exclusive. We have to get our heads around that.
We have talked about the principles and the bigger picture. I worry about linking the Belfast agreement so closely with the discussions we have now because, quite frankly, there are risks attached to that. I will try to put into context the scale of the problem we face.
I believe that the solution lies with the United Kingdom Government, the Irish Government and Michel Barnier and his team sitting down at a table to deal with the details. The Benches opposite are filled with many people with trade union backgrounds. They will know, as everybody else knows from their own experience, that the only way to settle these things is to sit down and talk about them, however embarrassing and difficult it may be. Even if we are dealing with people with whom we would normally have no truck, the fact is that we have learnt that lesson and learnt it very hard; we have to sit down, to talk and to negotiate. We must also remember that we cannot successfully negotiate if the person with whom we are negotiating is flat on the canvas at the end of the negotiations, so it cannot be a 10-0 win; there has to be compromise and movement.
We use the term “the all-Ireland economy”. There is no all-Ireland economy. If we take the figures for the period 2005 to 2015 given to us by the Irish Government in their document on Brexit, which sets out clearly the relationship and the scale of it, we see that of the total exports of the Irish Republic to the rest of the world 1.6% currently goes to Northern Ireland. That has dropped in the period from 2005. It means that 98.4% of the Irish Republic’s goods go elsewhere. Most of them travel via the United Kingdom, because the border is not simply on the island; it is between Dublin and Holyhead and Rosslare and Fishguard—that is where most of the goods are going. Mainland Britain is the land bridge so the Republic can get its goods to the continent and the rest of the world.
Let us take imports to the Irish Republic from the whole of the world. From Northern Ireland, they have dropped in the period from 2005 to 2015 from 2.2% again to 1.6%. So the actual trade on the island is relatively modest. We are talking primarily about goods in transit, going to and from ports in Northern Ireland to and from Scotland and the north-west of England. So the trading relationship on the island is 1.6% of the Republic’s exports and 1.6% of its imports. That is the scale of the trade. It includes live animals and agricultural produce.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said in an earlier debate that he believed that one part of the solution could be a new treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland which would be recognised by the European Union. Part of the solution could lie in the north-south bodies that we set up under a treaty which have certain specific functions. There is no reason why those bodies cannot change and vary over time. One of them, the SEUPB, which looks after special European programmes, will have to be dissolved. We may need to look at the functions that some of those bodies perform and whether the United Kingdom Government and Parliament might devolve to them specific matters where they could negotiate on details, particularly around agriculture, animal health and other issues, and where regulations—because we are one land mass—are better, on the same scale or equivalent. If we are looking at the way ahead, we have to look at solutions. That is one possibility, but the idea of a new treaty is something that we should look at.
Lord Empey
If the noble Lord is such an expert on the Belfast agreement, why is he not prepared to listen to somebody who lives there and was negotiating it? I can assure him that I have been used to dealing with fairly tough customers and I will have a say.
We are looking here at a problem which has been grossly exaggerated and at some risk, because we should concentrate on solutions. The best way to achieve that is for the parties to sit down together and negotiate.
I conclude where I started: with the comments made by Michel Barnier on Tuesday this week, where he said that he wanted the Prime Minister to reconsider a border up the Irish Sea for Northern Ireland. If that is his position when our Government go in to negotiate, the difficulty created by this amendment is that it would move the emphasis away from negotiating a settlement, removing one lever from the hands of the Government and placing it in the hands of those with whom we are negotiating. We should be united as a House in trying to get the right solution. It is a shame that we would be divided on something where the objective we all seek is the same. It is so unusual to get that—where two Governments and the European Union are all committed to the same thing. We are confusing the two arguments. This is a matter for detailed negotiation, as has happened before. There is no reason why it cannot be done. We can look for help. If we need unique solutions—we are good at those—let us have one; that is what a treaty could facilitate.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will address some of those points and indicate that the United Kingdom Government are prepared to sit down to negotiate, to re-emphasise that and to reissue the invitation, which sadly has been refused so far. Let us remember also that we are dealing with politics. Ireland is on the verge of a general election at any point. Sinn Féin, which was always an anti-European party, has got on to the bandwagon and now pretends to be a great pro-European party. It could have huge influence on the Irish Government if an election takes place. We have all these moving plates, but we must keep our eye on the detail and on the long-term objective, which is the preservation of as free a border as it is possible to achieve and the preservation of the institutions that were passed by referendum on both sides of the border. They should be used as part of the solution and not become part of the problem.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, well over two hours ago, this amendment was eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, so I want to make two brief points in response. The first point is about the Government’s own proposals to solve the issue of the border on the island of Ireland. They have produced no new detailed proposals since last August. Clearly, there is an ongoing, and perhaps heated, discussion taking place this afternoon at the Cabinet sub-committee which, for reasons of internal division, is unlikely to reach a conclusion. But at a certain point, the Government will have to take a position. Time is running out and they cannot keep kicking the can down the road.
The so-called technical solutions which many noble Lords have referred to are, at best, wishful thinking and almost certainly not viable for the time being. On the House of Lords EU Select Committee, we have heard numerous experts inform us that the required technology is, at best, five to seven years away. How can that work with the current timetable of December 2020? Does the Minister accept that the only alternative is to remain in some form of customs union?
Secondly, it is important to remember that the border issue is not just about economics, tariffs and trade. It is also about emotions and feelings. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Alderdice and so many others who have spoken this afternoon, played a vital role in installing the principles of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, principles that have done so much to remove borders, both physical and psychological. Many people would see any checks, even if efficient and unobtrusive, as a step backwards. It is the principle and symbolism of the checks themselves that is the issue.
My noble friend Lord Alderdice raised some objections and concerns about the amendment. I believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem explained that this is, perhaps, a misunderstanding of the amendment before us. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a very firm and forceful point and I hope my noble friend Lord Alderdice may reconsider his position. The aim of the amendment is to put into the Bill the commitment that the Government themselves agreed in the joint declaration last December, so that the hard-won gains of the peace process are not reversed for future generations. That is why I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. I am the 20th speaker in it. The first speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, made a wonderful speech—if he really wants to be viceroy of Ireland he has my unqualified support and vote.
It is 20 years since the Good Friday agreement was signed. A number of us in this Chamber were present three weeks ago in Belfast when we commemorated and celebrated that occasion. I know that the Minister, when he winds up, will say that both he and the Government fully support the principles of that agreement. But there are some, not just in his party but in others too, who now say that the Good Friday agreement is out of date and not relevant anymore. I wholly and utterly reject that assertion. We have had 20 years of peace in Northern Ireland. If noble Lords cast their minds back to what happened 20 years before we signed the agreement, 3,500 people perished in Northern Ireland and 30,000 to 40,000 people were injured, either physically or mentally, as a result of those Troubles. The principles which were hard fought for and hard won—there are noble Lords who have already spoken in the debate, including the noble Lords, Lord Trimble, Lord Empey and Lord Alderdice, who were present at those negotiations—are still utterly relevant to Northern Ireland, to the United Kingdom and to the Republic of Ireland as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, spoke about the principle of consent. In my view, there is no threat to that principle in the amendment that we shall vote on in some minutes. Parity of esteem for all people in Northern Ireland, from whatever community they come; a power-sharing Assembly and Executive; human rights; equality; a police service which was totally new; criminal justice; north/south co-operation on the island of Ireland and improved relations, to an unprecedented degree, between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom—much of that was underpinned by our common membership of the European Union. We belonged, as two countries, to the same club, and there is no question in my mind that the constant meetings between Ministers and between civil servants over those two decades and before—that constant arrangement and co-operation between Ministers and Governments in Brussels—meant a smoother transition to where we are today. It also meant, of course, that the border became blurred.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, rightly referred, in a great speech, to the fact that the border was more than simply physical infrastructure and that the blurring of it—the softening of that border, if you like—was very much the result of the agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, in giving that very powerful list of what happened in that process, my noble friend has not mentioned the fact that southern Ireland also changed its constitution, whereby the claim it had always maintained to the six counties of the north was removed from the constitution of southern Ireland. In terms of symbolism, it was a huge change: we have to remember that it was not just the pragmatism of those in the north and in other parts of Britain, but also the pragmatism of those in the south who wanted peace too.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
My noble friend is absolutely right: it was a huge development, and of course all this was voted on in a referendum, north and south. In both Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, there were big majorities for precisely that.
But Brexit does affect where we are in Ireland and affects the principles of the Good Friday agreement to a certain extent. In the first place, Ireland, of all the 27 countries left in the European Union when we have departed, will be the most affected by Brexit; of that there is no doubt. It also means that some unionists in Northern Ireland—not all—now believe that exiting the European Union will in some way reinforce their Britishness. Some nationalists and republicans—not all—believe that Brexit will bring a united Ireland closer. None of that helps because at the end of the day the agreement was about an agreed island.
The noble Lord, Lord Hay, talked about the need for balance in all this. He was absolutely right: that balance can be upset by what is happening as a result of the debate on Brexit—not necessarily Brexit itself, but the debate on it. The purpose of the amendment before us is to enshrine the principles of the Good Friday agreement in the Bill.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that he has already spoken.
Lord King of Bridgwater
The noble Lord speaking for the Opposition held the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with distinction. He knows that during all that time he never shared joint authority. Will he comment on why an amendment may be carried by a number of his noble friends that will, for the first time, enshrine in legislation—this is the proposal—that we change the policy, which has been agreed between parties during all these years, that we do not have joint authority in Northern Ireland?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
No, no; I do not think for one second that this amendment refers to or is about joint authority. What it is about is the recognition that both the British Government and the Irish Government are joint guarantors in international law of the Good Friday agreement. That is what it is about. Also, the agreement itself set up the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which meets from time to time in order to deal with matters of common concern.
To return to the amendment, it rejects a hard border. The word “hard” has been debated by a number of speakers. The Government themselves have attached the description to what they do not want. The Government do not want a hard border, the Opposition do not want a hard border, the European Union does not want one, the Government of Ireland do not and nor do any of the parties in Northern Ireland. None of them wants a hard border, and all this is doing is putting into the Bill what everybody actually wants.
The amendment protects the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which as it happens I steered through the Commons 20 years ago. That set up the Assembly and the Executive and dealt with rights and equality. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, asked: should we not have the Good Friday agreement in the amendment rather than the 1998 Act? Of course, the 1998 Act incorporated a great deal of the agreement and was based on the principle of the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
The other issue is that of the north/south arrangements. There is no question, in my view, that those are extremely important and need to be protected as a vital part of the agreement, and they actually deal with millions of pounds of European funding for cross-border projects. All the amendment is about is a guarantee that the integrity of the Good Friday agreement is enshrined in law and put into the Bill.
The actual, real threat to the agreement in Northern Ireland is the fact that there is no Assembly or Executive there. The institutions should be restored. Their absence is the real threat to the Good Friday agreement and one that I hope the Government will work intensely over the next weeks and months to resolve. As parliamentarians in both Houses, we need to protect one of the most successful peace processes of modern times, and I believe that the amendment goes a long way towards doing that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I had a five-page speaking note when I arrived here. I have now written more than 10 pages myself. I am not sure my speaking note will do the debate justice so I will set it aside.
I will try to capture the key elements of this discussion. I will turn, as I often do in matters concerning Ireland and Northern Ireland, to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who reminded us that we have heard the same words used many times about the Good Friday agreement, to the extent that earlier today we almost had to use a thesaurus to find a replacement for “steadfast” because we have said it so many times. As it happens, the word in the note is “unwavering”, if you are looking for a description of our support for the Good Friday agreement. But the noble and right reverend Lord is correct: we must give comfort and certainty to the people of Northern Ireland that they will not be abandoned, sacrificed, left behind, have their rights trimmed to suit a separate agenda or find themselves in a situation where what they thought they had they do not have at all. I had the pleasure of having a cup of tea yesterday with the noble and right reverend Lord and he spoke about what he called the Ballymena spade—where they call a spade a spade. We need to be clear that there can be no border down the middle of the Irish Sea. We simply cannot create a division between one part of our country and another.
Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator for the EU, has said that there needs to be some adjustment to particular rights and proprieties, that there needs to be some acceptance that we cannot have these things, and that some of the red lines themselves, as the Foreign Minister of Ireland has said, may need to be adjusted in the light of peace and prosperity. But they cannot be, that is the point. So if I was to give a message to Michel Barnier, it would be: “Ecoutez les deux communautés”—you must listen to the two communities in Northern Ireland. You cannot listen to only one of them. Both are integral to what we will be able to achieve on the island of Ireland, and any suggestion otherwise is fallacious and unhelpful. In truth, it risks creating greater uncertainty for this particular negotiation. I would advocate great caution on behalf of Michel Barnier in this regard.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
The Minister knows the respect in which I hold him and the job he is doing. I have no wish to have a border which differentiates Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. But will he accept that the problem was not created by Michel Barnier? The promise to have complete alignment between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland was not made by Michel Barnier, it was made by the British Government. Michel Barnier is doing no more than holding the Government to the promise they made to Europe in the initial agreement, and it is not his responsibility that outside that the Government also promised the DUP—correctly, in my view—that there would be complete alignment between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the essential problem, because if you have alignment between Britain and Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, and between southern Ireland and Europe, you automatically have alignment between Britain and the European Union; in other words, staying inside the customs union.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I hear the noble Lord, Lord Reid. With the greatest respect, I recognise what he is saying, but the joint report did not have just one element in this regard, it had three elements. The important thing about the three elements is that each must be afforded the ultimate engagement to try to deliver a solution. If Michel Barnier has decided that the first and second are sacrificial elements and he must now focus only on the third, frankly, he is becoming part of a bigger problem.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Michel Barnier is negotiating for the other 27 member Governments. It is not a question of listening to the Northern Irish Catholic community but it is part of his job as negotiator to listen to the Irish Government, who are, after all, one of the 27 member Governments with whom we are negotiating. It is the Irish Government who—perhaps to the Minister—present the problem. We have to deal with the Irish Government, not just the two communities.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
If the negotiator Michel Barnier does not hear the people of Northern Ireland, he will be derelict in his responsibilities. He must hear both communities. He cannot listen only to one. It is for that reason that I say again to Michel Barnier: listen to both communities.
It is important to recognise where this journey began. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Patten, will forgive me for not beginning by thanking him for bringing this issue before us today. This is what the Government intend to do, as I am sure he will agree. Many of the elements of the amendment are exact statements of government policy, but the issue is very unusual and it needs to be iterated here. When we look at the lower elements of the amendment, the language is that of political statements, not legislative statements; they are not in the language of legislation. It is on those points that a number of noble Lords have been very clear that they leave a conspicuous ambiguity. It is important to recognise that it is the intention of the Government to return not with ambiguous statements which may or may not be subject to misinterpretation but to return in the appropriate Bill with the exact, detailed language which will give the absolute confidence that we must have in this law. That is why we are unable to support the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, moved so eloquently and passionately. Indeed, all the speakers today have spoken with that passion. Of that I have no doubt.
I was drawn in particular to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. He was very clear in his assessment of those parts of the amendment I have spoken of. I know that a number of noble Lords have sought to correct him, but I do not believe that he needs correcting. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said simply that it has a flavour of a joint approach. However you want to look at it, if individuals who live in Northern Ireland are looking at the amendment and expressing their deep unease with it, I would hope that noble Lords would recognise what message that is sending. That is why we must be cautious in the messaging that we send.
In truth, there are two elements to the Bill: the optics and the mechanics. The mechanics of the Bill mean that the Bill must function and give absolute legal certainty. That is its job. The optics of the amendment are wholly commendable in many respects. They are an affirmation and a recitation of the Government’s intention, proposals and policy. But, again, this is not the place for them to sit sensibly and with legal certainty. That is one reason why we have a great problem with the amendment. As a number of noble Lords have asserted, as they begin to look in detail at those elements they are uneasy.
Talking once again of the optics, if the noble Lords in here who have looked at those self-same provisions feel uneasy, imagine then what the message will be on the front page of the Belfast Telegraph when these particular elements are looked at if they are presented in such a fashion that they could be misunderstood or misinterpreted. That is why we are seeking, as we have always sought, absolute and utter legal certainty. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been clear in all her utterances that we will deliver a borderless aspect on the island of Ireland but the point about this, and the reason why I emphasise it, is that this Bill is not where that will or can be delivered. I am almost channelling my inner Callanan when I say this but, in truth, this is not the right place to be doing that. There will be an opportunity to pick that up.
I shall return to some of the specific points raised. Once again the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has raised a point which I will be happy to respond to in writing. I will make sure that that is absolutely delivered. I hope that I have been able to give words of respect and comfort to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, so that he can take them away and be able to say to people that this is not a place where we can trim—where we can simply take out, manoeuvre or dispense with it.
I listened again to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, whose wisdom is welcome in this debate. He rightly described the fragility of the peace process, echoing the words of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. It is in its infancy and we need to make sure that nothing whatever can interfere with that. However, I do not wish to see the two aspects here become entangled. That is why many noble Lords have spoken today about the impact these words can have when they are misunderstood—indeed, when they become weaponised in one fashion or another, so that where they land they cause destruction upon receipt. We cannot have that, for that in itself is ultimately destructive.
As I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, I am aware that there speaks an individual who helped to craft the Belfast agreement itself, as did a number of noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. Each of them who spoke has echoed the same sentiment. That is worthy of pause and reflection because there is an element, in truth, in what all the Peers from Northern Ireland who have spoken today said: they are uneasy with this amendment. Whatever its optics or its intention, they are uneasy with its component parts.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Can my noble friend reassure the House, then, that “no deal” is now off the table? In a no-deal scenario, WTO rules require a hard border. It is impossible to fulfil the Good Friday agreement if we crash out with no deal.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her intervention. The clear thing here is, as I believe all sides in this discussion recognise, that if there is no resolution of the joint report’s component parts—A, B and C—then all will be the poorer and the weaker. All will suffer because of that, which is why the important thing here is to ensure that agreement is reached on those elements in the negotiation. It is absolutely essential that those parts are then returned to the other place and to this House for clear discussion and debate at that time. That will ultimately be the key to it.
As I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, I was aware of him iterating the same issues once again. He brings his own experience to them, saying that particular elements of this amendment cause him unease. They cause him to see difficulties which might emerge. The last thing we need right now is for that to percolate through the situation in Northern Ireland, with all its incumbent troubles and all the difficulties which will be in play.
As I speak today, I am very conscious that we need to find the outcome that delivers for Northern Ireland and one that delivers for the Republic of Ireland. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, expressing clearly the danger we have, however, in taking these important elements of where we need to seek agreement and somehow or other turning them into a threat—a method whereby we can seemingly upend or turn over the very things that we are all trying to achieve.
I think it is true to say that anyone who seeks to prognosticate on or forecast Irish politics will almost certainly always be disappointed. There are, no doubt, many greater minds in this Chamber than elsewhere who could do that but the point remains that irrespective of which Government are in power in Dublin, they have to be able to work to deliver an outcome which is good for the Republic of Ireland, just as we are able to deliver that self-same outcome for Northern Ireland, and indeed for ourselves. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, it was imperative that, as he put it forward, there are elements that need to be addressed now.
I also note the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, who asked whether I can explain how the technology will work on the borders. The truth is that I am a geologist, I am afraid, and I really cannot explain that. I am not knocking geologists; I am fully aware that they know many things. What I am clear about is that this must be returned to the other place, and to this House, to deliver the very things which noble Lords seek. If they are not delivered, I do not doubt that the House will vote it down. That is a clear thing which your Lordships do and it is a prerogative which you will have in this House. That is how it will ultimately work.
It will be important to ensure that the methods which we put forward are understood by all. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, touch upon the issue of passports and I would like to write to her on those elements, because I believe that they are appropriate to be discussed. There are costs inherent in biometric passports and so forth. If noble Lords will forgive me, I will have an offline discussion to take through some of those elements. In some respects I am conscious, as the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, said at the beginning, that this is indeed no laughing matter. I understand that but, in truth, we need to recognise that in each of these elements we must be able to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and for the rest of the island of Ireland.
I also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, when he spoke of Louis MacNeice’s father, Bishop MacNeice. I am a passionate supporter of Louis MacNeice and a great lover of his poetry. I am aware of the line where he said:
“My father made the walls resound,
He wore his collar the wrong way round”.
He was an extraordinary poet but if your Lordships will forgive me, I will bring to you the words which I believe in this instance might be slightly appropriate, although very cryptic. They are from the poem by Louis MacNeice called “Snow”, in which he was confronting two seemingly difficult and different things coming together: broadly, large flowers in a window and snow outside. He simply said:
“The room was suddenly rich and the great bay-window was
Spawning snow and pink roses against it
Soundlessly collateral and incompatible:
World is suddener than we fancy it.
World is crazier and more of it than we think,
Incorrigibly plural”.
In many respects, as we look at the island of Ireland we need to recognise its plurality. We need to recognise how that island will continue but also, none the less, that this Bill is not the place for that amendment. We remain passionate and unwavering in our support of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is enshrined in more than nine pieces of primary legislation and there it will remain.
There will be a negotiation on the joint report—on those three elements—and, in that, I hope that Michel Barnier will be able to respect the views not just of the Irish Government but of the communities of Northern Ireland, whose voices must be and need to be heard. In many respects, I hope that it will be appreciated—
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The Minister keeps talking about Monsieur Barnier. Surely his job is to represent the views of the 27; it is the job of Her Majesty’s Government to represent the views of all communities across the United Kingdom, including the communities of Northern Ireland.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness raises her point but I will be clear in my statement in response: it would be daft if he did not speak to both communities. Irrespective of whether he felt that he must speak to only one Government, the resolution in Northern Ireland will depend upon the two communities, not upon the will of two Governments ignoring those self-same communities. It cannot be done on that basis.
I return briefly to the point that we wholeheartedly agree on the sentiments underpinning my noble friend Lord Patten’s amendment. We recognise, however, that those elements towards its latter half are not workable in that form. They are political statements, which are not legally binding texts, but I must say one final thing. If the noble Lord decides to divide the House, I hope he will recognise that it must not and cannot be interpreted in any way such that either side is not willing to give its wholehearted support to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but rather only to this amendment as it has been defined. Let there be no doubt whatever that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement has our unwavering and steadfast support.
Lord Patten of Barnes
Charitably, I can assure the House that I shall be very brief. I shall make only three points. First—I hope this will not finish his career—I congratulate the Minister once again. It makes a pleasant change to have a Minister at the Dispatch Box who quotes poetry; as ever, he responded with considerable civility. It is also a great pleasure that he does not make speeches that begin, “It says here”. He responded to the debate, and the whole House recognises that.
Before making two more substantive points—although being flattering to the Minister is substantive, as is inviting him to join me later in voting for the Government’s policy, which might make life a little awkward for him—I assure the House that I shall not go back through all the old arguments about a customs union. If I hear any more references to the wretched Karlsson report, I will go red in the face. It is like Das Kapital: it is more referred to than read. Most of the people who refer to it have never read more than two or three lines in the summary, and will not recognise the bits that talk about the necessity of an infrastructure or the necessity of those customs offices.
Of course, I respect everybody, but I particularly respect the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and my noble friend Lord King. The points that they made about security on the border were extremely well answered by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Campbell. They should look carefully at what this proposed new clause actually says. They are probably also aware that co-operation across the border and security are probably better than they have ever been, with the joint agency task force between the Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland working together very effectively. The former Northern Ireland Justice Minister—when there still was one in the Northern Ireland Executive—said that she thought that these days, co-operation was saving lives in the island of Ireland. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will consider that.
The point that my noble friend made about a joint approach and joint authority was well responded to by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. He pointed out that what we are talking about is part of an international agreement. There are two sides to an international agreement; more than that, this is about the border, and most borders have two sides to them. It is therefore not surprising that the people on one side of the border need to talk to the people on the other side.
I would like to insert myself—an exciting prospect—somewhere between my noble friend Lord Bridges, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the former Prelate of All Ireland, and the Minister. Bishops are not by nature suspicious, even though they have so much experience of the human condition. However, I hope that the noble and right reverend Lord and my noble friend Lord Bridges will not mind my saying that if I thought that this whole endeavour—this whole negotiation—was in their hands, I would be happy to withdraw my amendment. However, I listened to some of the things that were said, or murmured, about the Taoiseach in the Republic. I hear some of the blame that some people are trying to put on the Republic of Ireland. I notice that, in spite of all these months of intellectual effort, we still have not managed to define what the frictionless border will be.
Touching on the point made by my noble friend Lord Bridges about not having a border down the middle of the Irish Sea, I do not think I would have signed an agreement in Brussels that accepted that. I know enough about “one country, two systems” to keep me going until I drop dead. I hope that will not be for a bit and so does the University of Oxford. I have no doubt about what my noble friend says and where I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench stands. I suspect that the tone of the discussions this afternoon in No. 10 has not been entirely in line with their sentiments. In that slightly suspicious spirit, recognising that we are simply stating, in this proposed new clause, what the Government’s policy purports to be, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Keen of Elie
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, we are dealing here with truly technical amendments to ensure that the provisions of the Bill deliver the intended policy. They achieve two things. The first is to clarify how the requirement for regulations made by devolved Ministers under Schedule 2 to be within devolved competence interacts with the principle of severance applied by the courts.
The normal practice would be that when a Minister makes regulations that include, for instance, 10 different provisions, should one of those provisions be outwith the scope of the power, the courts would not strike down the regulations as a whole, they would simply sever the offending provision and allow the remaining nine provisions to stand as law. Some concerns were raised that the requirements in the Bill might imply that this standard practice should not occur. The amendments therefore make it clear that when a provision is outside devolved competence, only that provision would be ultra vires and not the whole instrument in which the provision is included.
The second purpose of the amendments is to allow for a devolved Minister and a UK Minister acting jointly to make provision that would not be in the competence of the devolved Minister acting alone. It has always been the Government’s intention that the Schedule 2 powers can be exercised jointly to allow us to work together in areas where we may need to make the same or related changes to retained EU law and so that, where appropriate, those changes can be subject to formal scrutiny and approval in both this Parliament and the relevant devolved legislature.
We believe it is right that, for instance, where a UK Minister and a Welsh Minister jointly make regulations in relation to a matter that concerns the England/Wales border, those regulations can include both the provision for England and the provision for Wales, even though it would not be within the Welsh Minister’s competence to make the provision in relation to England if they were acting alone.
We will also be bringing forward at Third Reading a number of further drafting changes to permit combinations of instruments beyond what is normally possible, reflecting the level of joint working that will be needed in relation to these powers. I will be speaking to the Government’s Clause 11 amendments shortly, when we reach the group beginning Amendment 89DA. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that we have a number of further groups to get through on other parts of the devolution provisions before we reach that debate. The amendments provide what I hope to be welcome legal clarity. They reflect standard practice and the mechanisms for good, collaborative joint working between the Administrations. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of these technical amendments. Can he say whether there is agreement among the devolved Administrations and the UK Government on these amendments?
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, at last we have reached this stage, although I find it a little off-putting that we are coming to consequential, technical matters before we look at the meaty issue; but that will come, as was said.
I would like to pay the respects of those on our Benches to the serious way in which the Government have contributed through the joint ministerial group to the success of the proposals, and thank them for bringing them to us now. I would also like to thank Mark Drakeford from the Welsh Government and Mike Russell from the Scottish Government for the part they played, even if the latter has thus far been unable formally to sign up to the inter-governmental process. As the Minister said, we are going to discuss Clause 11 and neither of us can wait for that. It is coming in more detail later this evening. However, we on these Benches recognise and appreciate the progress that has been made. We have come a long way since the Bill was published and it is against that backdrop that this and subsequent groups of amendments should be considered.
The Labour Party has always been the party of devolution. While we will be watching the Government’s treatment of the devolved Administrations very closely throughout the Brexit process—that is our job—we recognise the genuine progress that has been made and welcome the amendments in this group. They allow United Kingdom and devolved Ministers jointly to exercise powers in Schedule 2 in order to make provisions that could not be made by a devolved Minister acting alone. This clarifies the use of so-called composite instruments, as the Minister said, and we hope paves the way for collaborative working between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government.
Other amendments in the group improve the position regarding ultra vires provision within instruments made under Schedule 2. I believe that the devolved Administrations previously raised concerns with the Government as to whether the courts would permit those parts of an instrument that were within competence to remain law. We are glad that Ministers and officials have responded positively to the appeals from the devolved bodies and that the amendments provide greater clarity for all involved. The group amounts to just one piece in the jigsaw puzzle. I usually start my jigsaws with the edge pieces. This looks like putting a piece in the middle and working around it in due course. It is a piece that these Benches are happy to support.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and note his comments. The amendments will provide not only clarity but a much needed flexibility when it comes to the application of the schedules.
With respect to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, my understanding is that both devolved Administrations were content with the proposals. Indeed, much of the force for the first group of amendments came from them. I hope that satisfies noble Lords.
Lord Keen of Elie
“( ) No regulations may be made under this Part after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, since submitting this amendment, I note that Clause 7(8) covers the point and therefore I do not wish to move it.
Lord Keen of Elie
“3A(1) No provision may be made by the Scottish Ministers acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision—(a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 30A(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 if the provision were made in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or(ii) the restriction in section 57(4) of the Act of 1998 if section 57(5)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored. (2) No provision may be made by the Welsh Ministers acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision—(a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 if section 80(8A)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored, or(ii) the restriction in section 109A(1) of that Act if the provision were made in an Act of the National Assembly for Wales.(3) No provision may be made by a Northern Ireland department acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision—(a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 6A(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 if the provision were made in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or(ii) the restriction in section 24(3) of the Act of 1998 if section 24(4)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored.(4) No provision may be made by a devolved authority acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as, when made, the provision is inconsistent with any modification (whether or not in force) which—(a) is a modification of any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4,(b) is made by this Act or a Minister of the Crown under this Act, and(c) could not be made by the devolved authority by virtue of sub- paragraph (1), (2) or (as the case may be) (3).(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b), sections 30A and 57(4) to (15) of the Scotland Act 1998, sections 80(8) to (8L) and 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and sections 6A and 24(3) to (15) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and any regulations made under them and any related provision, are to be assumed to be wholly in force so far as that is not otherwise the case.(6) References in this paragraph to section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 are to be read as references to the new section 80(8) of that Act provided for by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act.”
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
“( ) establish a public authority,”
“(2) See paragraphs 27 to 29 for the meaning of “devolved competence” for the purposes of this Part.”
“23A(1) No provision may be made by the Scottish Ministers acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision—(a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 30A(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 if the provision were made in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or(ii) the restriction in section 57(4) of the Act of 1998 if section 57(5)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored.(2) No provision may be made by the Welsh Ministers acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision— (a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 if section 80(8A)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored, or(ii) the restriction in section 109A(1) of that Act if the provision were made in an Act of the National Assembly for Wales.(3) No provision may be made by a Northern Ireland department acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision—(a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 6A(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 if the provision were made in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or(ii) the restriction in section 24(3) of the Act of 1998 if section 24(4)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored.(4) No provision may be made by a devolved authority acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as, when made, the provision is inconsistent with any modification (whether or not in force) which—(a) is a modification of any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4,(b) is made by this Act or a Minister of the Crown under this Act, and(c) could not be made by the devolved authority by virtue of sub- paragraph (1), (2) or (as the case may be) (3).(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b), sections 30A and 57(4) to (15) of the Scotland Act 1998, sections 80(8) to (8L) and 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and sections 6A and 24(3) to (15) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and any regulations made under them and any related provision, are to be assumed to be wholly in force so far as that is not otherwise the case.(6) References in this paragraph to section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 are to be read as references to the new section 80(8) of that Act provided for by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act.”
“Meaning of devolved competence: Part 3
27_ A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this Part if—(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament (ignoring section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 so far as relating to EU law and retained EU law), or(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone (ignoring section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 so far as relating to EU law and section 57(4) of that Act).28_ A provision is within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of this Part if—(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if it were contained in an Act of the Assembly (ignoring section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 so far as relating to EU law and retained EU law but including any provision that could be made only with the consent of a Minister of the Crown), or(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Welsh Ministers acting alone (ignoring section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006).29_ A provision is within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department for the purposes of this Part if—(a) the provision, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly (ignoring section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), and(ii) would not require the consent of the Secretary of State,(b) the provision—(i) amends or repeals Northern Ireland legislation, and(ii) would, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, be within the legislative competence of the Assembly (ignoring section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998) and require the consent of the Secretary of State, or(c) the provision is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by any Northern Ireland devolved authority acting alone (ignoring section 24(1)(b) and (3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998).”
Lord Keen of Elie
“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for the Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 30A(1)”.(2) After section 30 of that Act (legislative competence: supplementary) insert—“30A Legislative competence: restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the legislative competence of the Parliament.(3) A Minister of the Crown must not lay for approval before each House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section unless— (a) the Scottish Parliament has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Parliament having made such a decision.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;and a consent decision is made when the Parliament first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) (whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(5) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (3) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the Scottish Ministers, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(6) See also paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Parliament).(7) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(8) Subsection (7) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under this section at or before the end of the period mentioned in that subsection.(9) Any regulations under this section which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to any Act of the Scottish Parliament which receives Royal Assent after the end of that period.(10) Subsections (3) to (8) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(11) In this section—“the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the Scottish Ministers,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Parliament is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.”(3) In section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for the National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 109A(1)”.(3A) After section 109 of that Act (legislative competence: supplementary) insert—“109A Legislative competence: restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the Assembly’s legislative competence. (3) No regulations are to be made under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(4) A Minister of the Crown must not lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (3) unless—(a) the Assembly has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Assembly having made such a decision.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;and a consent decision is made when the Assembly first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c)(whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(6) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (3) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the Welsh Ministers, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(7) See also section 157ZA (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Assembly).(8) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(9) Subsection (8) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under this section at or before the end of the period mentioned in that subsection.(10) Any regulations under this section which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to any Act of the Assembly which receives Royal Assent after the end of that period.(11) Subsections (4) to (9) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(12) In this section—“the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the Welsh Ministers,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.”(3B) In section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (no competence for the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “incompatible with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 6A(1)”.(3C) After section 6 of that Act (legislative competence) insert—“6A Restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown. (2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly.(3) A Minister of the Crown must not lay for approval before each House of Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section unless—(a) the Assembly has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Assembly having made such a decision.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;and a consent decision is made when the Assembly first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c)(whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(5) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (3) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the relevant Northern Ireland department, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(6) See also section 96A (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Assembly).(7) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(8) Subsection (7) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under this section at or before the end of the period mentioned in that subsection.(9) Any regulations under this section which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to any Act of the Assembly which receives Royal Assent after the end of that period.(10) Subsections (3) to (8) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(11) Regulations under this section may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision as the Minister of the Crown making them considers appropriate.(12) In this section—“the relevant Northern Ireland department” means such Northern Ireland department as the Minister of the Crown concerned considers appropriate;“the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the relevant Northern Ireland department,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.””
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, to be clear, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, indicated that he was not going to move Amendment 89, but government amendment 89AA was to follow from that amendment so I would just like to address our amendment in order to avoid confusion. I am afraid that this is like one of those smart restaurants where you get a series of amuse-bouches before you get to the main course.
Amendment 89AA replicates the restriction that we have already applied to Clause 9 on the withdrawal agreement power in relation to imposing fees and charges for the corresponding power for devolved Ministers. This follows exactly the same rationale as the Clause 9 power. It has never been our intention for these powers to be used to impose fees; that is the preserve of the bespoke Schedule 4 powers, which are exercisable by devolved Ministers and should be subject to the limits that apply to those powers. This same restriction has already been applied to both the correcting power in Clause 7 and its Schedule 2 equivalent. The devolved Administrations were informed in advance of our intention to apply this restriction to that power and have agreed to its effect, so I hope noble Lords will support the amendment.
I turn to Amendment 89DA and the group that follows it. I thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement on this important issue during the passage of the Bill. The Government have now tabled a comprehensive set of amendments to Clause 11. We have worked with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to develop them, and noble Lords will recognise that we have drawn heavily on their consideration of our initial amendments in Committee. I put on record our thanks to this House, and to the Scottish and Welsh Governments for their endeavours in crafting these amendments. We are immensely pleased that the Welsh Government have agreed this approach and I am of course disappointed that the Scottish Government have not. I hope they will sign up in due course.
The intention behind Clause 11 as originally drafted was to provide maximum legal certainty across the UK to our communities and businesses after EU exit in areas that are subject to a common EU framework. As the Welsh Government aptly put it,
“it is essential to provide legislative continuity at the point at which the UK leaves the EU”.
We know, of course, that the EU has common legislative arrangements across a vast range of areas, but we must now decide in which policy areas we may need to continue those common arrangements legislatively, informally or not at all. To provide the time to do that work and provide assurances that there would not be immediate divergence across the UK, the original Clause 11 sought to freeze the law in all those areas.
We are all familiar with the views of the devolved institutions on this clause, and of course the Government have accepted the case for a more targeted and proportionate approach. This has been supported by the work that we have been doing with the devolved Administrations on assessing these current frameworks. Since we agreed the framework principles, which set out why common approaches may be needed across more than one part of the UK, our Governments have worked closely to analyse those policy areas that sit across devolved competence and EU law.
Noble Lords will recall that in March we published our initial analysis. It demonstrated that our work with the devolved Administrations indicated that legislative frameworks may be needed, in whole or in part, in only 24 of the 153 areas that had been identified, and 82 areas could be managed through more informal, non-legislative arrangements. The remaining 49 areas would likely require no further arrangements at all. We also agree that where common approaches are needed, they cannot all be designed and implemented by exit day. So it continues to make sense to maintain existing frameworks and provide certainty over which areas may be subject to change in the future, but we can and should do this in a more measured way.
Our amendments in Committee set out targeted mechanisms for doing so, following discussions with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We have carried forward the basic proposition from Committee and have built on that in the amendments that we have put forward today. Our amendments would see powers returning from the EU in otherwise devolved areas pass directly to the devolved institutions. Where a common legislative framework may be required, we propose to freeze the current arrangements to provide the time to establish our own framework for the UK. This would apply only to those policy areas that have been explicitly frozen through regulations, rather than across all policy areas where EU law currently creates common frameworks. That was the proposal that we put forward in Committee and that we had been discussing with the Welsh and Scottish Governments. We withdrew our amendments because discussions with those Governments were ongoing and we were committed to continuing them. Our Committee proposal was a substantial, but not a final, offer. It meant that noble Lords were able to debate the very latest proposition and inform those discussions.
One theme raised here and by the devolved Administrations was consent. The devolved Administrations thought it right that there was a role for the devolved legislatures in deciding whether specific areas should be the subject of a freeze. We also heard that in the debate in this House. This House agreed that a role for the devolved legislatures was important in this process, but that it must be balanced against preserving the right—indeed, I would say, the responsibility —of the United Kingdom Parliament to act, where there may be a cross-United Kingdom impact. Only the UK Parliament can do that.
The Government listened carefully to the submissions on this matter and reflected them in discussion with the devolved Administrations over Easter. We have amended the Committee proposal. We shall seek to agree which areas should be subject to a freeze. This is part of the bigger frameworks question that we continue to progress.
We should also have the view of the devolved legislatures, not just the Administrations. Our amendments ensure that, before the UK Government may lay regulations in draft in this House, they must have sent them to the devolved Administrations and sought the consent of the legislatures. The devolved legislatures will have 40 days in which to decide whether to give or withhold consent for the regulations. Only after that decision is given or the 40 days have passed can the United Kingdom Government lay the regulations before Parliament. This process is built on collaborative working. It favours agreement for freezing areas, but also recognises that if agreement cannot be reached, it must be for the UK Parliament to decide what is in the interests of the UK as a whole.
We believe that this approach should minimise areas of disagreement, as we have also developed a comprehensive intergovernmental agreement that supports and complements the legislative amendments we are considering today. It emphasises that we will work on these regulations together and in advance of sending them to the devolved Administrations formally.
Where there is unavoidable disagreement and the United Kingdom Government consider that they must proceed in the absence of consent from a devolved legislature, UK Ministers would be under an express legal duty to provide this Parliament with a Statement, and, if provided, a statement from the devolved Administration on why consent was not being granted. The UK Minister will be under a duty to explain to Parliament why the Government consider that they must proceed without that consent. Parliament will decide on the case presented: whether it is indeed in the best interests of the United Kingdom to freeze a specific policy while we implement new arrangements.
I should also remind noble Lords of the additional reporting duties on UK Ministers. I do not wish to repeat the detail that I provided to the House on them in Committee. Needless to say, they ensure heightened accountability by providing transparency to the process of developing frameworks, the use of the regulation-making powers and where frameworks are maintained in the short term. They will also require us to report on those principles that underpin this work, the principles agreed between the United Kingdom, Scottish and Welsh Governments at the Joint Ministerial Committee in October last year. Through this, our work on future frameworks is open to the scrutiny of this Parliament and of the devolved legislatures.
The other key change to the amendments that I should mention, as compared to the proposals that noble Lords considered in Committee, is the addition of sunset provisions for both the new powers and the regulations made under them. This was raised explicitly by noble Lords in Committee. We have always said that any freeze under Clause 11 would be temporary. The amendments place that beyond doubt by making it explicit in law.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the constructive manner in which they have engaged with the question of sunsets. In particular, I must give due credit to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for the tenacity with which he has pursued this, including by tabling his amendments. I hope that he will be satisfied that his concerns in this respect have been addressed and will feel able not to press those amendments.
The powers last for only two years from exit day. This aligns them with the other powers in the Bill and makes certain that they will not be an ongoing mechanism for limiting competence. The regulations will also be time-limited. We have had in-depth discussions with the devolved Administrations on how long is needed to determine and implement our future frameworks. We have settled on a period of five years from when regulations come into force.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, before I introduce the series of amendments in my name, perhaps I can express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for the very helpful way in which he has introduced his Amendment 89DA, and also pay tribute to the work that he and his Bill team have done since we began these discussions way back at the beginning of Committee. The Bill has changed very substantially since its original form. In many respects, I was concerned about the way in which it failed to recognise the structure of the Scotland Act. Considerable advances have been made to bring this Bill into line with the recognised approach to devolution in that Act.
There are 10 amendments in my name, grouped from Amendment 89DAA to Amendment 89DAE, then with Amendments 89DAG and 89DAH and two important amendments, Amendments 92BAA and 92BBA. These amendments come from a list of proposed amendments attached to a letter sent to the Lord Speaker by the First Minister of Scotland at the end of last week; in fact, I think that it arrived last Thursday. It is against the background of that letter that I have introduced these amendments for debate this evening. I shall quote short passages from the First Minister’s letter, because they set the scene for what she sought to achieve in writing to the Lord Speaker. Commenting on the amendments that the noble and learned Lord has introduced, she says:
“The amendments represent a considerable advance on the original position of the Bill, in its introduction to the Commons”.
She goes on to say:
“What is not acceptable to the Scottish Government is that these amendments would bind the Scottish Parliament in law in these areas, whereas the commitment on the part of UK Government is binding in political terms only”.
When she says “these areas”, she refers to the common frameworks to which the noble and learned Lord referred in his introduction. Near the end of her letter she says:
“Annexed to this letter are further amendments (with explanatory notes) which, if made, would resolve the concerns set out in this letter, and give the Scottish Parliament its proper place in the constitutional arrangements of the UK, during the challenging but necessary task of preparing our laws for EU withdrawal”.
For the First Minister to write to the Lord Speaker in this way is a very odd way to proceed, but it was probably unavoidable, due to the refusal of the Scottish National Party to nominate anyone for membership of this House. Before I develop a point on that issue, one ought to recognise the fact that the amendment introduced this evening has been awaited for a very long time indeed. Various Members in the House of Commons were pressing for an amendment before the Bill left the Commons. I am not attributing any blame whatever to the Government for the fact that they have only now come forward with these amendments. The fact is that it has taken a great deal of work and much careful negotiation and planning to achieve what the noble and learned Lord has achieved in the amendment which we see before us this evening. It is a long way from what was being thought about in the House of Commons, and it is just a misfortune of timing that we are facing the position that the amendment comes so late in the process of taking the Bill through Parliament.
That being said, I very much regret the absence of at least one member of the Scottish National Party in this House who could represent the views of the Scottish Government. There is no shortage of suitable candidates, I believe. Their position is all about ideology and their view of the principle of democracy; they refuse to have anything to do with an unelected Chamber. We are not short of people—I look particularly to my right, towards the Liberal Democrat Benches—who believe that this House should be an elected Chamber, but they take the view that, while the present system exists, it must be made to work, and they are content to sit here recognising that that is how Parliament as a whole works today. In a way, it is rather like a bicycle, which has two wheels to it; you cannot really get anywhere unless both wheels are attached. That is how this Parliament works. The House of Commons works in tandem, to use another analogy, with the upper House, and we all know that this House performs a valuable function—much valued by the Government, I may say, on behalf of the whole country—as a revising Chamber. We also know that the House of Commons always has the last word, and we never assert ourselves to the extent of insisting on our view when the Commons has made its view, if it contradicts us, absolutely plain. So it is a real shame that the Scottish National Party cannot accept how this place works. If it is to participate fully in what this Parliament does, it needs to make use of the whole machinery, as it is an essential part of the legislative process.
One could say that, for much of the period when the SNP has had large numbers of Members in the other place, their absence from this Chamber has not mattered very much, but we are entering a time when it is going to matter a great deal, and this evening’s debate is one example. Much of the delegated legislation that we are anticipating, which is going to come through the mechanism to which the noble and learned Lord referred, will refer to Scotland, and many other bits of delegated legislation will come through Clause 7, and probably Clause 9, which will affect Scotland too. Who, then, is to represent the views of the Scottish Government? Are we to have a succession of letters by the First Minister to the Lord Speaker, which somebody might possibly pick up, to achieve what she seeks to do? It is very sad that the ideology is so deeply rooted that there is no real prospect of its being changed. The public should know that Scotland is not being very well served by adhering to it as precisely as we see being done today.
Despite all that, it is important that we should look at and debate at least some of the amendments that the First Minister attached to her letter. There were two sets. The first set took a more radical view of the amendments that we are considering this evening than the second. It invited the Government in effect to remove the entire system, which Clause 11 is really designed to set up, by placing restrictions on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament for a temporary period. It is far too late to engage in a debate fundamentally altering what we set out in the amendment before us, particularly having regard to the fact that the Welsh Government have agreed to what is on offer.
The second set is the one from which I have selected my amendments. I have not included all the amendments in that set, because I do not think that it is necessary to do that to put forward the basis of the argument which the Scottish Government seek to advance. I am taking my 10 amendments from that particular group. It may be convenient to start by addressing Amendments 92BA and 92BB, which refer to something called type C, with reference to Sections 30A(1) and 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998.
Those not familiar with the systems might wonder what type C is all about and why my amendments seek to change type C to type A. The point is that Schedule 7 to the Scotland Act 1998 contains a table listing various provisions in the Scotland Act that are subject to treatment by delegated legislation, setting out in a table various types of procedure that are to be used to subject those bits of delegated legislation to scrutiny. The type C procedure requires that the measure be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament; in effect, it is describing the affirmative procedure for dealing with statutory instruments, which we are very familiar with. The type A procedure has that too, but the essential difference between them is that type A requires the measure to be laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament as well, so it seeks the agreement of both the devolved legislature and the United Kingdom Parliament. That is really the central point that runs right through all these amendments.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I will return to the points on the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, but first I endorse what has been said by everyone who has contributed to this debate so far—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—in expressing gratitude, if that is the right word, to those who have laboured hard to try to move forward and get an agreement on the kind of structure we need for when EU law is, as it were, repatriated. I think there is common ground that the original Clause 11 proposals were not fit for purpose; that has been said on many occasions, and I will not rehearse all the arguments for that now. It is to the credit of the Government that they recognise that and have sought to address it —unfortunately, some valuable time was lost, but nevertheless they have done that in a constructive way. Indeed, I am grateful to both Mark Drakeford of the Welsh Government and Mike Russell of the Scottish Government for their efforts. What has been brought before us represents a considerable advance with much better arrangements for dealing with retained EU law after exit day. It is regrettable that the Scottish Government did not feel able to sign up, notwithstanding the considerable advances that had been made. One or two people have speculated that, if one is not satisfied with what the Government are doing, there may be an argument for voting it down. I pointed out that if you did that, we would be left with Clause 11, which no one seems to think we should give any house room to any longer. However, the progress made is welcome.
I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said when he moved his amendment. I have been trying to work through it, because something about it was not quite right. It may be just my approach. He quite rightly drew attention to the fact that the “type A” Order in Council procedure is deployed when changes are to be made in the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and specifically where there is a change to Schedule 5, which defines what is reserved, and to the restrictions which are currently set out in Schedule 4. Where I possibly have a difficulty is that of course these are not the only two restrictions; the noble and learned Lord himself pointed out that EU law, and for that matter the European Convention on Human Rights, is another restriction, as indeed is territoriality. As he acknowledged, we are dealing with a situation that was never foreseen when the Scotland Act was being drafted and taken through both Houses back in 1998, and that is a situation where, potentially, the restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament —namely, that it must abide by European Union law —will fly off, and we will be in what might be described as a sui generis situation. The question is whether the procedure which is for modification of Schedule 4 or 5 is appropriate for this one-off situation.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, there is a provision in Section 29 of the Scotland Act that covers the thing that worries the noble and learned Lord. Section 29(2)(a) provides that it is outside the competence of the Scottish Government to apply,
“part of the law of a country or territory other than Scotland, or confer or remove functions exercisable otherwise than in or as regards Scotland”.
So this raises a great problem in the area he is talking about.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, if an Act of Parliament gives the Scottish Parliament power to say no and refuse its consent, what I am asking is whether that affects what might happen in other parts of the United Kingdom, so that you would not be able to get the common UK framework which people might otherwise think is necessary and desirable to be able to sustain a single market within these islands. At the moment, we have to some extent a form of competence at a different level—the European level—which is being brought back down to the United Kingdom. I ask these questions because it possibly means that there is a difference between the procedure which has been used if you wish to modify Schedule 5 or change Schedule 4 and one where we are returning the laws which hitherto have been subject to the European Union.
The amendments in my name, which I know are supported by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, are Amendment 89DAF in respect of Scotland, Amendment 89DAJ in respect of Wales and Amendment 89 DAK in respect of Northern Ireland. These amendments would, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, indicated, change the sunset—although it is not really a sunset in this respect—overall from seven years to five years, and they do that by changing the period during which the frameworks must be established from five years to three years. I did not seek to change the two-year period during which these orders have to be made, because that is consistent with other provisions in the Bill.
If my understanding of the situation is correct, if an order is not made that would identify the area for a framework and freeze, the power would automatically flow back to, let us say in this case, Edinburgh. Is it therefore to be expected that all these orders will be made, identifying the areas for freezing to establish common frameworks by the time we leave the European Union? Otherwise, it might appear that, within a period of days, weeks or months between our leaving the European Union and the order being made, there could be divergence between the different parts of the United Kingdom. After the order is made, I suggest that there should be a three-year period for the frameworks to be established rather than a five-year period.
I welcome the fact that time limits have been put in at all—that was a step forward, and the Government have obviously been listening on that. But I have not heard why it should be five years rather than three. That figure may have been plucked out of the air. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not in his place, but he did have an amendment in Committee in which five was suggested. It may be that that commended itself to the Government because it came from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I would like to hear a rationale as to why five years is to be preferred to three. The noble and learned Lord said that they had agreement from the Welsh Government on this. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s views on whether the Welsh Government thought that a shorter period of time would be ideal but they were prepared to accept this.
No one disputes the amount of work to be done but we are potentially in a Parkinson’s law situation, where work expands to fill the time available for its completion. If we say five years, it could take up to five years; if we say three years, it would focus the mind and we could possibly do it in three. That is not least because we are dealing with dynamic issues, and if we are to freeze retained EU law in areas where there might be need to update the law—I assume that in these circumstances we would seek to do so by agreement—three years would allow progress to be made faster.
Also in this group is Amendment 90, which again provides a sunset. However, I think it is superseded by what we are debating and so I will not seek to press it. But it is important that the Government give us a rationale as to why they have chosen this period of time.
On a very specific point, Amendment 92AD—on page 19 of the Marshalled List—talks about the reporting that is to be made by Ministers to Parliament:
“After the end of each reporting period, a Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a report which … (b) explains how principles … (i) agreed between Her Majesty’s Government and any of the appropriate authorities, and (ii) relating to implementing any arrangements which are to replace any relevant powers or retained EU law restrictions, have been taken into account”.
I rather suspect that these are the principles that were agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee back in October or November, which have certainly been discussed before. However, it is slightly odd to have reference to “principles” which, as far as I can see, will not actually appear in the Bill. Because we have debated this often enough, we perhaps know what the principles are, or at least know where they can be found, but to anyone coming to this fresh it would not necessarily indicate where these principles are. Will the Minister confirm that these are the principles that are being referred to—the ones agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee—and explain whether there is any reason that they should not be added as an annexe to the Bill?
In conclusion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, quoted a letter from the First Minister, which was very measured in its terms—slightly more measured than her writings in last week’s Sunday Herald, in which she said that the Tories would “completely demolish” Scottish devolution. I immediately thought of the many debates we had during the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, in which the Conservative Government extended devolution to cover almost all of income tax and a substantial amount of social security. This could be a very cunning plan, if they assume that the Scottish Government will—I was going to say “screw it up”, but I am not sure whether that is parliamentary—act in such a way that it would end devolution, but I do not think that that was the plan. This Government have shown a very strong commitment—and I say this from the opposition Benches—through the number of things that they have devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Take one example from the 24:
“EU regulations on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP); the placing on the market and use of biocidal products (e.g. rodenticides); the export and import of hazardous chemicals; the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH); and plant protection products (e.g. pesticides)”.
I cannot honestly believe that trying to establish a common framework on that somehow undermines devolution, given that the Government transferred, almost entirely, income tax to the Scottish Parliament. It is a degree of hype that does not serve the debate well.
I rather hope that, as we go forward, we can recognise that what we are trying to do is seek a position so that, when we are no longer part of the European Union, we can in many important areas where it is thought necessary—indeed, the Scottish Government have accepted that in some areas it is necessary—establish a common framework throughout the United Kingdom. There will be further arguments as to the content of these frameworks, but for the moment we need to identify what they are. I would welcome a response to the points that I have made.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in addressing Amendment 89DA, I will, as did the Minister, cover the broader ground contained in the amendments in the group. Some of my misgivings with the new proposed settlement dealt with in this group will arise in later amendments, 91 and 92, which for some reason have not been coupled with these.
While I welcome the progress that was made in the joint discussions on resolving some of the difficulties between Westminster and the devolved Governments—a welcome that has been expressed by both Mike Russell of the Scottish Government and Mark Drakeford, Wales’ Brexit Minister—I am acutely aware that not all the difficulties were resolved, and I beg the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in setting these issues in their context. I realise that some of my points may seem to be Second Reading ones, but in these amendments—there are 21 in this group alone—we have matters before us which were not in the Bill at Second Reading. I noted in particular the Minister’s invitation in his speech for us to contribute positive ideas in this context.
The adjustments before us tonight are in the context of what many people in Cardiff and Edinburgh, across party lines, regarded as a power grab—to use the term that was used then—by Westminster, in taking unto themselves powers returning from Brussels, including powers in what had previously been regarded as devolved functions such as agriculture. The fact that the Labour Government in Cardiff held out so long before agreeing reflected that fear; as did the fact that members of all parties in the Assembly—including initially Tory and UKIP AMs—supported having a continuity Bill to withstand that perceived power grab. The recent debate in Edinburgh reflected similar cross-party support for its continuity Bill. Rather than just scream “power grab” and hurl abuse at those we see as the authors of our difficulties, I will try to put forward what I see as a considered case and implore, even at this late stage in the Bill’s passage, that noble Lords appreciate the complexity of these issues—some of which have already emerged tonight—and rise to the challenge of finding a positive way forward, if not in this Bill then in some parallel or future legislation.
There have been calls from all sides for greater mutual respect in this process—for a mutuality that is not reflected by one side having a veto but other partners being denied that facility. The difficulty, repeated time after time by those involved in the recent negotiations over several months, is that there seems to be a basic lack of trust between Westminster and the devolved regimes. That is not so much a personal lack of trust but rather a lack of trust in the respective institutions.
Part of the lack of trust felt in Wales arises, perhaps, from different social values and from historic experience. There has been a growing lack of trust in Wales during my lifetime, emanating from difficult issues such as the Tryweryn Valley flooding in the 1960s, the S4C debacle of 1980 and, more recently, the Barnett formula. Devolution was meant to help avoid at least some such difficulties, but power devolved is power retained—a truism of which we have become acutely aware in these recent experiences. The underlying issues, which recent difficulties in the context of Brexit have highlighted, are not going to go away. They will continue to plague us until a proper constitutional settlement is reached. I suggest that the sunset clauses define a timescale within which this has to be sorted out.
In the wake of Brexit, the sorts of issues that will arise, and which will strain our constitutional settlement, perhaps to breaking point, include for Wales state aid for threatened industries like steel, the establishment in place of the CAP of a viable sheep-meat regime, and an acceptance that procurement rules can be used to ensure maximum community benefit from public expenditure. Sheep meat is an excellent example of the different perspectives of Westminster and Cardiff. Westminster tends to see it in terms of consumer needs; the Assembly sees it as the cornerstone of our rural economy and of local communities and their attendant culture. Quite frankly, I do not begin to see such considerations being addressed, and if Westminster insists on having a veto over such policies as agriculture, it will be seen as a constraint on devolved ambitions. There has to be give and take or the whole edifice will crumble under the strain of its own self-inflicted tensions. We are in fact trying to constrain the needs of a quasi-federal system within the straitjacket of a unitary state, and it just will not work; four into one will not go.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, this series of amendments, as the noble and learned Lord has explained, expresses the changes necessary to implement the agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Welsh Government. I immediately congratulate the Welsh Government on having gone the extra mile and skilfully reached an understanding. I also thank the government negotiators for their part. There has been a great deal of give and take on both sides. I make my comments generally on the agreement and I have given notice in my discussions with Ministers of some of my interests.
I also queried the five years mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. Perhaps justification for that can be given. I will not repeat the concerns that I have already expressed, at Second Reading and in Committee, at the insensitive drafting of the original Clause 11. In short, there was a failure—nothing new in Whitehall—to take on board that there is a legally constituted Government in Cardiff as well as in Westminster. I will repeat only that, had the JMCs been working properly and regularly, a great deal of time and energy could have been saved. I welcome the promise of a collaborative process of working out the agreement and the development of frameworks in the JMC in the future. I hope it works much better in the future than it has in the past.
But have the Welsh Government missed a trick? The ghost that is missing—completely absent—from this feast is a reference to financial arrangements. Having spent half my life at the Criminal Bar, the overwhelming maxim in fraud cases with which I was involved was “follow the money”. There is no mention of money here. Agriculture and public procurement constitute a substantial amount of money that comes into Wales from Brussels. My interest in farming, with all my family in west Wales in that industry, is well known.
Agricultural support and agricultural matters constitute at least 10 of the 24 temporarily reserved areas. Public procurement deserves a detailed explanation. Why was it included? Could it mean the privatisation of the NHS in Wales through a Westminster input? These matters have not been explained and they are there in the agreement. I would like the Minister to explain the extent of what public procurement means in this context. Have the Welsh Government given away too much under these specified headings?
Mr Gove has promised the continuation of existing agricultural support until, I believe, 2020. Brussels subventions are generally based on need. In general, the present financial arrangements between Westminster and Cardiff are based on the Barnett formula. When I raised the issue with Mr David Lidington at a recent meeting, there was no reply at all on this issue, but it is crucial. What is the future, how is it envisaged and how will the payments be made to Welsh agriculture? Can I have a clear statement of the progress being made by Mr Gove in his negotiations, and what assurances have been given to the Welsh Government in Cardiff?
The implementation of these amendments will be the key to the effectiveness of the agreement between the Welsh Government and Westminster. Could it be confirmed that it is the intention, or at least the hope, that the number of 24 subjects in the temporary arrangements will be reduced in the light of experience? In my day as Secretary of State—I think after I took over agriculture—I had to sign personally all the regulations in addition to the Minister at Westminster signing them. So there were two Ministers signing each regulation. Heaven forbid that this involves the resurrection of such bureaucracy in the future. The agreement states:
“It is possible that some additional areas … will be reserved”.
What timescale is envisaged for this? It is such an open-ended commitment. I hope the Minister will be able to indicate what is meant by that particular term in the agreement.
In paragraph 3 of the agreement, the words “without prejudice” occur in two contexts. What exactly is the effect of those words in this area? Do the references to the Sewel convention and the words “not normally” mean what they say? There were protracted battles to get confirmation from the Government that there would be legislative consent Motions. That was dragged out of the Government. First there was the prevarication of the Prime Minister, then of the Leader of the House of Commons, and then eventually the Minister here agreed that legislative consent would be given. I hope we can have an explanation of how that will operate, and that there will be no further question about it in the future.
I have said before that once devolution is granted then, short of a Westminster intervention, devolved powers cannot be taken away. I hope, and I specifically wish for confirmation, that the effect of these amendments is that all powers and policy areas will continue to rest with Cardiff unless they are specified to be temporarily held by Westminster.
Lord Lang of Monkton
I say with great respect to the noble Lord that I think it is the turn of this side of the House.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made in clarifying the clause as it originally appeared and I congratulate my noble friend and the Bill team on further refining the intentions in a way that I hope will make it much clearer at the end of the day. Their patience and diligence has caused them to go many extra miles and they should be warmly thanked for that. But we have now reached a conclusion that all people of reason and good will will surely welcome. I congratulate the Welsh Assembly Administration on their welcome for these changes. Sadly, the Scottish Administration have not done so. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I regard that as regrettable. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I truly wish that there were some Scottish nationalist Peers in this House to argue their case, answer our comments and explain their purpose and motives. Just because they are not here, however, that does not absolve us from the obligation to question and challenge their policies and make clear what we think of their motives and the way that they are trying to drive affairs.
Having expressed my views on this matter fairly clearly in Committee, and given the hour and the bulk of amendments that we still have to get through, I propose to cut what I intended to say in half and move on to other matters. So I shall spare the House half of what I originally intended to say.
I welcome the introduction of the new sunset clauses. In Committee, I suggested that the Scottish First Minister was capable of creating a grievance out of a ray of sunshine. On looking at her letter to the Lord Speaker, I see that she does not take too kindly to sunset either. She thinks that the sunset clauses are,
“not something I can recommend to the Scottish Parliament for approval”.
I think this a very good idea and an important improvement. The Constitution Committee has long argued for it, as have many others. I will be interested to see what my noble and learned friend the Minister says in his reply to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to shorten the extensive seven-year period to five years, which must have some arguments in its favour.
I particularly want to ask the Minister about the frameworks. I hope he can clarify the position on something that troubles me, here and elsewhere in the Bill: the possible accumulation of new provisions in legislation, arising from the Bill, that may not all evaporate when the sun eventually sets. For example, as I understand it, all frameworks have to be agreed, and legislation arising from them implemented, before exit day—or, at any rate, secured in some specific way if things stray into the transition period. Otherwise, they could accidentally be allowed to be devolved, to the great detriment of the United Kingdom and as a major change to the devolution settlement. Surely that creates a major time pressure in not just this Bill but those that will flow from it over the next few months. The 40-day cooling-off period adds to the pressure, although I welcome it as a measure. Given the propensity of the devolved Administrations to string matters out for as long as they can, can the Minister assure the House that provisions exist to ensure that all the framework-related legislation will meet the timing deadlines?
Secondly, the Bill would include legal commitments to consult the devolved Administrations on certain areas in future. As a matter of constitutional propriety, that should—and would—happen anyway; it already has, extensively, but now it will be enshrined in law. Given the propensity in some quarters to consider that to consult is to concede, and that consent is equal to granting a veto, can the Minister confirm that there is no question of consultation carrying such implications with it, that this dangerous route is closed off, that all the detritus that will be left after the Bill is implemented will have served its purpose because the measure is essentially transitional, and that such things will eventually fall by the wayside? With those queries and comments, I welcome the changes that have been made. I am confident that they are an improvement and I hope they will speed the Bill towards completion.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I also welcome the fact that the Government have moved so far from their original stance and that the Welsh Government have been able to agree to their proposals. It is a tribute to the force of the argument that united all parties in the Welsh Assembly—as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—against the Government’s initial proposals, as well as to the negotiating skills of Mark Drakeford and his team.
As said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the purpose of these provisions is to freeze the exercise of powers transferred from Brussels to Cardiff in 24 specific areas of policy, pending the negotiation and agreement of UK frameworks in those areas. There is a gap: what happens to the powers that are repatriated from Brussels between exit day and the making of these regulations? Where do they lie and are they exercisable by anybody? The noble and learned Lord asked for further guidance. I have looked at the amendment; it is not so much insensitive as tortuous. The machinery by which the restriction is implemented on the Welsh Assembly is contained in proposed new subsection (3), which introduces via proposed new subsection (3A) a new Section—109A—into the Government of Wales Act 2006. There are a number of steps to be taken to implement a restriction relating to retained EU law. It is important that both the principle and the mechanism be clear and understandable to the public and lawyers. I must confess, I found it difficult to understand; I am grateful for the help of the Minister, Chloe Smith MP, and her excellent legal adviser in guiding me through these provisions.
Step one of the process is discussions between the Government and the devolved Administrations. This is not in the new section at all. It is set out in paragraph 7a of the memorandum of understanding:
“Building on the ‘Deep Dive’ process, which has been a collaborative effort between the governments, discussions will take place between the governments to seek to agree the scope and content of regulations. This process will continue to report into JMC(EN)”—
that is, EU negotiations. Discussions will take place; that is the first step. The forum for those discussions and the means by which binding decisions are made is a very important topic, raised by Amendment 92A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I reserve further comments until then.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it is appropriate that I should follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on the Scottish amendments. The First Minister took the unusual step of sending these amendments to the Lord Speaker. I do not think she expected him to put them before the House.
I narrated in Committee how I had been invited to accept some briefing from the Scottish Government through Michael Russell, with whom I have had very pleasant and genial talks and communications since. I should acknowledge that he kindly said in a statement to the Scottish Parliament that he was grateful for the help that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I had given, as well as many people in other parts of the House. Relations between us have been extremely good. I have communicated with nobody about it except for Mr Russell and the Lord Advocate. I have not sought to involve anybody else in these communications, except, of course, the Government of the United Kingdom, with whom I was authorised, if you like, to negotiate. I have enjoyed the best possible approach of the Government of the United Kingdom in the Minister responsible and the Bill team. The officials responsible for the negotiations have been extremely helpful. Like many others I am sorry that the Scottish Government have not yet found it possible to agree with the arrangements that have so far been made.
I will take a word or two to explain what I understand the new government Amendment 89DA amounts to. If EU law is removed from the Scotland Act, all EU law comes immediately either to Scotland if it is a purely local country legislation, or, if it covers more than one of the countries of the UK, to the UK Parliament. That happens on Brexit day unless something is done. From what I understand, the proposed new section before us in the amendment will suspend the application of the new arrangements until arrangements are made for the single market—or the internal market—in the United Kingdom. There are, as all of us know, provisions in EU law for that single market. They might require amendment in light of the fact that the EU is no longer the authority for the law, but it is important to keep them in place until it is possible to get them amended in a way that is satisfactory to the United Kingdom, including the devolved Administrations —I include Northern Ireland in that phrase. Therefore, a power is given in the proposed new section to suspend that part of the immediate operation of the Brexit treaty so far as it affects the law.
It is important to see that proposed new subsection (2) says that that kind of restriction does not apply to any modification of EU law so long as it was, immediately before Brexit day, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. That restricts it to the kind of provision relating to the common market. That is what the amendment proposes in that situation, in the light of the discussions set out in the agreement—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke of that in a general way that applies to Scotland as well as to Wales. As far as I am concerned that is a reflection of the kind of amendment I proposed in Committee to try to get a better arrangement for negotiation. I am glad to know that such a memorandum of agreement has been accepted by the Welsh Government and, I hope, will be accepted by the Scottish Government.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, as many Scottish colleagues in the House are aware, over the last year or so my attendance in this place has been spasmodic and uncertain. I am sorry that I have not been able to make any contribution to this very important Bill until now, but I want to make two points, even at this late stage. The first is that it is the second time in 50 years that the country has had to ponder whether to remain part of the European entity. My mind goes back to 1975 when I was appointed to the committee of the Britain in Europe campaign, headed by Roy Jenkins and Willie Whitelaw. I was very much the junior member, the statutory Liberal stuck on this committee of the great and the good, but it was an amazing experience. We had huge public meetings. I remember one, in particular, in Edinburgh at the Usher Hall, where we must have had 2,000 people. I was simply the warm-up man for the great people who were going to speak; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and Roy Jenkins. The end result was absolutely decisive, unlike this last occasion in 2016. It was two-thirds to one-third in favour of remaining in the then European Economic Community.
Some will argue that we had it easy in those days because there was no Assembly in Wales; Northern Ireland, then as now, was under direct rule; and there was no Parliament in Scotland, so it was a fairly simple, straightforward argument. But I thought then, as I think now, that the whole history of this country in relation to Europe has been one of running after the European bus after it has left the stop. I am very proud of the fact that I belong to a political party that, under the inspiration of my great predecessor, Jo Grimond, in 1955 divided the House of Commons on the issue of whether to take part in the Messina talks. They only got a handful of people in the Lobby on one side against the massed ranks of the Labour and Conservative Parties in the other, but they were right and ever since then we have been running to catch the European bus and we have never got near the driving seat. We were simply passengers going in the direction that it happened to be going.
At least in 1975 we were talking about the future of Europe and the kind of country we wanted to be in Europe, which was not the case in the 2016 referendum, when people were arguing about slogans on the side of a bus, money for the National Health Service, immigration and other issues which were not directly related to the kind of country that we wanted to see. One of the extraordinary results of the 2016 referendum was that the over-65s voted clearly to leave and that is a terrible condemnation of the way that the referendum was run, not just by the Brexiteers but by the remainers. It was not run by professional politicians, unlike in 1975, and the result was that people operated on slogans rather than dealing with the real issues. That is my first point.
Now we are in the reverse position of trying to get off the moving bus. People who try to get off moving buses sometimes have accidents and I think Clause 11 was a major accident, which has now been put right. This is my second point. When the Bill was first published, Clause 11 was greeted in Scotland with total incredulity right across the political spectrum. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, put it very well at the time, that it was as though the drafters of the Bill simply had not realised what had happened in 1998 with the Scotland Act. They assumed that powers from Europe would automatically come to London and that the Government in London would graciously consider whether at some future point they might transfer some of those powers to Edinburgh. That was not just wrong, it was totally the opposite of what the Scotland Act 1998 said: that when powers that were covered for Scotland by the EU were returned, they would go automatically to Edinburgh, not to London. I think the Government got it completely wrong.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, with so many lawyers speaking this evening, it is with some temerity that I stand to add a few comments. I emphasise that there will not be many.
We have an inelegant, lop-sided form of devolution. I will not spend my time analysing the amendments in detail because the lawyers have done that much better than I possibly could, but I will talk about the process. We would not design devolution like this now and I believe these amendments show how poorly designed our devolution is. Until now it has relied on the overarching EU presence to smooth things over—to take the politics out of the politics—and I think it will be difficult in the future.
The amendments are not ideal. Like my noble friend Lord Steel, I would prefer that Clause 11 had not been there but this is an acceptable compromise. The important thing from my perspective is that it is acceptable to the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly. As my noble friend Lord Thomas said, the amendments are complex and tortuous. I was relieved to find that he did not understand one particular phrase. I had been too timid to ask what it meant. My concern is that the Government’s attitude towards this has hampered progress. It has taken far longer to reach agreement than it should have done and I believe the grudging attitude of the Government has meant that they have backed themselves into a corner. I recognise the tremendous efforts that have been made in recent days and weeks to deal with this. Nevertheless, while I might be a passionate devolutionist I do not believe that it is honest or straightforward to try to shoe-horn into this Bill an expansion of devolution. I believe that that is the Scottish Government’s current position and I feel that it is necessary to accept these amendments, in the current situation, in order to be straightforward with the people of Wales and Scotland. This is about trying to represent devolution in the situation as it is at the moment. If we are to expand devolution, we need a full debate about it in the future.
I believe that it will be politically tricky in the future to manage devolution. Some very sharp edges are revealed in these amendments between the powers of the UK Government and the devolved Governments. For that reason, my final point is that I would very much like to see the position of the JMC properly and fully established. It should not be the occasional add-on at the Government’s convenience which it currently is.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, perhaps I may come in here to congratulate the Minister on how far the Government have got in solving this rather knotty problem. As I go with this, I feel that I should re-emphasise my authority for speaking as a Scot and as a nationalist, rather as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern did. Mine is founded rather more in history than in current experience, in that members of my family have fought and died for Scottish independence on a number of occasions. They were also responsible for sitting on the whole negotiation for the Acts of Union.
I am not sure whether I can fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, said about all measures going immediately to Scotland. The provision that I tried to raise when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was speaking is that what is devolved was devolved under Schedule 5, but Schedule 5 was subject to the earlier parts of the Act. In attempting to modify Section 29, we are in really novel territory because that provision has remained as it was put in the Act in 1998. This is the first time that we have had to take a hatchet to it but the remaining subsection says that the Scottish Parliament will exceed its powers if it tries to legislate for any provision which,
“would form part of the law of a country or territory other than Scotland”.
A great many of the powers that are coming back affect all parts of the United Kingdom and that element has to be sorted out.
It is very good to hear from the Minister how the agreement on dealing with the powers from Brussels has been achieved. However, it sounds—or rather, it sounded at the start—as if the Scottish Government had the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood: that all law should immediately be devolved to them. This is clearly not going to do. Accompanying a letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was a table, which explained the Government’s view at that point on sorting out what was, I think, a total of 167 measures that they had identified in EU legislation as needing to be addressed. Of these, at that point they had no problem with 12 that needed to be reserved and 49 that could be immediately handed over. Can the Minister give us an update on the Government’s view on how many of these laws could immediately be handed over now, as I am sure that they and such things have been subject to negotiation over the Easter period? At the same time, however, we would like to know what legislative process will be put in place to achieve the handing over to the devolved Parliament and Assemblies and how long it is likely to take for those measures.
One or two noble Lords have quoted from the letter of 26 April from the First Minister of Scotland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has provided a very good outline of how Section 30 will work. I have no doubt that many of us have much to learn about that. I was slightly worried about the First Minister’s second suggestion in her letter, when she talks about,
“the existing constitutional arrangement where changes to devolved competence are to be made under Section 30 … by Order in Council subject to the approval of both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament”.
I was led to wonder whether an Order in Council, if passed by Her Majesty, was actually subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament at that stage, whereas I think that the amendments that are now in place are suggesting that approval would be sought and, with any luck, granted before the application was made for the order. If the Scottish Parliament were being offered the chance to turn down such a thing as an Order in Council that had already been made, a constitutional change in this order would need more than a memorandum of understanding, which is how the present system works.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am comforted by the fact that all of the learned noble Lords who have contributed have acknowledged that this is an extremely complicated situation, one in which there are clearly differences of views. Indeed, the submission that we have had from the Law Society of Scotland took a similar view. However, I also recognise that it is just as well that it is complicated because Clause 11, in its initial format, was brutally simple and wrong. We therefore have got to a position where, after some time, we are now able to debate something that acknowledges the difficulties that Clause 11 originally contained.
Everybody has genuinely welcomed—and should rightly welcome—the progress that has been made, the spirit with which it has been made and the work that has been done to get to a situation which genuinely acknowledges that what we are trying to do is find a decision-making process that carries everybody with us, recognises legitimate interests, but is always left with the elephant in the room, which is, “Where does the buck stop?” Clearly, the buck ultimately stops with the UK because we are a United Kingdom. That, of course, is not entirely acceptable to people who do not believe in the United Kingdom and do not wish it to continue.
It is fair to say that Mike Russell in particular has, on more than one occasion, acknowledged constructive progress and engagement. Indeed, many of us have the view that, left to his own devices, the Scottish Government might have accepted where we are today. The First Minister clearly has not. She has not only sent a letter here to the Lord Speaker, but made fairly—shall we say—lively representations in the Scottish media as to what she thinks is intended. The trouble is that what she said might be legitimately attached to Clause 11 as it was, but it does not legitimately attach to where we are today. That is why the sentiment of this House—and I suspect the sentiment of those people in Scotland who think about it—is that the Scottish Government should be very careful that they do not over-push their position, because Scotland has voted to be in the United Kingdom, is part of the United Kingdom, and recognises that there are shared interests, where we will need to make decisions together. The issue is: how do we find a process that has the trust and confidence and the interests of everybody that can be taken on board?
We might eventually have to talk about a federal constitution; the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was the only speaker to mention quasi-federalism. We are stumbling towards a federal United Kingdom and we may need to acknowledge that, because federalism would provide a legal framework in which the powers were clearly stated in law and disputes were resolved through a constitutional court.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I have been following the noble Lord’s very interesting speech very closely. How would he propose to deal with England, which has not been mentioned at all in this very long debate, and its 53 million inhabitants in his federal constitution?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
Of course I would wish to deal with England in a friendly and constructive manner, but the serious point is that many of us have recognised that ultimately, the United Kingdom is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are the entities. Within England there are lots of other entities, but they fall below the state level. I certainly have never had the difficulty other people have had in saying that a federal constitution would include England having its own voice, but that is for another day. All I am saying is that we have muddled along and now have elected mayors, metropolitan authorities, the London Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament—all with different powers, different terms of reference and different mechanisms. Although it is very British to maintain this pluralism and diversity, at some point or other we may need to try to find a slightly more coherent framework in which these matters can be resolved and in which people can know that where there is a dispute, there will an impartial resolution based on law, rather than the heavier political weight overruling the lighter weights.
The fact remains that the noble Lord’s intervention is entirely right: 85% of the population lives in England. England does not constitute 85% of the land area, but if we have a United Kingdom, there is a responsibility on those of us who live elsewhere than in England to acknowledge the weight of England. But if the English want the United Kingdom to continue, it behoves them to understand that they will have to give probably slightly more than they want to accommodate Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because the price is holding the union together. That is what this debate has fundamentally been about. The argument I always make is that I wonder at what point, if ever, an ultranationalist would regard anything that left residual power with the United Kingdom as acceptable. If your objective is to leave, my only point is that once you have left, you will suddenly find that England is still there and you still have to deal with it. We have had that debate for the past several weeks—about Europe still being there and still having to deal with it. It is the same point.
This debate has been very academic, legalistic and process-driven. In the end, it is about politics and policy and what the Government believe is essentially determined by the UK’s national interest and where they believe that allowing the devolved authorities to block something would be contrary to the UK interest. I say that as somebody who acknowledges that there is sometimes a danger that if Scotland insists on its rights, it will be in the interests not of Scotland but of an ideological commitment to being Scottish, and there are people in Scotland who would rather be poor and independent than well off and sharing resources with the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to know where people are coming from. In a sense, in Scotland people are clearer about that than they were a few years ago. I suggest that support for the United Kingdom, with all its faults—and, by God, there are many and they are very conspicuous at the moment—is significantly stronger than it was a few years ago because people have seen the abyss. We are looking into another abyss right now, and I suspect opinion will change accordingly.
The sunset clause has been mentioned by many people. It would be helpful if the Minister explained why we need five years rather than three. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made a point about what the sunset clause applies to. I thought it was to the period to which the process would apply, not to the decisions made under that process. That is a point for clarification. From the Government’s point of view, what does the sunset clause apply to?
My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace articulated that for a regulation on, for example, pesticides there would clearly be a UK agreement and it would be perverse for any component part to resist it. I shall give one final example because agriculture features quite strongly in these powers. We are about to leave the European Union. The common agricultural policy has been the basis of support for Scottish farmers. It has been based on an acquis which is focused on smaller, more marginal farmers in the less-favoured areas. The House will be well aware that most of them live in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although I acknowledge that they also live in the Pennines, the Lake District and other parts of England.
There are debates in the Conservative Party about abandoning subsidies altogether. There is clear concern in the devolved areas about the impact of that. But we can look at it both ways. For example, somebody who sees Scotland as having twice as much, much more marginal agriculture than England, in most cases, would say, “We want to be able to continue to support our agriculture”. But they might also say, “But we think that is something the United Kingdom should help us with, so there should be a UK policy that helps to contribute to it”. The arch-UK nationalist point would be to say, “Well, you can have the right to support your farmers, but you will pay for it out of your own tax base”. I would suggest that questions the validity of the United Kingdom, and I will say that in friendly terms to Michael Gove and his team in due course.
The other area is social security, where we have decided that we want to transfer the power. I find it interesting that the SNP is saying, “No, no, we want more power”, having said, “We can’t quite accept responsibility for social security just yet, because we haven’t got the mechanisms in place”.
I think we have probably reached a settlement which is the centre of gravity of this debate for now. We now need to devise a process in the longer term whereby collective decision-making can be put into a context where all the component parts honestly feel that they are likely to get their voice heard and a fair and equitable decision, with some kind of external judicial review or appeal process as the final backstop, rather than it being based simply on weight of numbers.
Having said that, I think many of us who saw the beginning of this debate when Clause 11 was published are very grateful that we are now at the end of it and can actually see a way forward. I wish it was true of all other aspects of the Bill.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am not sure that it is permissible for an English Peer to intervene in this debate. We have been going for two hours six minutes on Scotland. Earlier, I think we went on for two hours and 57 minutes on Northern Ireland, which reinforces one of the strongest impressions that these debates on the EU withdrawal Bill have left on me, apart from the tragedy of the withdrawal from the European Union itself: the lopsidedness of our constitution.
The United Kingdom is a state of 63 million people, of whom 53 million are in England. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said earlier that if Scotland were an independent state, it would be larger than 10 EU states. But if England were an independent state, it would be larger than 24 EU states. It would be fourth in the EU and the separation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would make a difference of only one place in its ranking: it would be behind, rather than in front of Italy.
I only make these points because it is very clear to me that the future constitution of the United Kingdom is going to become increasingly debated and contested, particularly if we leave the European Union and one of its major existing planks is wrenched away. It is also clear to me that one of the reasons why we may be leaving the European Union—there is still a lot of water to pass under this bridge over the next 11 months—is that in England, politicians, particularly in the Conservative Party, which is the dominant political party of England now and historically, have huge difficulty with the notion of sharing power and of different tiers of government to which power is distributed.
By a very painful process, which has been graphically exhibited by all the procedures that have had to be gone through in this Bill—legislative consent Motions and all that—over the last two generations we have managed to reach an accommodation with Scotland and Wales which has enabled devolved government to be introduced. It was extremely painful. It took two lots of referendums, in the case of Scotland and Wales, to do it and we all know the difficulties that there have been in Northern Ireland. In England, we have not even begun seriously to go through that process of sharing power and establishing new tiers of government, with the partial exception of London.
London is very interesting because, like all the metropolitan authorities, it had a long-standing authority, the Greater London Council, which had previously been the London County Council for the best part of a century, but when it diverged from central government policy in the 1980s it was abolished, though it was re-established afterwards. However, that is the only real exception in terms of an authority with significant power in England. Attempts to establish regional assemblies have failed. We are still struggling in the early stages of establishing mayoral authorities but, significantly, the mayoral authorities outside London are partial and weak, and in many parts of the country it is still not even possible to devise what they are.
I simply put down as a marker—it may be that we continue this debate on the next group of amendments—that this is going to be an increasingly big and problematic issue for us. Indeed, if Brexit is accomplished in the next 11 months, because the unitary state of England, which effectively runs the UK, will be even more powerful in its own sphere than it is now because it will not even be sharing any of its sovereignty and power with Brussels, then I suspect this is going to become a still more difficult issue to address in due course. I was very struck by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioning federalism. At some point this issue will have to be grasped, but at the moment no one has the faintest idea how England would be represented and be able to exert its proper role within a federal constitution. I cannot see that happening any time soon.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has an amendment coming up. The noble Lord has played a complete blinder through these debates. I have to say that Wales has been spectacularly well represented—in his person, for a good deal of the time, with a bit of help from one or two other noble Lords. If England had had a voice as powerful as his in this Chamber, I think we might have got a federal UK with a Government and Parliament of England a long time ago. He is doing a spectacularly good job.
I notice—this is very telling—that the noble Lord’s Amendment 92A on the Joint Ministerial Committee makes no reference whatever to England. The JMC is about the Government of the UK and then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That sums up the huge constitutional deficit we have in the UK at the moment, which is the government and proper representation of England within the UK. I suspect that this issue will increasingly dominate our politics if we leave the EU.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
My Lords, we come to the conclusion of this debate on Clause 11. Once again, it behoves me, I feel, to express appreciation for the very hard work and the deep diving that has been done by all those who have produced the state that we now find ourselves in. In presenting my concluding remarks, I want to set out one or two reasons why the party I belong to here, the Labour Party, has been more than happy to give its assent to the intergovernmental agreement—that is, the statement that culminates from the various strands of thinking that have gone into the making of it. For someone who is new to political exercise, and who was always taught that politics is the art of the possible, this seems to represent as good an illustration of that as I could wish to find.
I should like to set out why we on these Benches support the government amendments now. There are at least five reasons, and I will be very quick about them because it is a late hour already. As the Welsh Labour Government have recognised, so we want to confirm that this package represents a solution that protects devolution, which is very important, as fully as possible as we grapple with the myriad consequences of Brexit. First, as we see with the amendments in this group, it confirms the inversion of the Clause 11 brought before us by the Government in Committee. The original proposal would have retained all returning EU powers over devolved policy areas at Westminster and allowed only Ministers of the Crown to release them to the devolved institutions when they chose to the extent, and the timescale, that they alone determined. That has been reversed. All powers over devolved policy areas, except those in areas where it is agreed that UK frameworks are needed, will be held in Cardiff and Edinburgh and, at the appropriate time, we hope and trust, in Belfast. When the EU law restriction ends, that means the devolved institutions will be able to exercise them without the current requirements to operate within those EU frameworks. In these areas, devolved competence will increase. This model is therefore wholly compatible with the reserved powers model embedded in the Scotland Act and the Wales Act 2017, whereby everything is devolved except things specifically retained at Westminster.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am most obliged to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am essentially moving a series of very complex and extensive amendments to the Bill, from Amendment 89DA through to Amendment 92AD, with consequential amendments from Amendment 89DB through to Amendment 117C. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has moved his own amendments on sunsetting constraints, which I shall address; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has moved extensive amendments from Amendment 89DAA through to Amendment 92BBA—and, indeed, could have extended his Motion for amendment further than that, I suspect.
At the heart of this lies a simple principle. The EU has developed and maintained a single market for the benefit of the members of the Union. As we exit the EU, we are anxious to maintain a single market for the benefit of the union of the United Kingdom. That is what it comes to. In doing that, we must of course respect the devolution settlement and the position of the devolved entities and parliaments, whether in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—even though at present it is not sitting as an Executive, which we acknowledge.
I am not going to address the original Clause 11. Noble Lords have expressed their views on that and I do not need to either add to them or necessarily rebut them; we are anxious to move on, and to move this amendment. What are we intent on doing? Well, I would counter the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that this is a power grab. Such rhetoric has been thrown about before, of course, and I do not feel that it would advance matters to engage with that sort of rhetoric. I just remind noble Lords of the terms of the amendment itself. If your Lordships have the Marshalled List of amendments, at page 7—or, for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, page 8, where it refers to Wales—I simply read out proposed new Clause 30A(1):
“An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown”.
We know that there is then an elaborate process for the making of those regulations; the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the stages that would be gone through in the making of those regulations. Let us then look at subsection (2):
“But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the legislative competence of the Parliament”.
There is no intention here to intrude upon the existing legislative competence of the parliaments. But of course, as powers come back, it is necessary to consider which of those powers have to be maintained in order that we can have a functioning internal market in the United Kingdom. That is the objective and what we seek to do. All powers pass to the devolved Administrations on exit day where no regulations have been made under the proposed amendment. That is the right policy outcome that we have agreed with the Welsh Government and which we still seek to agree— I emphasise still—with the Scottish Government.
That takes us on to the question of how the frameworks have been arrived at. Noble Lords will recollect that, at the Joint Ministerial Committee in October last year, the principles to be applied were agreed by all those attending: the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government. I just add in response to a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that where he finds reference in the amendments to “principles”, that refers to the principles that were agreed at that stage and are carried over in the agreements. At the present time, we have identified 24 areas of retained EU law—or what will be retained EU law—where we require frameworks to maintain an internal United Kingdom market. There is debate about some additional areas, which will have to be addressed in due course. We have focused our attention now on 24; it may be fewer at the end of the day, as we talk our way through them, because they apply only to particular areas of policy, not to one general area. We are not talking about agriculture or fisheries, we are talking about discrete aspects of these policy areas that are perceived to be necessary in order to maintain the UK internal market.
Perhaps before I move on, because a number of noble Lords have raised the point, I should address the question of how the regulations will operate. That can be seen from the proposed amendment, and there are two elements to it. Proposed subsection (7) says:
“No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day”.
That is the first period of two years. If no regulations have been made in respect of what is perceived to be a necessary framework, no regulations will be made. Proposed subsection (9) says:
“Any regulations under this section which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to any Act of the Scottish Parliament which receives Royal Assent after the end of that period”.
Therefore, in so far as we have not taken that forward, these powers will then revert to the appropriate authority.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It seems that we have an explanation. Were officials of the Scottish Government involved in that and, if in-depth work has been done, would the Minister help the House by publishing it?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not in a position to say that such work would be published, because of course it has been on the basis of engagement between officials dealing with this. I do not believe that there is any official report to that effect; it is just a matter of the product of engagement between officials negotiating these matters. Therefore I cannot indicate that we will publish anything in that regard. That is to try to explain the position with regard to the sunset clauses in the regulations. I turn to the question—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The Minister was about to tell us about the gap my noble friend introduced between exit day and the making of the regulations.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. There may be a situation in which powers go to the devolved Administrations and yet they do not deal with those powers, and it may be considered that upon further consideration there are additional areas where frameworks ought to be based on a UK-wide determination and where regulations would be made. But as the noble Lord himself observed, that regulation-making process would involve us consulting the Scottish and Welsh Governments—and, I hope at that stage, a Northern Ireland Executive—so that we could secure their consent. Only if there was a failure to secure the consent would the matter go forward to this Parliament, with two clear safeguards. First, the Minister of the Crown would have to explain to Parliament why he was seeking to make those regulations without the consent of a devolved Administration, and secondly, there would be an opportunity for the devolved Administration to make their representations to this Parliament as to why they felt it appropriate to withhold their consent. But, as I said, there may be a period after exit when it occurs to parties that it might be appropriate to proceed in that way.
Turning to the question of where we are with the Scottish Government, I begin by saying that the door—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Before the noble and learned Lord moves on, did I miss it or has he answered the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, on when the sun will rise before it spins across the sky for five years? When does it start? Is it with the particular regulation?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. My understanding is that the five-year period will commence from the point at which the regulation is made.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
So in practice we could be looking quite a long way ahead—it is five plus X.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am tempted to mention here the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
Lord Keen of Elie
But I will not. If the noble Lord wishes me to elaborate on the operation of the sunset clauses, I would be quite content to write to him. At this stage, perhaps I can continue—with the encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths—to address the question of the Scottish Government.
We are extremely grateful that we have achieved consensus with the Welsh Government and will be able to take this forward with their wholehearted agreement. I will come on to one or two points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, in a moment. As far as we are concerned, the door is still open for the Scottish Government, and we would be anxious to see them come through it so that we can take this forward with the agreement of all the Administrations in the United Kingdom. However, we are where we are at the present time. As regards their proposed amendments, they would, by different routes, result in a situation in which one of the devolved Administrations would effectively hold a veto over the implementation of UK-wide legislation for the maintenance of the UK internal market. That, I respectfully suggest, could not and would not be appropriate.
The exit from the EU raises complex questions with regard to the construction and application of the Scotland Act 1998 because, in 1998, such an exit was never contemplated. Reference has been made to Schedules 4 and 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 and the mechanisms for their amendment, but, as we were reminded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, those are not the only mechanisms that impact upon the competence of the Scottish Parliament. We have to look at the terms of Section 29 of the 1998 Act, which as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Mackay, observed raises issues with regard to territoriality in respect of the competence of the Scottish Parliament. I do not want to go into the detail of that at present, but one notices that its competence is limited in that respect, and by reference to EU law as well. Therefore, we do not consider that, at the end of the day, we can appropriately accept a situation in which the devolved Administration can exercise a veto over the exercise of power by the United Kingdom Parliament in situations where it is being exercised for the benefit of the UK as a whole. I hope that that goes some way to explaining, without looking at the complexities of the 1998 Act, why we do not feel we are in a position to accept the position expressed by the Scottish Government on this point.
We simply regret the fact that, despite the very significant efforts—I underline “significant”—of the representatives of the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government in producing an outline agreement, it has not been possible to persuade the Scottish Government to join us on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, suggested that this might reflect a lack of trust. As I have observed on previous occasions, this is not an issue of trust. This is an issue of constitutional propriety. Whatever view one takes of the devolved settlement and of where we are with regard to the legislation on that, at the end of the day it is not appropriate to accept that one of the devolved Administrations could effectively exercise a veto over legislation for the benefit of the other members of the Union—namely England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Wigley
I thank the Minister for the detail in which he is responding to this debate and the work that he has undertaken. None the less, there may be issues such as the sheep meat regime, which we have used in a number of circumstances as an example where the differential impact of policies in one area such as Wales may be much greater than the impact in other areas. To that extent, the wishes of the Welsh Government in that context should have a greater weight, in the same way as when Welsh Ministers represent the UK in the Council of Ministers to discuss the sheep meat regime. Is it not possible to fine-tune the Government’s proposals to enable that happen?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, I must say that it is our clear intention, which is reflected in the memorandum of understanding in the agreement, that we will engage with the devolved Administrations in the consideration of these framework agreements and their application. Of course, these matters will be taken into account at that stage. But I do not consider it appropriate to bring that sort of granular detail into this Bill, which is designed for a very specific purpose. I hear what the noble Lord says and, clearly, we wish to proceed on the basis of mutual respect and understanding with the other devolved Administrations.
In that context, I underline the point in response to a query raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, speaking, I understand, on behalf of the Scottish Government who are not otherwise represented in this House. There is no question of this process under Clause 11 being somehow the thin end of the wedge so far as the devolution settlement is concerned. The devolution settlement is a reality of our constitutional situation and one that we extended under the 2016 Act, really quite recently, in light of the Smith review. We continue to respect, understand and wish to apply the devolution settlement. But it is a devolution settlement that has to work for everyone in the United Kingdom. I return to the point that it cannot work for everyone in the United Kingdom if one devolved Assembly or Government assume that they have the ability to exercise what amounts to a veto over legislation that is relevant, pertinent and important to the entirety of the United Kingdom.
I move on to address one or two additional points raised by noble Lords in respect of these matters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, referred to finance and whether the Welsh Government had missed a trick. I do not believe that they did for a moment. Indeed, they put themselves one step ahead by embracing this agreement and the amendment. But the noble and learned Lord raised a point about funding. He is right to point out that our agreement for the Welsh Government does not speak to funding but that is not to say that funding has been forgotten or put to one side. Clearly, it is a matter that will be addressed. We recognise the importance, for example, of the Barnett formula. We understand why there is concern, particularly about agricultural funding under CAP Pillar 1 under the current EU budget that runs to 2020. We have provided a degree of certainty by promising to continue to commit the same total cash funds for farm support across the UK until 2022. At present, the Secretary of State for the Environment is in close discussion with his counterparts in the Welsh and Scottish Governments on exactly how our agricultural systems should work outside of the EU. I stress that that is not a matter for this Bill. This is the Bill that provides for our exit and our exit alone, so I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that. He raised the question of public procurement—again, these issues are not for this Bill but we are clearly conscious of them and they will have to be addressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, also raised the question of whether further areas might be the subject of reservation under the freezing provisions of the amendment. We have identified 24 areas for frameworks but a number of other areas that could be the subject of regulations going forward are still subject to discussion. I acknowledge that. Noble Lords may recollect that we published the list of frameworks and included not only the 24 areas I have referred to, but a further 12 where there is ongoing discussion about how they will be addressed and resolved.
I am conscious that I have not answered every question that has been posed. If noble Lords are concerned that I have not addressed a point that still concerns them about Clause 11, as amended, I would be content to receive their queries and write to them. In the event that I write to any noble Lords on this issue or any issue relating to this clause, I will place a copy in the Library. I seek to reassure noble Lords on that point. With that, I will formally move each amendment. I am sorry—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has to reply.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, it is for me to say what will happen to my Amendment 89DAA, which is an amendment to Amendment 89DA, moved by the noble and learned Lord the Minister.
I want to make a few short points. First, I want to pick up on a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that he will not accept the opprobrium that was visited on the Scottish Ministers for the way they conducted themselves in these negotiations. Having had discussions with Michael Russell and the Lord Advocate—like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—the points I put forward in my introduction to my amendment were sincerely held. Those points were not made to cause trouble. The Lord Advocate in particular gave advice on his reading of the Scotland Act; Michael Russell, for his part, was entirely genuine in his points about principle as well. That should be clearly understood.
When I was in practice at the Scottish Bar, I was junior to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As he pointed out, if I appeared with him, I would speak first; it would then be his function, as my senior, to speak second. Quite frequently, I found that when he spoke, he refined the kind of argument that I was attempting to put forward. It took on a slightly different—rather more attractive, perhaps—appearance after he had refined it. As he pointed out in his speech, the points that I made about the construction of Section 30 and the other sections do not really apply in the situation with which we are dealing here. I was grateful for his remark that the situation is unique and not seeking in any way to undermine the devolution settlement. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for making the same point that there is no question of this being the thin end of the wedge or in any way seeking to undermine the devolution settlement, to which he wishes to adhere. These remarks should help a lot in reassuring those in Scotland on how they should approach the continuing discussions. I was glad to hear from the Minister that the door is still open; I think that the Scottish point of view still regards the door as open too.
Perhaps this debate has refined things and shown that the purist argument—that of principle—does not really apply here. This is not about trying to construct the market that we were trying to construct in 1998, which was done by separating out the bits that mattered for that market into Schedule 5 so that they were clearly identified. We are dealing with a different, rather more subtle, situation in trying, as the Minister said, to create a functioning internal market with what has come back to us from Europe. That requires a rather more subtle approach that is not really dealt with in the Scotland Act, for understandable reasons. That being so, I hope very much that the way forward will be pointed by our discussion this evening. Without any further ado, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I intervene to raise a point that I have spoken to the clerk about. Noble Lords might recollect that earlier in the evening I gave a passing imitation of a rabbit in headlights. The reason for that was that it appeared to me that the amendments in group three had been moved and agreed without me speaking to them—which is absolutely ideal, as far as I am concerned. They are highly technical amendments, but I felt I should mention that to the House, lest any noble Lord wishes me to speak to them. As I said, they have been agreed, but noble Lords did not have an opportunity to hear my dulcet tones on the subject.
Lord Callanan
“(4A) Part 1A of Schedule 3 (which imposes reporting obligations on a Minister of the Crown in recognition of the fact that the powers to make regulations conferred by subsections (1) to (3C) and Part 1 of Schedule 3, and any restrictions arising by virtue of them, are intended to be temporary) has effect.(4B) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—(a) repeal any of the following provisions—(i) section 30A or 57(4) to (15) of the Scotland Act 1998,(ii) section 80(8) to (8L) or 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or(iii) section 6A or 24(3) to (15) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or(b) modify any enactment in consequence of any such repeal.(4C) Until all of the provisions mentioned in subsection (4B)(a) have been repealed, a Minister of the Crown must, after the end of each review period, consider whether it is appropriate—(a) to repeal each of those provisions so far as it has not been repealed, or (b) to revoke any regulations made under any of those provisions so far as they have not been revoked.(4D) In considering whether to exercise the power to make regulations under subsection (4B), a Minister of the Crown must have regard (among other things) to—(a) the fact that the powers to make regulations conferred by the provisions mentioned in subsection (4B)(a), and any restrictions arising by virtue of them, are intended to be temporary and, where appropriate, replaced with other arrangements, and(b) any progress which has been made in implementing those other arrangements.”
Lord Callanan
“(6) In this section— “arrangement” means any enactment or other arrangement (whether or not legally enforceable);“review period” means—(a) the period of three months beginning with the day on which subsection (4C) comes into force, and(b) after that, each successive period of three months.”
Lord Wigley
“( ) This section may not come into effect until—(a) the Scottish Parliament has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (1);(b) the National Assembly for Wales has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (2); and(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (3).”
Lord Wigley
My Lords, Amendment 91 stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It would require the consent of each of the devolved parliaments to be obtained before Clause 11 comes into effect.
Amendments 107 and 108, standing in my name only, provide that none of this Act, except for this clause, would come into force until the Prime Minister was satisfied that resolutions signifying consent have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and, unless direct rule is in place, the Northern Ireland Assembly. Both amendments deal in different ways with the element of consent relating to the Act. Both would enshrine the Sewel convention in law. The Sewel convention dictates that the UK Government shall not normally legislate in areas of devolved competence without consent. Consent is sought through a legislative consent Motion. Very rarely do the devolved Parliaments withhold consent. It has happened I believe—I can be corrected if I am wrong on this—only once in Scotland and once in Northern Ireland since 1999. Ironically, it has been used seven times by the National Assembly for Wales. I am not quite sure what that tells us.
The point I am underlining is that withholding legislative consent is not used lightly. It is treated with caution and respect. It is the only constitutional tool available to the devolved Parliaments to challenge the balance of power across the British Isles. However, we know from the Miller case on the Article 50 Bill that the Sewel convention is merely that: it is a convention. The UK Government are wholly within their rights to override any decision made by the devolved Parliaments in relation to this Bill or any other Bill deemed within devolved competence.
I have spoken at length on previous occasions about the need for the Sewel convention to be enshrined in law in relation to this Bill. This is the most wide-ranging constitutional Bill since the European Communities Act 1972. I have spoken at length about the need for the devolved Parliaments formally to consent to Clause 11—I shall not repeat those arguments. I will, however, point to the most recent developments whereby the Welsh Labour Government have implied consent to the Bill, having accepted the amendment to Clause 11 laid by the Government, although time will tell whether that will carry through the Assembly. Those same amendments are insufficient for the Scottish Government and every opposition party in Scotland except the Scottish Conservative Party. The main sticking point for these parties is consent.
The UK Government have tried to devise a new meaning for consent in relation to the functions of Clause 11. They seem quite deliberately to be confusing “consent” with a consent decision. There is a difference, but I think that everybody who reads about this matter in the generality may not be aware of it. The UK Government can impose restrictions on the National Assembly for Wales’s competence as long as a consent decision has been made—not that consent has been obtained. The substance or result of that consent decision is immaterial. The UK Government can steam ahead even if a consent decision is not made. This, quite frankly, is a farce. I believe that there will be a lot of public discussion about that as matters move forward.
We have reached a point in history whereby the current constitutional arrangements, the political conventions underpinning the UK’s intragovernmental relations, are under pressure and in danger of unravelling. In the way that the UK Government are handling consent, they are making it a concept whose understanding among the public is in some doubt and it is causing severe mistrust across the four nations. I urge the UK Government to act, to listen to the Scottish Government and to come to an agreement on consent and a new UK constitution.
Amendment 91 should be grasped by the House today and the Government should accept it to resolve the position in Scotland and to get out of the unholy mess in which they have landed in Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I have put my name down in support of the amendment. The arguments which led me to do that are those which I set out when I was moving my amendment earlier this evening, so I need not take up the time of the House in repeating them. What I said earlier is the full explanation as to why I put my name down.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendments, which are pertinent given the different positions of the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the imminent timing of votes in their legislatures that will address consent.
The Government have been clear that they wish to make the positive case for consent for this Bill. We have not just talked about our commitment to making that case but have shown it. We have engaged in extensive discussions with the devolved Administrations and have now introduced the amendment to Clause 11 that we have just discussed at some length to try to meet the expectations of the devolved legislatures. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will accept that our commitment to the legislative consent process is reflected in the agreement that we struck with the Welsh Government last week.
This is the legislative consent process in action. We have put forward policy objectives; we have worked through the differences, and we have found an appropriate compromise. As a result, the Welsh Government have recommended that the National Assembly for Wales grant legislative consent to the Bill when it votes on this matter, I believe, on 15 May. The Welsh Government agree that our amendments now strike the right balance between providing legal certainty and maximising assurances to the devolved legislatures on how we will jointly manage the process of powers returning from the EU in otherwise devolved areas. Of course we are disappointed that we have not been able to reach the same agreement with the Scottish Government, but this, I suggest, is not for want of trying. I stress again that time remains for the Scottish Government to join this agreement, so that we can all demonstrate that we have done what we consider to be the responsible thing in this context.
Lord Wigley
I ask for one point of clarification from the Minister. Does he not accept that there is a real danger of confusion in the public mind between allowing a consent order and actually getting consent? In other words, the process can be one where consent is given, is not given or is refused, but whichever of those three outcomes it is, the process can still go on for a parliamentary resolution here by order; and we know that orders, in the House of Commons and here, go through on the nod most of the time. Is that not a deception, giving the impression that there is a consent mechanism when, in fact, it is a pretty meaningless one?
Lord Keen of Elie
I simply do not accept the noble Lord’s characterisation of the matter. It is clearly the case that where consent, for example, was sought and not obtained, it would be necessary for the Minister of the Crown to address that, very clearly and specifically. There would be the opportunity, as there always is, for the devolved Administration to make their own views clear as to why they had declined consent. I do not believe that this is in any sense deceptive, misleading or a mirage. These are constitutional requirements that are adhered to and that will be adhered to. It would not be appropriate to introduce the sort of amendment moved by the noble Lord that would, in effect, tie the hands of this sovereign Parliament, so far as this exit process is concerned. Whatever view one might take about the merits of exit, that is neither here nor there. This is a constitutional principle with regard to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom when it comes to legislate for the benefit of the entirety of the United Kingdom. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and indicate that I would not expect to return to this matter at Third Reading.
Lord Wigley
I am very grateful to the Minister. I have heard that form of words from his colleagues in the past. Clearly, this is a matter on which there may be a difference of opinion. I realise the need for there to be coherence on a UK scale but there are matters which have a specific effect in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland where their interests need to be taken into account. Clearly, we are not going to make progress on this tonight. Therefore, on the basis of the discussion we have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
“Joint Ministerial Committee
(1) The Joint Ministerial Committee is to consist of —(a) one member appointed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; (b) one member appointed by the First Minister of Scotland;(c) one member appointed by the First Minister of Wales; and(d) one member appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland,or, if it is not possible to appoint four members, the member appointed by the Prime Minister under paragraph (a) and two members appointed under paragraphs (b) to (d).(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) may—(a) appoint themselves to the Joint Ministerial Committee; and(b) appoint different members for different meetings of the Committee.(3) The Joint Ministerial Committee must be chaired by the member appointed by the Prime Minister.(4) Where there is a proposal from any member of the Joint Ministerial Committee for a decision to be made on any question, that proposal must be approved only where—(a) in the case of there being four appointed members, there is an affirmative vote by at least three of its members;(b) in the case of there being three appointed members, there is an affirmative vote by at least two of its members.(5) No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under the provisions of section 11 of this Act without its having been first approved by the Joint Ministerial Committee.(6) No UK framework providing for agreed action on matters which were, on the day immediately preceding exit day, devolved to Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland may take effect without its having been first approved by the Joint Ministerial Committee.(7) In this section, “the Joint Ministerial Committee” means the body set up in accordance with Supplementary Agreement A of the Memorandum of Understanding on Devolution between Her Majesty’s Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee.”
Lord Wigley
The main purpose of Amendment 92A is to strengthen the position of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations in relation to the creation of UK frameworks.
The amendment is by no means complete and may lack some technical finesse, which the Government could put right in the other place if they were to accept this proposal. It does, however, propose practical ways around the devolution deadlock. We must remember that, at least in the Scottish situation, the court has yet to come to its conclusion, and if it finds in favour of the Scottish Government, the Scottish continuity Bill could remain a block to progress on implementing this measure. The amendment proposes an alternative to the restrictions placed on the devolved Parliaments through Clause 11 and by the Government’s amendments to Clause 11. It proposes that we go beyond mere consultation rights for the devolved nations. I accept that this Bill might well not be the legislative vehicle we would choose to use to formalise such an important intergovernmental mechanism in law, but I want to draw the Government’s attention to the alternatives to Clause 11 as amended.
The JMC already brings together representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to discuss matters of common interest. However, at present the JMC has no power. It has no legislative underpinning. It is simply a discussion forum, for consultation and voluntary co-ordination. I remind noble Lords that no minutes are taken. It is an essentially informal arrangement. It meets on an ad hoc basis. There was no meeting last year for over six months. In the context of the European negotiations, that is totally inadequate.
As an alternative to Clause 11 to decide on areas which will require UK frameworks—a facility which the Government may well find they need—as things stand, the JMC is not fit for purpose. Strengthened and bolstered, however, it could provide a way of allaying the critics of Clause 11. It could provide a way of collaboratively deciding on areas that will require temporary legislative restrictions on devolved competences, including on England, which is not currently the case in the Bill—an omission which has already rung some alarm bells in Cardiff and Edinburgh.
This is not a new phenomenon. Dr Jo Hunt and Rachel Minto of the Wales Governance Centre have written extensively about the need for robust intergovernmental structures if the UK constitution is to operate effectively into the future. To achieve this, the JMC should be put on a statutory basis, with clear powers, membership and voting rights. This would replace the current—typically British—constitutional arrangement based on gradually evolving informal understandings.
The JMC should require majority voting. Having four members—appointed by the UK Government, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—would imply the need for an affirmative vote of three members, or two out of three if the Northern Ireland Executive is suspended, or if one abstains. This in turn implies that the UK Government would need to secure support from most of the devolved authorities in order to achieve a decision in favour of their proposals. They would no longer be able simply to consult and then overrule them. The JMC would then effectively become a council of Ministers for the UK’s own internal market.
Some colleagues may have noticed that when the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee visited Holyrood on Monday, Richard Leonard, leader of the Scottish Labour Party, William Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and the Green co-convener, Patrick Harvie, all expressed their objection to Clause 11 as it stands. William Rennie in fact alluded to needing a level playing field across the UK for the withdrawal Bill. He said:
“Westminster having the final say isn’t sufficient. There needs to be some kind of mechanism, perhaps around qualified majority voting of some sort”.
This concept is gaining ground and it might just result in consent.
This is a tool the Government need to get out of the predicament in which they find themselves. Even if it cannot be included in the Bill now, I hope the Government will look seriously at finding a greater role for the JMC and at some way of giving it a legislative underpinning. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in my own profession when you make a mistake you stop, reflect and rectify. Fortunately, we have seen that happen with Clause 11 and I take this opportunity, having not spoken previously, to commend all players who have renegotiated the amendments that we have agreed to this evening. I pay particular tribute not only to Mark Drakeford but to Carwyn Jones, who has had a role in all this—much more quietly than Mark Drakeford, who has fronted it—and all the civil servants who have supported this process. I have certainly appreciated the interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who has kept me up to date with some of the progress.
This amendment, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, takes us to the next stage because when you are in a completely new situation, you have to do the best you can. You have to learn from past mistakes and find a new way forward. We are facing a completely new, evolving situation. There really need to be new working arrangements between the devolved nations and Westminster, and they have to be on a much more level playing field than before. I can see that the way this amendment has been drafted is not for the Bill and I would not expect the Government to accept it. However, I hope that the principle of having a different framework whereby these discussions happen will be accepted and taken forwards. I also hope that, however the terms of reference for this group are written, they will be open for discussion and come out of discussion with all the nations involved, rather than being centrally generated and offered as something to be signed up to. There really is a need for ownership going forwards.
On rectifying what has happened as we enter the new partnership, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke about previously, I thought it was telling that in the previous debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, mentioned money. One way the Government might like to help re-establish some of the working practices is to build on the debate we had the other day about the Swansea barrage, consider asking the National Assembly for Wales what it would like to do, and help it achieve whatever it feels is best for jobs and the future energy supply of Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I agree with everything that she said. In the previous debate, I quoted paragraph 7.a. of the Memorandum on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the Establishment of Common Frameworks. I will repeat it because it is worth repeating. It says:
“Building on the ‘Deep Dive’ process, which has been a collaborative effort between the governments, discussions will take place between the governments to seek to agree the scope and content of regulations. This process will continue to report”,
into the JMC on EU Negotiations. This amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, allows us to discuss the very important issue of how those discussions are to take place, what decisions are to be taken and how they are to be taken over the formation of the UK framework agreements.
Lord Adonis
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on trying to rewrite the entire British constitution at 10 pm in one amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. In his defence, the Government are rewriting the rest of the British constitution in the rest of the Bill, and we have frequently been debating that after midnight, so I do not think that the Government can complain in principle about what he is seeking to achieve.
I shall make two observations on the noble Lord’s amendment and then I will have a question for the Minister. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, will be replying. That is part of the reason that I got to my feet, as I particularly want to ask him about consultation with local authorities in England.
My first point is that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—he was quite open about it—is seeking effectively to introduce a formal federal constitution. Let us be clear: if this became law, effectively the devolved Administrations would have a veto over the United Kingdom Government in certain circumstances, depending on how the weighted voting worked. If that happened, this body would become a new second Chamber. We would then have two second Chambers: this body, which would act as one court of debate and veto over the United Kingdom Government; and the House of Lords as well. If we go down that route, which we may well have to go down eventually as we debate House of Lords reform and all the consequentials of Brexit, then we probably will at some stage end up with a proper federal second Chamber and a substantial rewriting of the United Kingdom constitution. I simply note that that is what the noble Lord is seeking to do, taking a significant step forward from the existing JMC.
The second point I am bound to make is that the word “England” does not appear in about 40 lines of proposed legislative change. Even though I am repeating this point at 10.23 pm, it is quite an important one. Some 53 million of the 63 million people who live in this state live in England. The one debate we have had in the entire proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill regarding how the government of England will be improved as a result of this Bill was on an amendment moved, I seem to recollect, by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on what the consultation and institutional procedures are going to be after we withdraw from the Committee of the Regions. I seem to remember the Minister saying that he was going to meet local authority representatives in England soon and that he did not rule out—I pressed him on it and got a slightly vague answer, but he was trying to engage—establishing some institutional mechanisms for the formal consultation of local authorities in England to replace the arrangements in respect of the Committee of the Regions, which is of particular importance to the regions of England because of regional development policies hereafter, when the Regional Development Fund ceases to apply.
I see the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has her folder open. Is the noble Lord replying? He is. I wonder whether he could update us on how his consultations are going with local authorities in England. In particular, is it the Government’s intention to introduce some formal machinery for developing consultation with local authorities in England?
Lord Wigley
To clarify, the amendment, as the noble Lord will no doubt have noticed, refers to,
“one member appointed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom”.
I imagine that would be someone representing England, the point being that there is no Prime Minister of England equivalent to the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, as specified in the amendment.
Lord Adonis
The noble Lord—I would like to call him my noble friend—gives the game away. He says that he imagines that this person might represent an English constituency. In fact, he might or might not. If the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, were Prime Minister, he comes, I understand, from Aberystwyth. He would then be the representative of the UK Government. In our lifetime, I served under one Scottish Prime Minister. I have never served under a Welsh Prime Minister, but there have been one or two Welsh candidates for that post in the past.
In England we are not very good at this rigorous constitutional thinking. Let us be clear, even if it were an English Member of Parliament or Minister, their role would be to represent the Government of the United Kingdom; it would not be their role to represent England, separate from the Government of the United Kingdom.
Finally, when the noble Lord produces his full draft of a new written constitution for the United Kingdom with his proposal for a federal senate, which I assume will be his next amendment on Third Reading, could he please suggest some arrangements for how England will play a part in his federal arrangements?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we have a lot of sympathy for the amendment. We agree with its aims in so far as they put the JMC on a statutory basis. The formula is not one for this House to write, but undoubtedly the objective of putting that on a statutory basis is one that we support.
I think there were different Ministers at the time of the Article 50 Bill, but we had an amendment at that stage that would have required the Government to set out the relationship with the devolved authorities, particularly over Brexit, obviously. We included at that stage formalising the Joint Ministerial Committee and I think it remains a good idea. At Second Reading, or certainly since, we raised the issue in the context of the Bill.
So we are very sympathetic to the objective of Amendment 92A. Our reservation is about its form. I do not think it is in the right form, but that is not for us to do. Even more importantly, this goes well beyond the Brexit Bill and it needs looking at. We urge the Government to look seriously at the objective of Amendment 92A and to discuss it with the devolved Administrations. If this or something similar found favour and everyone thought it would be a good idea to put it on to a statutory basis, I am sure this side of the House would be very amenable to making such a movement possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate; we all agree it is very late in the evening for such an important issue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for bringing this to the attention of the House and putting his case very crisply. We have already debated possible structures for the UK Government and devolved Administrations to come together in consideration of common frameworks. I do not want to simply repeat those arguments, particularly at this time of the evening, so I will not.
It is important to note that the Government are currently reviewing the existing intergovernmental structures with the devolved Administrations, as agreed by the Prime Minister and First Ministers at the meeting of the JMC plenary on 14 March. It is important that the review closely aligns with our work on future common frameworks. That undertaking was given then, and it is something that we are looking at.
I note a certain irony in the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that, had this been on the statute book, I presume he would have been championing our agreement with the Welsh Government and saying that it was effective because two Administrations out of the three had agreed to it. Nevertheless, despite that very handy point, I must say that I cannot accept what he is arguing for—not for that reason, obviously, but for others.
We have shown that we are flexible in responding to the devolved Administrations’ requests or concerns regarding the operation of the current structures, including on the management of meetings and the content of discussions. We have all benefited from that process. Why would we not want that to be the case? I believe the pragmatism and flexible approach that we have seen, particularly from the Welsh Government—but, yes, extending certainly to Mike Russell’s approach—is something that has benefited us all. However, we do not agree that the solution would be for intergovernmental relations to be placed on a statutory footing, as suggested by the noble Lord, particularly in this amendment. In all fairness, I think he anticipated this point in saying that he realised that it would not perhaps find total favour with the Government, a point on which he is correct.
That said, we hear much of the failures of our intergovernmental structure and no doubt it could be improved, but we do ourselves a disservice if we do not also recognise its successes. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, very much for her kind comments about the Government’s approach and about me particularly; I am very grateful for that. She noted that the JMC (EN) has been very effective. It now meets frequently under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has also continued to meet his counterparts frequently between meetings. Indeed, the committee has met today and has made some progress.
We should note that it is through the effective working of the committee that we have been able to make the progress that we have on Clause 11, and it is through this that we have reached agreement with the Welsh Government on the proposals before noble Lords today. Like other noble Lords, I place on record our thanks and our respect for Mark Drakeford, a competent Minister in the Welsh Assembly—not someone with whom I would agree politically on many occasions but he has shown a flexible, pragmatic and collaborative approach. This is grown-up politics in devolution days, and that is the way to move things forward. There was evidence of some of that approach in Scotland as well, to be fair, but ultimately, as we have noted, the JMC is not a decision-making forum. Its role is just to make an agreement that then goes elsewhere—for understandable reasons. That is something else on which I disagree with the noble Lord; I do not think it can be a decision-making body. I can see the use of bringing people together, which we are doing. It is flexible, and that is the way our constitution operates.
I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Some I would agree with, but I cannot really think of anything more chilling than putting it on an inflexible statutory basis, other than the earlier prospect when the noble Lord talked about his appearance in Aberdeenshire in a kilt. That was probably somewhere along the same lines—somewhat chilling. On a serious note, though, I have to say that although I agree it is good to have bodies where we can discuss these issues, flexibility, as this has demonstrated, is of great use.
We must, as we are doing, foster a culture of collaboration, close working and, yes, compromise, which we have seen in the discussions. That is the way to move things forward in the sort of structure we have in our country, in the make-up of the four nations.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that England is the dog that does not bark—or has not so far. I agree with him on the absence of the word “England” in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Obviously, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who, as we know with Gordon Brown, does not need to represent an English constituency, is Prime Minister of the whole of the United Kingdom. That perhaps exhibits the difference between me and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for whom I have the greatest respect. He perhaps let the cat out of the bag on that point: he or she is not Prime Minister of England but of the whole state.
That said, some important points that we will want to consider have been made this evening. I noted with seriousness the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and have sympathy with the need for some structure that underpins the union. As unionists, we would applaud that. I have always said that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is at the acceptable end of Plaid Cymru—he sees the sense of the workings of the union—and I thank him for his input, which I know is well made.
I turn to some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—off piste but I will happily pick them up—about the Committee of the Regions. Perhaps other noble Lords will confirm this, but I believe that I have written to noble Lords about a meeting that not I but my honourable friend in the other place, Rishi Sunak, had with leaders of local government. That meeting has taken place. If noble Lords have not received the letter yet, it means that it has not yet gone out, but it is certainly in the system. It indicates that it was a positive meeting and that there would be more.
Here we go into the devolved structures that are now very much part of our system. The noble Lord will appreciate that on devolved matters, the Welsh, Scottish and—when that part of the country is up and running with power-sharing—Northern Ireland local government leaders will be in discussion with the devolved Administrations. That is of course a matter for them to take forward. We are taking it forward with all local government leaders, but, in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, only on those matters that are reserved to us. It was a positive meeting—the letter will outline the progress made—but there are to be more meetings. I cannot remember saying anything other than that, and that is all I am able to convey at this stage.
With that, at this very late hour, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on serious issues. I will ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who made some very technical but, I am sure, valid points, gets a full response. I respectfully ask the noble Lord, who is my noble friend in personal terms, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I take the opportunity to thank him for—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for giving way. One thing I forgot to say, which I know he will be anticipating, is that we will not be coming back to this issue. I know that he was probably coming on to the fact that I had not said that, so let me say now that we will not be coming back to this at Third Reading, so if he wishes to press the issue, he should do so now.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, seeing the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, sitting next to the noble Lord, I took that as read at this stage of the debate.
I wanted to put on record my appreciation and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for the consultation and the opportunity to discuss various aspects of the Bill. I hope that we can take advantage of that in future. I also thank everyone who has taken part in the debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who has stood up so effectively for England, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—for their contributions.
I have just a couple of quick points. Of course, there needs to be thought about how England comes into any such structure, but the same argument exists now as it probably did 100 years ago: whether it is England as a whole or England on a regional basis, and how that interplays when you have national units elsewhere. That needs to be thought through.
I will obviously withdraw the amendment in a moment, but I hope that out of this debate, two avenues of thought can proceed on the post-Brexit situation. One is, what will become the equivalent of the Council of Ministers when we have a multinational United Kingdom as a single market? Thought needs to be given to that, and it may be something that can be pursued outside.
Secondly, if we cannot put the JMC on a legislative basis, how can we at least make it much more formal and therefore more effective, so that it plays the role it has the potential to play? As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, outlined, it has not always done so as effectively as it should. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, might be able to sow the seeds of thinking on that in other parts of government, and that we do not allow the water just to run into the sand from this short debate tonight. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
(5) But subsection (4) does not apply—(a) so far as the modification would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament if it were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or(b) to the making of regulations under Schedule 2 or 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.(6) A Minister of the Crown must not lay for approval before each House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) unless— (a) the Scottish Parliament has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Parliament having made such a decision.(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or (c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;and a consent decision is made when the Parliament first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) (whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(8) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (6) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the Scottish Ministers, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(9) See also paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under subsection (4) including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Parliament).(10) No regulations may be made under subsection (4) after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day. (11) Subsection (10) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under subsection (4) at or before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (10).(12) Any regulations under subsection (4) which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to the making, confirming or approving of subordinate legislation after the end of that period.(13) Subsections (6) to (11) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(14) The restriction in subsection (4) is in addition to any restriction in section (Status of retained EU law) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 or elsewhere on the power of a member of the Scottish Government to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation so far as the legislation modifies retained EU law.(15) In this section—“the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the Scottish Ministers,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Parliament is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.””
Lord Callanan
(8A) But subsection (8) does not apply— (a) so far as the modification would be within the Assembly’s legislative competence if it were included in an Act of the Assembly, or(b) to the making of regulations under Schedule 2 or 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.(8B) No regulations are to be made under subsection (8) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(8C) A Minister of the Crown must not lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (8B) unless—(a) the Assembly has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Assembly having made such a decision.(8D) For the purposes of subsection (8C) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;and a consent decision is made when the Assembly first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) (whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(8E) In subsection (8C)— “the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the Welsh Ministers,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.(8F) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (8B) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the Welsh Ministers, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(8G) See also section 157ZA (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under subsection (8) including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Assembly).(8H) No regulations may be made under subsection (8) after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(8I) Subsection (8H) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under subsection (8) at or before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (8H).(8J) Any regulations under subsection (8) which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to the making, confirming or approving of subordinate legislation after the end of that period.(8K) Subsections (8C) to (8I) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(8L) The restriction in subsection (8) is in addition to any restriction in section (Status of retained EU law) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 or elsewhere on the power of the Welsh Ministers to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation so far as the legislation modifies retained EU law.””
(4) But subsection (3) does not apply— (a) so far as the modification would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly if it were included in an Act of the Assembly, or(b) to the making of regulations under Schedule 2 or 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.(5) A Minister of the Crown must not lay for approval before each House of the Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) unless—(a) the Assembly has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Assembly having made such a decision.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft; and a consent decision is made when the Assembly first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) (whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(7) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (5) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the relevant Northern Ireland department, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(8) See also section 96A (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under subsection (3) including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Assembly).(9) No regulations may be made under subsection (3) after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(10) Subsection (9) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under subsection (3) at or before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (9).(11) Any regulations under subsection (3) which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to the making, confirming or approving of subordinate legislation after the end of that period.(12) Subsections (5) to (10) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(13) Regulations under subsection (3) may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision as the Minister of the Crown making them considers appropriate.(14) The restriction in subsection (3) is in addition to any restriction in section (Status of retained EU law) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 or elsewhere on the power of a Minister or Northern Ireland department to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation so far as the legislation modifies retained EU law.(15) In this section— “the relevant Northern Ireland department” means such Northern Ireland department as the Minister of the Crown concerned considers appropriate; “the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the relevant Northern Ireland department,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.””
“PART 1AREPORTS IN CONNECTION WITH RETAINED EU LAW RESTRICTIONSReports on progress towards removing retained EU law restrictions
3A_(1) After the end of each reporting period, a Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a report which—(a) contains details of any steps which have been taken in the reporting period by Her Majesty’s Government (whether or not in conjunction with any of the appropriate authorities) towards implementing any arrangements which are to replace any relevant powers or retained EU law restrictions,(b) explains how principles— (i) agreed between Her Majesty’s Government and any of the appropriate authorities, and(ii) relating to implementing any arrangements which are to replace any relevant powers or retained EU law restrictions,have been taken into account during the reporting period,(c) specifies any relevant regulations, or regulations under section 11(4B), which have been made in the reporting period,(d) in relation to any retained EU law restriction which has effect at the end of the reporting period, sets out the Minister’s assessment of the progress which still needs to be made before it can be removed,(e) in relation to any relevant power that has not been repealed before the end of the reporting period, sets out the Minister’s assessment of the progress which still needs to be made before it can be repealed, and(f) contains any other information relating to any relevant powers or retained EU law restrictions, or the arrangements which are to replace them, that the Minister considers appropriate.(2) The first reporting period is the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(3) Each successive period of three months after the first reporting period is a reporting period.(4) A Minister of the Crown must provide a copy of every report laid before Parliament under this section—(a) to the Scottish Ministers,(b) to the Welsh Ministers, and(c) either to the First Minister in Northern Ireland and the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland or to the relevant Northern Ireland department and its Northern Ireland Minister.(5) In sub-paragraph (4) “the relevant Northern Ireland department” means such Northern Ireland department as the Minister of the Crown concerned considers appropriate. (6) This paragraph ceases to apply when no retained EU law restrictions have effect and all the relevant powers have been repealed. Interpretation
3B_ In this Part—“appropriate authority” means—(a) the Scottish Ministers,(b) the Welsh Ministers, or(c) a Northern Ireland devolved authority;“arrangement” means any enactment or other arrangement (whether or not legally enforceable);“relevant power” means a power to make regulations conferred by—(a) section 30A or 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998,(b) section 80(8) or 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or(c) section 6A or 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;“relevant regulations” means regulations made under a relevant power;“retained EU law restriction” means any restriction which arises by virtue of relevant regulations.”
“19A In Part 2 of Schedule 5 (specific reservations), in section C8 (product standards, safety and liability), for the words from “Technical standards and” to “EU law” substitute— “The subject matter of all technical standards and requirements in relation to products that had effect immediately before exit day in pursuance of an obligation under EU law.””
Lord Callanan
“Section 30A | Type C”.” |
Lord Callanan
““Section 57(4) | Type C”.” |
Lord Callanan
“21A_ After paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 (procedure for subordinate legislation: special cases) insert— “6_(1) This paragraph applies where a draft of an instrument containing regulations under section 30A or 57(4) is to be laid before each House of Parliament. (2) Before the draft is laid, the Minister of the Crown who is to make the instrument—(a) must make a statement explaining the effect of the instrument, and(b) in any case where the Parliament has not made a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft—(i) must make a statement explaining why the Minister has decided to lay the draft despite this, and(ii) must lay before each House of Parliament any statement provided for the purpose of this sub- paragraph to a Minister of the Crown by the Scottish Ministers giving the opinion of the Scottish Ministers as to why the Parliament has not made that decision.(3) A statement of a Minister of the Crown under sub-paragraph (2) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, where a draft is laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the earlier day is to be taken as the day on which it is laid before both Houses.(5) This paragraph does not apply to a draft of an instrument which only contains regulations under section 30A or 57(4) which only relate to a revocation of a specification.””
“24A_ In section 13(5) (power of the Welsh Ministers to make provision about elections etc.)—(a) omit paragraph (c) but not the “and” at the end of it, and(b) in paragraph (d) omit “, European Parliamentary elections”.”
“25A_ In section 16(3) (disqualification from being Assembly member) omit “(other than the United Kingdom)”.”
“36A_ After section 157 (orders, regulations and directions) insert—“157ZA Explanatory statements in relation to certain regulations(1) This section applies where a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 80(8) or 109A is to be laid before each House of Parliament.(2) Before the draft is laid, the Minister of the Crown who is to make the instrument—(a) must make a statement explaining the effect of the instrument, and(b) in any case where the Assembly has not made a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft—(i) must make a statement explaining why the Minister has decided to lay the draft despite this, and(ii) must lay before each House of Parliament any statement provided for the purpose of this sub- paragraph to a Minister of the Crown by the Welsh Ministers giving the opinion of the Welsh Ministers as to why the Assembly has not made that decision.(3) A statement of a Minister of the Crown under subsection (2) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate. (4) For the purposes of this section, where a draft is laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the earlier day is to be taken as the day on which it is laid before both Houses.(5) This section does not apply to a draft of an instrument which only contains regulations under section 80(8) or 109A which only relate to a revocation of a specification.””
“39A_ In Part 2 of Schedule 7A (specific reservations), in section C7 (product standards, safety and liability), for paragraph 77 substitute—“77_ The subject matter of all technical standards and requirements in relation to products that had effect immediately before exit day in pursuance of an obligation under EU law.””
“48A_ After section 96(4)(orders and regulations) insert—“(4A) Regulations under section 6A or 24(3)—(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and(b) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”48B_ After section 96 (orders and regulations) insert—“96A Explanatory statements in relation to certain regulations(1) This section applies where a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 6A or 24(3) is to be laid before each House of Parliament. (2) Before the draft is laid, the Minister of the Crown who is to make the instrument—(a) must make a statement explaining the effect of the instrument, and(b) in any case where the Assembly has not made a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft—(i) must make a statement explaining why the Minister has decided to lay the draft despite this, and (ii) must lay before each House of Parliament any statement provided for the purpose of this sub- paragraph to a Minister of the Crown by a relevant Minister giving the opinion of the relevant Minister as to why the Assembly has not made that decision.(3) A statement of a Minister of the Crown under subsection (2) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.(4) For the purposes of this section, where a draft is laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the earlier day is to be taken as the day on which it is laid before both Houses.(5) In this section “relevant Minister” means the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly or a Northern Ireland Minister. (6) This section does not apply to a draft of an instrument which only contains regulations under section 6A or 24(3) which only relate to a revocation of a specification.””
“50A_ In Schedule 3 (reserved matters), in paragraph 38, for the words from “Technical” to “not” substitute “The subject matter of all technical standards and requirements in relation to products that had effect immediately before exit day in pursuance of an obligation under EU law, other than”.”